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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendments filed on November 12, 2025. Claims 1-8 are currently pending, with Claims 1 and 6 being amended.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments, filed November 12, 2025, the Examiner maintains the current claim interpretation, maintains the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, and withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 12, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections (see page 6 of instant arguments), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Currently, the claims are directed to a method for evaluating a tire condition by acquiring, extracting, calculating, and evaluating data. These elements constitute an abstract idea, as exhibited in a mathematical concept. The claims use a generic computer to perform the process. Merely adding the limitation of displaying information amounts to data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and this limitation alone, is not enough to take the invention out of an abstract idea. The instant claims currently only require to display information, but do not implement an action or change in the real world, such as changing parameters based on user input, or require any action on the part of the vehicle or the user, or providing a recommendation to head to the nearest service station based on tire condition, and implementing a driving route in response, to name a few practical examples. As such, this limitation constitutes insignificant extra solution activity. The Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed November 12, 2025, with respect to the teachings of the limitation of “evaluating” as it pertains to Taguchi (see page 7 of instant arguments), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Taguchi teaches how well a vehicle follows a designated path based on the condition of the tires and the condition of the road by determining how much grip each tire has, and how much friction is required to maintain the vehicle course. Evaluating how well the vehicle follows course is a direct correlation to how well the tires follow the path. As such, Taguchi teaches a method for determining control followability. The Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 12, 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-8 under Taguchi, regarding displaying tire information have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Taguchi, in view of Teramoto.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a tire evaluation apparatus …”, “an acquisition interface …”, “a specific region extractor …”, “a positional deviation calculator …”, and “an evaluator …” in Claim 6.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof:
Regarding the limitation of “a tire evaluation apparatus …”, the instant specification at Paragraphs [0027] and [0031] at least states that “the controller 103 includes an acquisition interface 111, a specific region extractor 112, a positional deviation calculator 113, and an evaluator …” and “One or more programs used to control the operations 10 of the tire evaluation apparatus 100 are stored in memory 102. When read by the processor of the controller 103, the programs stored in memory cause the controller 103 to function as the acquisition interface 111, the specific region extractor 112, the positional deviation calculator 113, and the evaluator 114 …”As such the Examiner is interpreting a tire evaluation apparatus as a controller or computer equivalent capable of determining vehicle tire information.
Regarding the limitations of “an acquisition interface …”, “a specific region extractor …”, “a positional deviation calculator …”, and “an evaluator …” the instant drawings at Figure 1, and the instant specification at Paragraph [0027] at least states that “the tire evaluation apparatus 100 includes a communication interface 101, a memory 102, and a controller 103 …”. As such the Examiner is interpreting a tire evaluation apparatus as a controller or computer equivalent capable of determining vehicle tire information. As such, the Examiner is interpreting these limitations as software or hardware capable of receiving signals form a controller or executing vehicle functions.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea, such as a mathematical concept. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims only require performing calculations steps for estimating how closely a tire for a vehicle follows a designated route.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a tire evaluation method (i.e. a process). Claim 6 is directed to a tire evaluation apparatus (i.e. machine). Therefore, Claims 1 and 6 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of a) an abstract idea, b) a law of nature, or c) a natural phenomenon.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the bolded portions represent an “abstract idea”; and where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”):
Claim 1 recites the following:
A tire evaluation method for evaluating a tire mounted on a vehicle traveling by autonomous driving on a course with a defined reference path, executed by
a tire evaluation apparatus comprising a display, the tire evaluation method comprising:
acquiring data on a travel path of the vehicle and data on a target path set during travel so that the vehicle passes through the reference path;
extracting a specific region from the data on the target path;
calculating a positional deviation between the specific region and the travel path of the vehicle;
evaluating a control followability of the tire with respect to the vehicle based on the positional deviation; and
displaying an evaluation result on the display to allow a user to determine whether to continue using or change mounted tires.
Regarding the limitations of “acquiring … ”, “extracting …”, and “calculating …” the Examiner submits that these limitations consist of using mathematical concepts as included in an abstract idea. These limitations recite using calculation steps to perform the operation of calculating a positional deviation and evaluating how closely the tire follows the path for a vehicle on a route.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
For the following reason(s), the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of “evaluating …”, the Examiner submits that this limitation consist of insignificant extra-solution activity, which is performed by a generic computer to perform the process.
For the following reason(s), the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitation of “displaying …”, the Examiner submits that this limitation consists of data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, merely using a display device to provide information to a user. A user can visually look at their tires and see the tread to determine if they need to change tires.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, implement/ use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above, the additional limitation of “evaluating …”, the Examiner submits that this limitation consists of insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding the additional limitation of “displaying …”, the Examiner submits that this limitation consists of data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, merely using a display device to provide information to a user. A user can visually look at their tires and see the tread to determine if they need to change tires.
Dependent Claims 2-5 and 7-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because the claims involve implementing mathematical concepts by defining parameters for defining how the tire followability is to be determined. Therefore, dependent Claims 2-5 and 7-8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claims 1 and 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0292904 A1), to Taguchi, et al (hereinafter referred to as Taguchi), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0319046 A1, to Teramoto, et al (hereinafter referred to as Teramoto; newly of record).
As per Claim 1, Taguchi discloses the features of a tire evaluation method for evaluating a tire mounted on a vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0058]-[0059]; where the ECU (10) of the vehicle running control system (1) determines the friction between the tires and the road surface (i.e. evaluates tire condition))
traveling by autonomous driving (e.g. Paragraphs [0050], [0169]; where the vehicle is caused to automatically run along a certain course shape)
on a course with a defined reference path (e.g. Paragraph [0050]; where the ECU (10) sets a target traveling path according to the road shape), ‘…’ the tire evaluation method comprising:
acquiring data on a travel path of the vehicle and data on a target path set during travel so that the vehicle passes through the reference path (e.g. Paragraphs [0050], [0057]-[0058]; where the ECU (10) causes the navigation system (18) to read the road shape of a course along which the vehicle is going to run, from a map database and sets a target traveling path);
extracting a specific region from the data on the target path (e.g. Paragraphs [0059], [0171]; Figure 17; where a specific region is extracted or analyzed and displayed);
calculating a positional deviation between the specific region and the travel path of the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0043], [0206]; where the vehicle running control system (1) creates a speed pattern according to the traveling path, and where the vehicle running control system (1) determines the traveling plan and the actual running result (i.e. determines positional deviation) to perform control so that the actual running result becomes closer to the traveling plan); and
evaluating a control followability of the tire with respect to the vehicle based on the positional deviation (e.g. Paragraphs [0194], [0206]; where the system performs assist control according to the regions defined by the traveling path dividing unit while monitoring the actual running of the vehicle (i.e. determines followability or how closely the vehicle matches the traveling plan) to perform control so that the actual running result becomes closer to the traveling plan).
Taguchi fails to disclose every feature of executed by a tire evaluation apparatus comprising a display; and displaying an evaluation result on the display to allow a user to determine whether to continue using or change mounted tires.
However, Teramoto, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a tire state determination system, where the determination result of the tread structure is output to the display device of the vehicle, which allows the user to receive a proposal for a tread structure and tread value of the tire, to indicate if the tire is reusable or not (e.g. Paragraphs [0076], [0082], [0105], [0113]-[0114]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the vehicle running control system of Taguchi, with the feature of displaying tire status to the user in the system of Teramoto, in order to indicate if the tire is reusable or a new one is required (see at least Paragraph [0100] of Teramoto).
As per Claim 2, Taguchi, in view of Teramoto, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Taguchi further discloses the features of wherein the specific region is determined as a distance range based on a speed of the vehicle from a starting point of the target path in a travel direction of the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0058]-[0059], [0065]-[0066]; where the vehicle running control system (1) divides the target traveling path into a plurality of regions at time or distance intervals based on the speed pattern between the running start and running end point in each region).
As per Claim 3, Taguchi, in view of Teramoto, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Taguchi further discloses the features of wherein
the target path is divided (e.g. Paragraph [0058]; where the target traveling path is divided into a plurality of regions at fixed infinitesimal intervals of time or distance), and
from a starting point of the target path, the specific region is defined as a region divided next after a region affected by a time delay in vehicle behavior (e.g. Paragraph [0058]-[0060]; [0070], [0166]; where the target traveling path is divided into a plurality of regions at fixed infinitesimal intervals of time or distance; and where a running start point is defined, and used to define the predicted running conditions of the road in the future; and where the ECU (10) sets a region (C) that is advanced by one region from the running start point toward the running end point in the region).
As per Claim 4, Taguchi, in view of Teramoto, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Taguchi further discloses the features of wherein the specific region is determined based on a steering input speed of the vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0045], [0059]; where a steering angle sensor (13) detects the steering angle (i.e. steering input), and outputs the detected steering angle to the ECU (10); and where the ECU (10) calculates the turning radius (R) of the road in each region into which the target traveling path is divided and creates an updated speed and traveling pattern for each region).
As per Claim 5, Taguchi, in view of Teramoto, teaches the features of Claim 2, and Taguchi further discloses the features of wherein the travel path of the vehicle used to calculate the positional deviation is located in a direction perpendicular to the travel direction of the vehicle with respect to the specific region (e.g. Paragraphs [0043], [0206]; where the vehicle running control system (1) creates a speed pattern according to the traveling path, and determines the cornering (i.e. perpendicular deviation) on the traveling course, and corrects the speed pattern to follow the course (i.e. determines the deviation) to perform control so that the actual running result becomes closer to the traveling plan).
As per Claim 6, Taguchi discloses the features of tire evaluation apparatus for evaluating a tire mounted on a vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0058]-[0059]; where the ECU (10) of the vehicle running control system (1) determines the friction between the tires and the road surface (i.e. evaluates tire condition))
traveling by autonomous driving (e.g. Paragraphs [0050], [0169]; where the vehicle is caused to automatically run along a certain course shape)
on a course with a defined reference path (e.g. Paragraph [0050]; where the ECU (10) sets a target traveling path according to the road shape), the tire evaluation apparatus comprising:
a display (e.g. Paragraphs [0180], [0182]; where the region display unit displays the status of the running condition at the position where the vehicle is currently running; and where the evaluation display unit displays evaluation data along a section);
an acquisition interface configured to acquire data on a travel path of the vehicle and data on a target path set during travel so that the vehicle passes through the reference path (e.g. Paragraph [0050], [0057]-[0058]; where the ECU (10) causes the navigation system (18) to read the road shape of a course along which the vehicle is going to run, from a map database and sets a target traveling path);
a specific region extractor configured to extract a specific region from the data on the target path (e.g. Paragraphs [0059], [0171]; Figure 17; where a specific region is extracted or analyzed and displayed);
a positional deviation calculator configured to calculate a positional deviation between the specific region and the travel path of the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0043], [0206]; where the vehicle running control system (1) creates a speed pattern according to the traveling path, and where the vehicle running control system (1) determines the traveling plan and the actual running result (i.e. determines positional deviation) to perform control so that the actual running result becomes closer to the traveling plan); and
an evaluator configured to evaluate a control followability of the tire with respect to the vehicle based on the positional deviation (e.g. Paragraphs [0194], [0206]; where the system performs assist control according to the regions defined by the traveling path dividing unit while monitoring the actual running of the vehicle (i.e. determines followability or how closely the vehicle matches the traveling plan) to perform control so that the actual running result becomes closer to the traveling plan).
Taguchi fails to disclose every feature of display an evaluation result on the display to allow a user to determine whether to continue using or change mounted tires.
However, Teramoto, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a tire state determination system, where the determination result of the tread structure is output to the display device of the vehicle, which allows the user to receive a proposal for a tread structure and tread value of the tire, to indicate if the tire is reusable or not (e.g. Paragraphs [0076], [0082], [0105], [0113]-[0114]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the vehicle running control system of Taguchi, with the feature of displaying tire status to the user in the system of Teramoto, in order to indicate if the tire is reusable or a new one is required (see at least Paragraph [0100] of Teramoto).
As per Claim 7, and similarly for Claim 8, Taguchi, in view of Teramoto, teaches the features of Claims 3 and 4, respectively, and Taguchi further discloses the features of wherein the travel path of the vehicle used to calculate the positional deviation is located in a direction perpendicular to the travel direction of the vehicle with respect to the specific region (e.g. Paragraphs [0043], [0206]; where the vehicle running control system (1) creates a speed pattern according to the traveling path, and determines the cornering (i.e. perpendicular deviation) on the traveling course, and corrects the speed pattern to follow the course (i.e. determines the deviation); and where the vehicle running control system (1) determines the traveling plan and the actual running result (i.e. determines positional deviation) to perform control so that the actual running result becomes closer to the traveling plan).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Iizuka (JP 6332362 B2), which teaches a method for evaluating a change in shape of a tire along a road segment and displaying data indicating tire status to the user.
Jecker (U.S. 2018/0194178 A1), which teaches a method for determining tire characteristics, evaluating the tire condition, and displaying the risk of certain driving behaviors with the determined tire conditions.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERRITT E LEVY whose telephone number is (571)270-5595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0630-1600.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MERRITT E LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights