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
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, the following correction should be applied “…the instrumented counterweights can monitor their movement…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 has a number of issues:
It is unclear where the preamble ends. For examination purposes it will be assumed that “formed by” should be replaced with “comprising”, giving a clear transition from the preamble to the body of the claim.
Claim 1 recites “a support wire or pulleys with their counterweights”. It is unclear what “their” refers to, or whether this means that the counterweights must be attached to the support wire or the pulleys. For examination purposes, “their” will be removed from the claim language.
Claim 1 recites “counterweights at the ends of the sections”; “the sections” has no antecedent basis. For examination purposes, “the sections” will be replaced with “sections”.
Claim 1 recites a connection to a “control center”. The term “control center” is never used in the specification, nor is the word “center” ever mentioned at all. What does Applicant intend to refer to here? For examination purposes, this limitation will be considered to be met with the expert system recited later in the claim, and is therefore considered redundant.
Claim 1 recites that the two-way communications module sends information about “the temperature” and “the displacement of the counterweight”. There is no antecedent basis for either “the temperature,” “the displacement,” or “the counterweight” (noting that multiple instrumented counterweights were previously recited). For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “…sends information about a temperature and a displacement of an instrumented counterweight”. Further references to the “counterweight” will be assumed to refer to the “instrumented counterweight”.
Claim 1 recites sending information about a displacement and a temperature of a counterweight “in the moment that displacement occurs”. First, noting the examiner’s statements above, it will be assumed that “the” should be placed before displacement. Second, what is the scope of stating that the displacement must be communicated “the moment” it occurs? Can this only be met if displacement is continually recorded and communicated? This would seem at odds with the claim language stating that the two-way communications module is “low-rate”, as well as the second and third paragraphs of page 9 of the specification which state that displacements are not gradual, and that by only recording and transmitting displacements when they occur, one may save energy. This leads the examiner to believe that the limitation of sending information about a displacement “in the moment that [the] displacement occurs” may be encompassed by a communication which is non-continuous but which is initiated by a displacement. This will be the interpretation used for examination purposes.
Claim 1 recites that the expert system “allows the [instrumented] counterweight to be autonomous”. What does it mean for a system to allow a counterweight to act independently? It seems any system which does not actively restrict the counterweight would satisfy that limitation. Did Applicant intend to recite that the battery and photovoltaic panel enable the counterweight to be autonomous? This will be the interpretation used for examination purposes.
In light of all of the above issues, the examiner believes it would aid in clarifying the examiner’s interpretation if they included a rewrite of claim 1. The following rewrite of claim 1 will be used for examination purposes:
A monitoring and maintenance system comprising a contact wire and a support wire or pulleys with counterweights at the ends of sections, wherein the monitoring and maintenance system identifies continuous and discontinuous variations in the mechanical behavior of overhead line compensation systems, based on:
instrumented counterweights,
temperature and acceleration sensors,
a microprocessor,
a secure, low-power, low-rate, and wide-area two-way communications module which sends information about a temperature and a displacement of an instrumented counterweight in the moment that the displacement occurs to
an expert system,
wherein the power needs of the instrumented counterweight are provided by a battery and a small flexible photovoltaic panel the surface of which can be adapted on the side of the instrumented counterweight.
Claim 2 has a number of issues:
Claim 2 recites “the data corresponding to an operation of the compensation systems”, which has no antecedent basis; for examination purposes the first instance of “the” will be removed in the above quote.
What is the scope of reciting that the “precise” location is used? What location data would be precise vs. imprecise? This is a relative term, therefore its scope is ambiguous. For examination purposes it will be assumed that any location data will satisfy the claim language.
Claim 2 recites creating a real digital behavior model “that can be compared to a theoretical, supervised, or historical [behavior] model of the system.” This has a number of issues. First, reciting that a model “can be compared to” something else is not limiting, since any thing can be compared to another thing. How could one having a real digital behavior model avoid infringing such a limitation? Second, what is “the system” referred to, which the “theoretical, supervised, or historical [behavior] model” is a model of? Is it the overhead line compensation systems? For examination purposes it will be assumed that the real digital behavior model is compared to a theoretical, supervised, or historical behavior model of the overhead line compensation systems.
Again, the examiner considers it prudent to include a rewrite of claim 2 to be used for examination purposes:
The system according to claim 1, wherein data corresponding to an operation of the overhead line compensation systems together with the location of each instrumented counterweight is integrated into a data set creating a real digital behavior model which is compared to a theoretical, supervised, or historical behavior model of the overhead line compensation systems.
Claim 3 has a number of issues:
Claim 3 refers to the “reference model”, which has no antecedent basis. For examination purposes it will be assumed that this is a reference to the “theoretical, supervised, or historical behavior model” recited in claim 2.
Claim 3 refers to “compensation systems”, which is confusing because plural compensation systems were introduced in claim 1 and it is unclear whether this refers to a subset of or all of the compensation systems. For examination purposes the above will be replaced with “the overhead line compensation systems”.
Claim 3 provides examples of geographical, meteorological, infrastructure-related, or operational systems using “such as” language, which leads to confusion because it is unclear whether these examples are meant to be limiting (see MPEP 2173.05(d)). For examination purposes it will be assumed that the “such as” language is non-limiting.
For examination purposes the examiner will use the following rewrite of claim 3:
The system according to claim 2, wherein the real behavior model and the theoretical, supervised, or historical behavior model integrate other data devices, sensors, or services and parameters that have an impact on the overhead line compensation systems that are either geographical, meteorological, infrastructure-related, or operational.
Claim 4 has a number of issues:
It is unclear what it means that “the instrumented counterweights can monitor their movement intrinsically,” or whether the claim language is limiting. Does this mean that the instrumented counterweights can monitor their own movement? Assuming this is the intent, how could it be that something would monitor its own movement but not do it intrinsically? If an object monitors itself, it could not perform the monitoring “extrinsically” i.e. without itself—that would contradict the statement that the object monitors itself. For examination purposes it will be assumed that “intrinsically” should be removed.
There is no antecedent basis for “the necessary data”, and it is wholly unclear what data would be considered necessary as opposed to unnecessary. For examination purposes it will be assumed that the above should be replaced with simply “data”.
The following rewrite of claim 4 will be used for examination purposes:
The system according to claim 2, wherein the instrumented counterweights can monitor their movement, while at the same time providing data to the expert system.
Claim 5 has a number of issues:
Does Applicant intend to recite that “each of the instrumented counterweights contains sensors, a microprocessor…” etc.? This will be the interpretation used for examination purposes.
Claim 5 recites a “communications module battery”. It seems that Applicant intends to refer to just a “communications module,” since the specification refers to the latter but not the former. However, this is already referred to later in the claim. Therefore, it seems that the “communications module battery” is erroneous and should be ignored. This will be the interpretation used for examination purposes.
It is unclear what “with a geometry and sizes…” is referring to. For examination purposes it will be assumed that this is meant to refer to the instrumented counterweight being described. The claim language provides additional confusion, however, because it refers to plural “sizes” when describing a singular instrumented counterweight. Additionally, the claim recites that the geometry and sizes are “similar to the remaining instrumented counterweights”. There is no antecedent basis for “the remaining instrumented counterweights.” Again, “the assembly” has no antecedent basis, and it is unclear to the examiner what Applicant intends to refer to. Does Applicant intend for “the assembly” to refer to a set of counterweights at the end of a particular section of wire? If so, more description is needed.
It seems to the examiner that Applicant intends to recite that all of the instrumented counterweights on a particular “assembly” are similar in geometry and size, however because the “assembly” has no antecedent basis it will be assumed for examination purposes that the claim recites that each instrumented counterweight has a geometry and size similar to another instrumented counterweight.
Finally, what does it mean for an instrumented counterweight to have “a mass with a suitable weight for the function thereof”? How would one go about determining what would and would not infringe this limitation? An instrumented counterweight is composed of matter, therefore it has a mass. It is acted upon by a gravitational body, therefore it has a weight. A counterweight is an object whose weight is leveraged to counter some other force, and it seems reasonable that any instrumented counterweight would have a mass with a weight suitable for that function. Perhaps “suitable” is meant to imply that the instrumented counterweight must be “heavy enough” i.e. have a similar average density to non-instrumented counterweights. Is this Applicant’s intent? For examination purposes it will be assumed merely that each of the instrumented counterweights must have a mass, and that will be considered suitable for its function.
The following rewrite of claim 5 will be used for examination purposes:
The system according to claim 1, wherein each of the instrumented counterweights contains sensors, a microprocessor, an energy acquisition unit, a battery, a communications module, and an enclosure, and has a geometry and a size similar to one or more of the other instrumented counterweights, and has a mass.
Claim 6 has a number of issues:
Claim 6 recites that “the instrumented counterweights can be embedded in or adhered to single-frame instrumented counterweights or other mobile elements of the compensation system”. First, this is confusing because it recites embedding one counterweight in another counterweight. This does not seem to be Applicant’s intent; from page 14 of the specification, for example, it seems that the instrumentation itself can be attached to a single-frame counterweight as opposed to a disc counterweight. It seems then that claim 6 intends to reflect this, however there is never a reference to disc counterweights specifically. Even with this insight, it seems to the examiner that a disc counterweight could also be described as a “single-frame counterweight” since a disc is a single frame, or it seems reasonable that such would be the case. While Applicant appears to wish to distinguish between using a set of discs to provide adequate counterweight to a section versus a single cylinder, the claim language does not require anything close to such an interpretation.
Second, this is confusing because claim 6 refers to “other mobile elements” without making there being any previous reference to “mobile elements”.
Again, the above is confusing because “the compensation system” has no antecedent basis; in claim 1, multiple overhead lines compensation systems are recited.
Finally, claim 6 concludes with “as the tail end of the catenary”. What does this mean? The catenary has no antecedent basis, but the examiner understands this to be synonymous with the contact wire recited in claim 1. Is the word “as” a typo; is “at” intended?
The following rewrite of claim 6 will be used for examination purposes:
The system according to claim 1, wherein the instrumentation of one of the instrumented counterweights can be embedded in or adhered to another element of the overhead line compensation systems.
Claim 7 recites substituting the photovoltaic panel with another source that allows energy storage by harnessing. This is confusing for the reasons given in the 112(d) rejection of claim 7 below, and because it is unclear whether substituting the photovoltaic panel with “another source that allows energy storage by harnessing” could be met by substituting one photovoltaic panel with another. The examiner welcomes any clarification on claim 7. For examination purposes the examiner will assume that substituting a photovoltaic panel with another one would satisfy the claim language; however, see 112(d) rejection below.
Claim 8 has a number of issues:
Claim 8 recites “additional sensors for illumination, distance, GNSS, etc.” This is confusing because it is unclear whether the additional sensors must be for illumination, distance, GNSS, or something else; this appears to be merely exemplary claim language (see MPEP 2173.05(d)). For examination purposes it will be assumed that the above should be replaced simply with “additional sensors”.
Furthermore, reciting that sensors “can be embedded” in the instrumented counterweights is confusing because it is unclear whether Applicant intends merely to recite that that it is possible to embed sensors in the instrumented counterweights, or that the instrumented counterweights are configured so as to enable an additional sensor to be introduced (such as a USB port on a laptop enables the laptop to be embedded with a thumb drive, for example). For examination purposes the former interpretation will be used.
The following rewrite of claim 8 will be used for examination purposes:
The system according to claim 1, wherein additional sensors can be embedded in the instrumented counterweights.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7 recites substituting the photovoltaic panel with another source. This is problematic because it explicitly fails to include all the limitations of claim 1. For example, one could infringe claim 7 without having infringed claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovarik (CZ 33076 U1) in view of Patel (US 20100101627 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kovarik discloses a monitoring and maintenance system (Pg. 6, paragraph above "The essence of the technical solution": "The aim of the technical solution is to present a traction line monitoring unit that would monitor and alert in real time unauthorized manipulation with the traction line") comprising a contact wire (the “traction line”) and a support wire or pulleys (Top of pg. 7: auxiliary lines are part of the system being monitored) with counterweights (Top of pg. 7: traction line weights are part of the system. Fig. 2 depicts one of these weights) at the ends of sections (Fig. 2, note how a counterweight is at the end of a section of line. Since this is part of an electric locomotive system, it would make sense for there to be multiple sections with multiple counterweights at the end of them.) and connected to a control center (the “expert system”; see below), wherein the monitoring and maintenance system identifies continuous and discontinuous variations in the mechanical behavior of overhead line compensation systems (Pg. 6, first paragraph under "The essence of the technical solution": The "traction line movement monitoring unit" comprises a "vibration and/or motion sensor" which monitors the traction line's (and, of course, the unit's) movement; such a unit would pick up both continuous and discontinuous variations), based on:
instrumented counterweights (Top of pg. 7, under "Clarification of drawings":"Fig. 2 shows an example of the location of the traction line monitoring unit according to the technical solution on the weights of the monitored traction line." See Fig. 2, where the counterweight is instrumented.), acceleration sensors (Pg. 6, first paragraph under "The essence of the technical solution": The vibration and/or motion sensor can comprise "a low-order 3D accelerometer"), a microprocessor (Pg. 6, first paragraph under "The essence of the technical solution": "a microprocessor which determines the movement rate" of the traction line), a, low-power, low-rate, and wide-area communications module (Pg. 6, first paragraph under "The essence of the technical solution": The "radio module"; End of pg. 6: The radio module is "low power"; Bottom of pg. 7: The radio module can have a range of up to 80 km) which sends information about a displacement of an instrumented counterweight (Pg. 6, first paragraph under "The essence of the technical solution": The "radio module [is] designed to transmit the information about the traction line movement to the operator") in the moment that the displacement occurs (Pg. 6, paragraph above "The essence of the technical solution": The monitoring unit monitors and alerts in "real time", so displacement information is sent when it occurs) to an expert system ("the operator"),
wherein the power needs of the instrumented counterweight are provided by a battery (Pg. 7, fifth paragraph under "Example of technical solution implementation", and pg. 8, first paragraph: The unit has a power source 5, which may be batteries).
Kovarik does not explicitly recite that the monitoring and maintenance system performs its identifications based on a temperature sensor, however it does recite measuring temperature as part of monitoring an overhead line system (Bottom of pg. 8: "The traction line movement monitoring unit" allows for "monitoring and transmission of selected information such as detection movement, location information, temperature measurement, etc."). It would have been obvious for temperature measurements to be performed by a temperature sensor, and for the identifications to be based on a temperature sensor since temperature influences the dimensions of an overhead line. In such a case, the communications module would have sent temperature information as well.
While Kovarik does not explicitly recite that the two-way communications module is secure and two-way, it would have been obvious to make it secure to prevent tampering and to make it two-way so information can be sent both to the operator and to the unit.
In light of the above, Kovarik does not explicitly disclose that the power needs of the instrumented counterweight are provided by a small flexible photovoltaic panel the surface of which can be adapted on the side of the instrumented counterweight.
Patel discloses a flexible solar panel (Abstract), and teaches that the solar panel is modular in nature, enabling it be scaled to a wide range of needed dimensions (¶22: "the flexible solar panel module 1 is constructed with small photovoltaic cells of about 1 mm diameter" ¶23: "the modular nature of the present invention lends itself to being manufactured in any number of different dimensions").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Patel with the invention of Kovarik by causing the power needs of the instrumented counterweight to be provided by a small flexible photovoltaic panel the surface of which can be adapted on the side of the instrumented counterweight. Doing so would enable one to provide renewable energy to the monitoring unit by placing a solar panel on it.
Regarding claim 2, Kovarik in view of Patel teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that data corresponding to an operation of the overhead line compensation systems together with the location of each instrumented counterweight is communicated (Pg. 6, first paragraph under "The essence of the technical solution": Location information about the unit is communicated by the radio module. See also rejection of claim 1, where the radio module communicates information about traction line movement). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Kovarik in view of Patel to integrate this information into a data set creating a real digital behavior model so an operator can view all the data together, the data being digital and representing the real behavior of the overhead line compensation systems.
In view of the above, Kovarik in view of Patel does not explicitly teach that the real digital behavior model is compared to a theoretical, supervised, or historical behavior model of the overhead line compensation systems. However, this is met by verifying the incoming data using another model which is theoretical, supervised, or historical. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Kovarik in view of Patel to do so because comparing received data to another model can help one make a determination about what the data represents, whether it is accurate, and what should be done in response.
Regarding claim 4, Kovarik in view of Patel teaches the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches that the instrumented counterweights can monitor their movement, while at the same time providing data to the expert system (Pg. 6, first paragraph under "The essence of the technical solution": the unit monitors the line's and its own movement. It also provides data via the "radio module" to the "operator". From claim 1, where displacement information is sent in real time, it follows that the instrumented counterweights can monitor their movement and provide data to the expert system at the same time.).
Regarding claim 5, Kovarik in view of Patel teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that each of the instrumented counterweights contains sensors (Pg. 7, under "Example of technical solution implementation"; see also Fig. 1: The "traction line movement monitoring unit" comprises: a shock and/ or motion sensor 1), a microprocessor (Pg. 7: Microprocessor 2), an energy acquisition unit (The solar panel; see rejection of claim 1), a battery (Pg. 7: electric power supply 5; top of pg. 8, this may be a battery), a communications module (Pg. 7: radio module 4), and has a mass (true by virtue of being a physical object).
Kovarik does not explicitly recite an enclosure, however it would have been obvious to have an enclosure to protect the instrumentation. Again, Kovarik does not teach that each instrumented counterweight has a geometry and a size similar to one or more of the other instrumented counterweights, however it would be reasonable to cause the instrumented counterweights to be similar so they can be interchangeable, and to simplify fabrication.
Regarding claim 6, Kovarik in view of Patel teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 6. However, Kovarik does teach that "The monitored part is generally a traction line part, which may be, in addition to the traction line itself, an auxiliary line or a traction line weight" (Pg. 8, second paragraph). This means the unit can monitor the counterweights themselves or another part of the overhead line system. From Fig. 2 an example is given where the unit is placed directly on the traction weight (see Fig. 2). This implies that, for the unit to monitor the traction line itself, or an auxiliary line, the unit would be attached to those parts of the system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Kovarik in view of Patel to embed or adhere the instrumentation of one of the instrumented counterweights to another element of the overhead line compensation system. Doing so would enable one to monitor other parts of the traction line.
Regarding claim 7, Kovarik in view of Patel teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the limitations of claim 7. However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Kovarik in view of Patel to substitute the photovoltaic panel with another source that allows energy storage by harnessing in order to power the instrumentation.
Regarding claim 8, Kovarik in view of Patel teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that additional sensors can be embedded in the instrumented counterweights (Pg 6, under "The essence of the technical solution": The unit can comprise "a localization chip" which chip may be "a chip with up to 3 GNSS [receivers] fitted with a ceramic antenna").
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovarik (CZ 33076 U1) in view of Patel (US 20100101627 A1), and further in view of Welch (US 8941502 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Kovarik in view of Patel teaches the limitations of claim 2, but does not teach the limitations of claim 3.
Welch discloses a safety monitoring system for a catenary system (Abstract). The system includes a sensor to monitor a position of a counterweight on a support pole, as well as a programmable logic controller (PLC) to receive inputs and perform calculations (Column 2, paragraph under "Detailed Description of Embodiments"). Welch teaches that the system can obtain weather forecast data and use it to estimate counterweight positions and send a warning if it predicts that the counterweights will approach or reach the stops which prevent further counterweight movement along a support pole (Column 5, lines 51-59; see also Column 2, lines 7-12 which discuss stops).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Welch with the invention of Kovarik in view of Patel by causing the real behavior model and the theoretical, supervised, or historical behavior model to integrate other data devices, sensors, or services and parameters that have an impact on the overhead line compensation systems that are either geographical, meteorological, infrastructure-related, or operational. Doing so would enable one to better monitor and respond to or prevent issues affecting the overhead line compensation systems (such as a counterweight being restricted from further movement by a support pole stop).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-0266. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/E.W.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights