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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 recites “from the group of combination”. This appears to be a typographical error that is intended to be --from the group of combinations--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claims are directed to a system (Claim 1), and/or non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with executable instructions (Claim 5), thus Claims 1-5 fall within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. The independent claims which recite the following claim limitations as an abstract idea, are underlined below.
Claims 1 and 5 recite (as represented by the language of Claim 1):
a database in which data related to multiple workers arranged in a work line of a real space, data related to mounting fixtures worn by the respective multiple workers, and data related to indexes on work efficiency of the multiple workers, in association with work contents of multiple works performed in the work line of the real space; and
a processor configured to perform a simulation on a work line in a digital space corresponding to the work line in the real space based on data related to a work plan in the work line in the real space and data stored in the database,
wherein, in the simulation, the processor is configured to:
assign combinations of workers and mounting fixtures worn by the workers to each of the work contents of the multiple works performed in the work line of the digital space based on the data related to the work contents of the multiple works to be performed, and the data related to the multiple workers and the data related to the mounting fixture stored in the database; and
based on the assigned combinations and the data related to the indexes stored in the database, which are data of indexes related to work efficiencies of the worker constituting the assigned combinations, search for a group of combinations of the multiple workers and the mounting fixtures worn by the respective multiple workers, in a case where a reference condition in which work efficiency in a whole work line of the digital space is equal to or greater than a target value is satisfied.
The underlined claim limitations as emphasized above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) in the form of simulating an efficient work line combination by considering worker and mounting fixtures efficiencies. Other than reciting a computer implementation, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from encompassing the performance of concepts performed in the human mind which represents the abstract idea of mental processes. But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for determining a simulation for an efficient work line combination by considering worker and mounting fixtures efficiencies which could be performed in the human mind or by using pen and paper. For example, the claim merely requires observations to be considered (such as workers efficiencies and mounting fixtures worn by the workers) and evaluations and judgements to be made using those observations. This data could be observed, used to form simulations of work lines (evaluations and judgements), and used to determine which groups match a target efficiency (evaluations and judgements) without the use of a computer.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements such as:
simulation system, comprising a database for storing data and a processor configured to perform the claim steps;
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform the claim steps.
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
Accordingly, since the specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used to perform the judicial exception. Any computer components used (such as the processor, etc.) to perform the claim steps are described throughout the specification in generic terms and no detail is provided to demonstrate anything more than generic or general-purpose technology (for example, see specification at [0010]; [0032]; [0042]). These claimed additional elements merely recite the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements, individually or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2-4 recite further elements related to the analysis, scoring, and message improvement steps of the parent claims. These activities fail to differentiate the claims from the related activities in the parent claims and fail to provide any material to render the claimed invention to be significantly more than the identified abstract ideas, as outlined below.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the processor further configured to perform staff assignment processing to arrange workers in the work line of the real space, wherein, in the staff assignment processing, the processor is configured to: based on data of the work contents of the multiple works to be performed and the data related to the mounting fixtures used in accordance with the work contents, specify a group of combinations of the work contents of the multiple works to be performed and the mounting fixtures used in accordance with the work contents; and select a candidate group indicating a group of combinations of candidates of the workers to be assigned to the specified group of combinations and the mounting fixture worn by the candidates of the workers by referring to data of schedule of the workers scheduled to be arranged in the work line of the real space using a search result by the simulation”, which further specifies additional steps related to the simulations performed in the parent claims, but are not any less abstract and do not lead toward eligibility. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim 3 recites “wherein, in the staff assignment processing, the processor is further configured to: when the search result obtained by the simulation includes two or more groups of combinations satisfying the reference condition, perform the reference using the data of the schedules of the workers scheduled to be arranged in order from the group of combination having high work efficiency in the whole work line”, which further specifies additional steps related to the simulations performed in the parent claims, but are not any less abstract and do not lead toward eligibility. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim 4 recites “wherein, in the database, the work contents of the multiple works performed in the work line of the real space are further associated with data related to attributes of the multiple workers, wherein, in the staff assignment processing, the processor is configured to: based on the search result obtained by the simulation, specify attributes of the multiple workers constituting the group of combinations that satisfies the reference condition, wherein, the attributes of the specified multiple workers are further referred to in the selection of the candidate group of combinations of the candidates of the workers to be arranged to the multiple works to be performed respectively and the mounting fixture worn by the candidates of the workers, wherein, the candidate group of combinations of the candidates of the workers to be arranged to the multiple works to be performed respectively and the mounting fixture worn by the candidates of the workers include another worker having the same attribute as the specified attributes of the multiple workers” which further specifies additional steps related to the simulations performed in the parent claims, but are not any less abstract and do not lead toward eligibility. The processor and database are recited at a high level of generality and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
The claims do not provide any new additional limitations or meaningful limits beyond abstract idea that are not addressed above in the independent claims therefore, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more to the abstract idea. Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and as a whole, it has been determined that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claims 2-4 are ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (KR 20240114519 A) in view of Grego (IT RM20120231 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Kang discloses:
A simulation system and or non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a simulation program, comprising: (at least page 4, lines 18-25, includes a processor, memory storing program/application, database for storing necessary data, etc. performing the simulation system)
a database in which data related to multiple workers arranged in a work line of a real space and data related to indexes on work efficiency of the multiple workers, in association with work contents of multiple works performed in the work line of the real space; (page 4, lines 6-11 & 31-34, data is collected regarding worker’s, worker efficiencies, tasks performed (work contents and how related worker performances); page 7lines 26-33; page 11, lines 19-22; etc., the data collected on worker including their efficiencies at different tasks is used for determining the efficiencies of different models/simulations based on those induvial efficiencies, this represent “indexes on work efficiency”) and
a processor configured to perform a simulation on a work line in a digital space corresponding to the work line in the real space based on data related to a work plan in the work line in the real space and data stored in the database, (page 7, lines 14-21; page 8, lines 9-11, the server/system performs the simulations of arrangements (digital space) and compares them to current production based on data from actual work performed in lines that is collected and stored (work plans in real work space))
wherein, in the simulation, the processor is configured to:
assign combinations of workers to each of the work contents of the multiple works performed in the work line of the digital space based on the data related to the work contents of the multiple works to be performed, and the data related to the multiple workers stored in the database; (page 4, lines 6-14 & 31-34; page 6, lines 36-39; etc., collects data on workers and efficiencies for determining which worker to assign to lines and tasks; page 7, lines 14-25; page 8, lines 9-11; page 12, lines 16-21, data is analyzed and multiple simulations can be made for different arrangements/combinations of workers and tasks (work contents) performed by those workers) and
based on the assigned combinations and the data related to the indexes stored in the database, which are data of indexes related to work efficiencies of the worker constituting the assigned combinations (page 7 lines 26-33; page 11, lines 19-22; etc., the data collected on worker including their efficiencies at different tasks is used for determining the efficiencies of different models/simulations based on those induvial efficiencies, this represent “indexes on work efficiency”; page 4, lines 6-14 & 31-34; page 6, lines 36-39; etc., collects data on workers and efficiencies for determining which worker to assign to lines and tasks; page 7, lines 14-25; page 8, lines 9-11; page 12, lines 16-21, data is analyzed and multiple simulations can be made for different arrangements/combinations (groups) of workers and tasks (work contents) performed by those workers), search for a group of combinations of the multiple workers in a case where a reference condition in which work efficiency in a whole work line of the digital space is equal to or greater than a target value is satisfied (page 11, lines 19-22, the simulations are used to determine an arrangement (combination, group or workers) that meets a reference condition, “target production volume achievement” (which would represent at least equal to the target), the reference condition (target production volume achievement) being achieved through efficiencies of the simulated work lines (worker and task assignments and arrangements)).
Kang discloses all of the above limitations, including worker attributes, such as conditions, skills, and efficiencies at specific tasks (see also page 10, lines 19-23). Kang does not explicitly disclose the consideration of data related to mounting fixtures worn by the respective multiple workers, however, Grego teaches data related to mounting fixtures worn by the respective multiple workers in regards to their ability to perform specific tasks (page 5, lines 32-33; page 9, lines 4-5, verifies that operators (workers) possess and correctly use PPE (personal protective equipment, mounting fixtures worn by the workers) required for each task; page 6, lines 4-5, includes production line work).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Kang so as to have included data related to mounting fixtures worn by the respective multiple worker, as taught by Grego in order to further ensure that the workers assigned to the work line and/or specific tasks have the ability and tools to efficiently perform those tasks (Grego, page 5, lines 32-33; page 9, lines 4-5, Kang, page 4, lines 6-14). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to apply the mounting fixture considerations of Grego to the worker attribute data of Kang and the references demonstrate the necessary level of skill to do so. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that possessing the required PPE and using the PPE properly would affect a worker’s performance of a task.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Grego in further view of Takehara et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0308963 A1).
In regards to Claim 2, Kang discloses:
wherein the processor further configured to perform staff assignment processing to arrange workers in the work line of the real space,
wherein, in the staff assignment processing, the processor is configured to:
based on data of the work contents of the multiple works to be performed and the specify a group of combinations of the work contents of the multiple works to be performed; and
select a candidate group indicating a group of combinations of candidates of the workers to be assigned to the specified group of combinations by referring to data of the work line of the real space using a search result by the simulation (page 7 lines 26-33; page 11, lines 19-22; etc., the data collected on worker including their efficiencies at different tasks is used for determining the efficiencies of different models/simulations based on those induvial efficiencies, this represent “indexes on work efficiency”; page 4, lines 6-14 & 31-34; page 6, lines 36-39; etc., collects data on workers and efficiencies for determining which worker to assign to lines and tasks; page 7, lines 14-25; page 8, lines 9-11; page 12, lines 16-21, data is analyzed and multiple simulations can be made for different arrangements/combinations (groups) of workers and tasks (work contents) performed by those workers (page 8, line 11-page 9, line 2, further demonstrates that group combinations of work contents can be arranged in addition to the arrangement of worker groups to perform those work content groups); page 11, lines 19-22, the simulations are used to determine an arrangement (combination, group or workers) that meets a reference condition, “target production volume achievement” (which would represent at least equal to the target), the reference condition (target production volume achievement) being achieved through efficiencies of the simulated work lines (worker and task assignments and arrangements), multiple simulations are made to determine which groups/combinations meet the reference condition (a user can select one of these results for the line), “search results of the simulation” is being interpreted as the simulations that are found by the system (they system/simulator identifies groups of workers, tasks, etc.)).
Kang discloses all of the above limitations, including worker attributes, such as conditions, skills, and efficiencies at specific tasks. Kang does not explicitly disclose the consideration of data related to mounting fixtures worn by the respective multiple workers, however, Grego teaches data related to mounting fixtures worn by the respective multiple workers in regards to their ability to perform specific tasks (page 5, lines 32-33; page 9, lines 4-5, verifies that operators (workers) possess and correctly use PPE (personal protective equipment, mounting fixtures worn by the workers) required for each task; page 6, lines 4-5, includes production line work).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Kang so as to have included data related to mounting fixtures worn by the respective multiple worker, as taught by Grego in order to further ensure that the workers assigned to the work line and/or specific tasks have the ability and tools to efficiently perform those tasks (Grego, page 5, lines 32-33; page 9, lines 4-5, Kang, page 4, lines 6-14). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to apply the mounting fixture considerations of Grego to the worker attribute data of Kang and the references demonstrate the necessary level of skill to do so. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that possessing the required PPE and using the PPE properly would affect a worker’s performance of a task.
Kang/Grego discloses all of the above limitations, including worker attributes, such as working hours, working situations, etc. (see also page 10, lines 19-23). Kang/Grego does not explicitly disclose the consideration of schedules of the workers scheduled to be arranged in the work line, however, Takehara teaches
the use of schedule of the workers scheduled to be arranged in the work line (Fig. 6; [0051]; [0055]; [0074]; etc., worker data used to develop work plans includes worker schedules, leave dates, etc.; Abstract; [0085]; [0097], the system is used for estimating work lines for optimization and efficiency for performing a target production capacity (comparable to Kang’s target production volume achievement))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Kang/Grego so as to have included the use of schedule of the workers scheduled to be arranged in the work line, as taught by Takehara in order to further ensure that the efficiency of a work line is not interrupted by workers with specific skills being absent (Takehara, Fig. 6; Abstract; [0051]; [0055]; [0074]; [0085]; [0097]; Kang, page 4, lines 6-14 & 31-34; page 6, lines 36-39; etc.). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to apply the worker schedule considerations of Takehara to the worker attribute data of Kang/Grego and the references demonstrate the necessary level of skill to do so.
In regards to Claim 3, Kang discloses:
wherein, in the staff assignment processing, the processor is further configured to:
when the search result obtained by the simulation includes two or more groups of combinations satisfying the reference condition, perform the reference using the data of [workers] arranged in order from the group of combination[s] having high work efficiency in the whole work line (page 7 lines 26-33; page 11, lines 19-22; etc., the data collected on worker including their efficiencies at different tasks is used for determining the efficiencies of different models/simulations based on those induvial efficiencies, this represent “indexes on work efficiency”; page 4, lines 6-14 & 31-34; page 6, lines 36-39; etc., collects data on workers and efficiencies for determining which worker to assign to lines and tasks; page 7, lines 14-25; page 8, lines 9-11; page 12, lines 16-21, data is analyzed and multiple simulations can be made for different arrangements/combinations (groups) of workers and tasks (work contents) performed by those workers (page 8, line 11-page 9, line 2, further demonstrates that group combinations of work contents can be arranged in addition to the arrangement of worker groups to perform those work content groups); page 11, lines 19-22, the simulations are used to determine an arrangement (combination, group or workers) that meets a reference condition, “target production volume achievement” (which would represent at least equal to the target), the reference condition (target production volume achievement) being achieved through efficiencies of the simulated work lines (worker and task assignments and arrangements), multiple simulations are made to determine which groups/combinations meet the reference condition and efficiency (a user can select one of these results for the line), “search results of the simulation” is being interpreted as the simulations that are found by the system (they system/simulator identifies groups of workers, tasks, etc.); page 4, lines 31-34; page 7, lines 14-33; page 8, lines 12-15; page 12, lines 16-21, demonstrates that the worker attributes regarding their skill level and how long it takes workers to perform specific tasks is evaluated, the time it takes a worker to perform a task affects the overall time (and efficiency) to perform the entire line, the time for performing the tasks and the entire line is directly related to maximizing productions rates and minimizing production time (which is related to the reference condition of “target production volume achievement”), the results can include more than one group having high efficiencies in the work line)
Kang/Grego discloses all of the above limitations, including determining efficiencies for multiple arrangements of workers (see also page 10, lines 19-23). Kang/Grego does not explicitly disclose the consideration of schedules of the workers scheduled to be arranged in the work line, however, Takehara teaches
the use of data of the schedules of the workers scheduled to be arranged in the work line in reference to a target reference condition (Fig. 6; [0051]; [0055]; [0074]; etc., worker data used to develop work plans includes worker schedules, leave dates, etc.; Abstract; [0085]; [0097], the system is used for estimating work lines for optimization and efficiency for performing a target production capacity (reference condition))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Kang/Grego so as to have included the use of data of the schedules of the workers scheduled to be arranged in the work line in reference to a target reference condition, as taught by Takehara in order to further ensure that the efficiency of a work lines are not interrupted by workers with specific skills being absent (Takehara, Fig. 6; Abstract; [0051]; [0055]; [0074]; [0085]; [0097]; Kang, page 4, lines 6-14 & 31-34; page 6, lines 36-39; etc.). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to apply the worker schedule considerations of Takehara to the worker attribute data of Kang/Grego and the references demonstrate the necessary level of skill to do so.
In regards to Claim 4, Kang discloses:
wherein, in the database, the work contents of the multiple works performed in the work line of the real space are further associated with data related to attributes of the multiple workers,
wherein, in the staff assignment processing, the processor is configured to:
based on the search result obtained by the simulation, specify attributes of the multiple workers constituting the group of combinations that satisfies the reference condition, wherein, the attributes of the specified multiple workers are further referred to in the selection of the candidate group of combinations of the candidates of the workers to be arranged to the multiple works to be performed respectively,
wherein, the candidate group of combinations of the candidates of the workers to be arranged to the multiple works to be performed respectively include another worker having the same attribute as the specified attributes of the multiple workers (page 10, liens 19-23, multiple attributes of workers are considered; page 4, lines 6-14; page 12, lines 16-21, combinations of workers on a line are determined based on workers efficiencies at specific tasks; page 4, lines 31-34; page 7, lines 14-33; page 8, lines 12-15; page 12, lines 16-21, demonstrates that the worker attributes regarding their skill level and how long it takes workers to perform specific tasks is evaluated, the time it takes a worker to perform a task affects the overall time (and efficiency) to perform the entire line, the time for performing the tasks and the entire line is directly related to maximizing productions rates and minimizing production time (which is related to the reference condition of “target production volume achievement”), workers are grouped based on having similar attributes to perform the lines efficiently, for example, attributes would include matching multiple workers who have the fastest time and efficient skill at each of their respective tasks in the line to get the best and fastest combination).
Kang discloses all of the above limitations, including worker attributes, such as conditions, skills, and efficiencies at specific tasks. Kang does not explicitly disclose the consideration of data related to mounting fixtures worn by the respective multiple workers, however, Grego teaches data related to mounting fixtures worn by the respective multiple workers in regards to their ability to perform specific tasks (page 5, lines 32-33; page 9, lines 4-5, verifies that operators (workers) possess and correctly use PPE (personal protective equipment, mounting fixtures worn by the workers) required for each task; page 6, lines 4-5, includes production line work).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Kang so as to have included data related to mounting fixtures worn by the respective multiple worker, as taught by Grego in order to further ensure that the workers assigned to the work line and/or specific tasks have the ability and tools to efficiently perform those tasks (Grego, page 5, lines 32-33; page 9, lines 4-5, Kang, page 4, lines 6-14). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to apply the mounting fixture considerations of Grego to the worker attribute data of Kang and the references demonstrate the necessary level of skill to do so. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that possessing the required PPE and using the PPE properly would affect a worker’s performance of a task.
Additional Prior Art Identified, but not Relied Upon
Kaneko et al. (Patent No. US 7,668,743 B2). Discloses the determination of combinations of manpower, equipment, etc. to optimize production line performance (see at least Abstract; column 4, paragraph 4; column 18, paragraph 2).
Su et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0342675 A1). Discloses the evaluations of work-lines based on real data and simulates alternate work-lines (see at least Abstract; Fig. 3; [0020]; [0027]; [0030]-[0037]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUN D SENSENIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6872. 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.
/S.D.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights