DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0184073, filed on 12/18/2023.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Response to Amendment
With regards to the objection to claim 20 in the previous office action, claim 20 was objected to for being a duplicate of another claim. The amended claim clarifies the claim tree structure. Therefore the objection to claim 20 is withdrawn.
With regards to the 112(f) claim interpretation of claim 9 in the previous office action, the amendments made to claim 9 remove the limitations that invoked 112(f) in the previous office action. Therefore the invocation of 112(f) in claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Response to Argument
With regards to the 101 rejection to claims 1-20, the applicant amended claims 1 and 9 to add limitations found in claim 15 and has argued that the independent claims are not directed towards an abstract idea because the amended claims are directed to improvements in the function of computers and to the semiconductor manufacturing technology. However, the examiner disagrees, and states that these limitations merely apply a generic computer to the path finding methods of an electric transport vehicle. Technology and methods of determining pathing for the average electric vehicle while performing cost calculations based on factors such as distance, traffic, and state of charge in a battery are well known in the art and are merely being applied to the field of electronic transport vehicles that move via railways. Therefore, claims 1-21 are rejected under U.S.C. 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With regards to the 102 rejection in view of Mathews et al. (US 12311913 B2; hereafter Mathews) to claims 1, 2, 8-10 in the previous office action. The applicant argues made in the applicants remarks pgs. 10-13 that Mathews does not teach “a rail including a powered section and a non-powered section” as well as “cost includes a distance between nodes, a congestion level of the rail, and a charging and discharging amount of the battery occurring when the transport vehicle travels between nodes”. However, the examiner disagrees with the arguments made in the applicant’s remarks. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Mathews does teach the limitations stated above. In regards to the limitation “a rail including a powered section and a non-powered section” this limitation is merely the intended use of the invention. Therefore, it does not hold any patentable weight for this application. Additionally, in regards to the limitation “cost includes a distance between nodes, a congestion level of the rail, and a charging and discharging amount of the battery occurring when the transport vehicle travels between nodes” Mathews also teaches to incorporate discharging ([col. 10, lines 15-21]; “The power requirement represents the power output over time for propelling the vehicle system along the one or more routes on the scheduled day of the trip in order to arrive at the designated end location of the trip at the scheduled arrival time, without violating other constraints if possible, such as traveling below posted speed limits.”). Therefore, the 102 rejection to independent claims 1 and 9 is not withdrawn.
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1, 9, and 15 is directed to an (apparatus, method, etc.) for claimed invention. Therefore, claim 1, 9, and 15 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 abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
In this case, the independent claims 1, 9, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. The language of independent claim 1 is used for illustration:
A path finding method comprising for a transport vehicle including a battery and configured to travel along a rail including a powered section and a non-powered section, the method comprising:
setting, by a processor, a destination for the transport vehicle;
calculating, by the processor, a cost between nodes along the rail (mental process; when receiving the appropriate data, the cost between nodes can be calculated mentally and/or with pen and paper.);
calculating costs between waypoints to the destination using a cost function (mental process; A person can receive data and determine the cost going between waypoints); and
determining, by the processor, a path from a current position of the transport vehicle to the destination based on the calculated cost, (mental process; A person can receive data and determine the best route mentally.)
wherein the cost includes a distance between nodes, a congestion level of the rail, and a charging and discharging amount of the battery occurring when the transport vehicle travels between the nodes.
As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims 9 and 15, which are of similar scope to claim 1. Likewise recite at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong I.
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."
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
A path finding method comprising for a transport vehicle including a battery and configured to travel along a rail including a powered section and a non-powered section, the method comprising:
setting, by a processor, a destination for the transport vehicle;
calculating, by the processor, a cost between nodes along the rail; (mental process; A person can receive data and determine the cost going between waypoints); and
determining, by the processor, a path from a current position of the transport vehicle to the destination based on the calculated cost, (mental process; A person can receive data and determine the best route mentally.)
wherein the cost includes a distance between nodes, a congestion level of the rail, and a charging and discharging amount of the battery occurring when the transport vehicle travels between the nodes. (merely narrows the mental process by specifying the types of costs)
Regarding the additional limitation of “setting, by a processor, a destination for the transport vehicle” the examiner submits that this limitation is merely a pre-solution activity of gathering data.
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 limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/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, the claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered 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 in Step 2A, Prong II, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute the abstract idea and, therefore does not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, as discussed above, the limitations “setting, by a processor, a destination for the transport vehicle” as recited above, are considered insignificant extra solution activities.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitations of “setting, by a processor, a destination for the transport vehicle” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, because they have all been deemed insignificant extra solution activity by one or more Courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g)
“setting, by a processor, a destination for the transport vehicle”… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989);;
Claims 9 and 15 recite systems to operate the method of claim 1. Therefore, are also rejected for the same reasoning.
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 1, 9, and 15 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 fail to recite limitations that overcome the 101 rejections made in independent claims 1, 9 and 15. Therefore, are also rejected for the same reasoning.
Examiner encourages Applicant to set an interview to discuss potential amendments for overcoming the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mathews et al. (US 12311913 B2; hereafter Mathews).
Mathews was cited in the previous office action.
Regarding claim 1, Mathews discloses a path finding method comprising for a transport vehicle including a battery ([col. 10 lines 52-54]; “In one non-limiting example, the hybrid consist may include three fuel-consuming vehicles and one battery-powered vehicle.”) and configured to travel along a rail including a powered section and a non-powered section (this limitation is merely an intended use of the invention, therefore, does not hold any patentable weight.), the method comprising:
setting, by a processor, a destination for the transport vehicle ([col. 7 lines 27-32]; “In an embodiment in which the controller of the control system shown in FIG. 1 is disposed off-board the vehicle system, the off-board controller may wirelessly query the vehicle controller for at least some of the sensor data generated by the sensors for use in planning and/or modifying a planned trip of the vehicle”);
calculating, by the processor, a cost between nodes along the rail ([col. 17 lines 54-58]; “At step 708, a determination is made whether the amount of available power is sufficient to propel the vehicle system to complete the previously planned trip, based on the comparison.”); and
determining, by the processor, a path from a current position of the transport vehicle to the destination based on the calculated cost ([col. 18 lines 6-13]; “At step 714 the previously planned trip is changed in a second way that is different from the first way in step 710. For example, the previously planned trip may be changed to eliminate the shortfall by changing the vehicular makeup or the operational aspects of the trip (e.g., trip characteristics) to increase the amount of available power as a function of time relative to the power requirement as a function of time.”)
wherein the cost includes a distance between nodes ([col. 8 lines 63-67]; “The trip information may include a starting location and an ending location, a scheduled departure time, a scheduled arrival time, a designated period of time in which to complete the trip after starting the trip, a distance to complete the planned trip along the one or more routes, and/or the like.”), a congestion level of the rail ([col. 11 lines 58-63]; “While other embodiments may account for, as an example, an unscheduled extended idle period as may be caused by a traffic jam (naturally a full stop can shut off the engine, but a slowly moving group may require the continuous use of energy), the embodiment contemplated here accounts for changes in the load and/or weather.”), and a charging and discharging amount of the battery occurring when the transport vehicle travels between the nodes. ([col. 10, lines 15-21]; “The power requirement represents the power output over time for propelling the vehicle system along the one or more routes on the scheduled day of the trip in order to arrive at the designated end location of the trip at the scheduled arrival time, without violating other constraints if possible, such as traveling below posted speed limits.”
[col. 20 lines 27-31]; “Optionally, the one or more processors may determine the amount of available power based at least in part on an amount of regenerative energy that the vehicle system is estimated to capture during braking on the planned trip or to receive from a catenary line or third rail.”)
Regarding claim 5, Mathews discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Mathews in the teaches a charging amount of the charging and discharging amount corresponds to energy supplied to the battery when the transport vehicle travels in the powered section. ([col. 12 lines 52-54]; “It may be done as a function of distance, rate of power consumption”
([col. 20 lines 27-31]; “Optionally, the one or more processors may determine the amount of available power based at least in part on an amount of regenerative energy that the vehicle system is estimated to capture during braking on the planned trip or to receive from a catenary line or third rail.”
[Fig. 4 item 308 and 320] Depict regenerative energy.)
Claim 9 recites an apparatus used to perform the methods of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 15 recites an system which contains a plurality of transport vehicle used to perform the methods of claim 1. Mathews teaches a plurality of transport vehicles ([col. 5 lines 9-10]; “The vehicle system may include several vehicles 104, 106 that travel on a route 108.”) as well as all the methods of claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasoning.
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.
Claims 2-4, 10-12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Mathews as evidenced by Lavertu et al. (US 12337817 B2; hereafter Lavertu).
Lavertu was cited in the previous office action.
Regarding claim 2, Mathews discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Mathews discloses the cost function is determined using the distance ([col. 8 lines 63-67]; “The trip information may include a starting location and an ending location, a scheduled departure time, a scheduled arrival time, a designated period of time in which to complete the trip after starting the trip, a distance to complete the planned trip along the one or more routes, and/or the like.”), the congestion level ([col. 11 lines 58-63]; “While other embodiments may account for, as an example, an unscheduled extended idle period as may be caused by a traffic jam (naturally a full stop can shut off the engine, but a slowly moving group may require the continuous use of energy), the embodiment contemplated here accounts for changes in the load and/or weather.”), and the charging and discharging amount. ([col 11. Lines 29-31]; “The controller may account for refueling and/or recharging opportunities during the power and energy budget analysis.”)
Although Mathews discloses the factors required for the cost calculations, Mathews does not disclose the use of a weighted sum. However, Lavertu does disclose a weighted sum ([col. 7 lines 27-32]; “The setup involves selection of a quantitative objective function, or a weighted sum (integral) of model variables that correspond to travel time, rate of fuel consumption, maximum power settings, speed limits, emissions generation, plus a term to penalize excessive throttle variation or jockeying, as examples.”)
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 Mathews with Lavertu. This modification would have been obvious because both Mathews and Lavertu cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (train pathing determination) and it would have been beneficial to use the weighted sum taught by Lavertu as certain variables impact the determination for routes more than others.
Regarding claim 3, Mathews discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Mathews discloses costs of distance ([col. 8 lines 63-67]; “The trip information may include… a distance to complete the planned trip along the one or more routes”), congestion ([col. 9 lines 9-13]; “The route information may include geographic and/or geological information about the routes, such as… traffic patterns”) and charging/discharging amounts. ([col. 11 lines 29-31]; “The controller may account for refueling and/or recharging opportunities during the power and energy budget analysis.”)
Although Mathews discloses the factors required for the cost calculations, Mathews does not disclose the use of weights variables. However, Lavertu does disclose weighed variables ([col. 7 lines 27-32]; “The setup involves selection of a quantitative objective function, or a weighted sum (integral) of model variables that correspond to travel time, rate of fuel consumption, maximum power settings, speed limits, emissions generation, plus a term to penalize excessive throttle variation or jockeying, as examples.”)
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 Mathews with Lavertu. This modification would have been obvious because both Mathews and Lavertu cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (train pathing determination) and it would have been beneficial to use the weighted sum taught by Lavertu as certain variables impact the determination for routes more than others.
Regarding claim 4, Mathews in combination with Lavertu discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Additionally Lavertu in the same field of endeavor teaches values of the weights are determined using machine learning ([col. 14 lines 43-47]; “In one embodiment, the system (such as one or more controllers, a computer, and/or the like described herein) may have a local data collection system deployed that may use machine learning to enable derivation-based learning outcomes.”).
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 Mathews with Lavertu. This modification would have been obvious because both Mathews and Lavertu cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (train pathing determination) and it would have been beneficial as utilizing machine learning to determine the weights of the individual variables will produce more efficient routes for the vehicles.
Claim 10 recites an apparatus used to perform the methods of claim 2. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 11 recites an apparatus used to perform the methods of claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected in view of Mathews and Lavertu for the same reasoning.
Claim 12 recites an apparatus used to perform the methods of claim 4. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected in view of Mathews and Lavertu for the same reasoning.
Claim 16 recites an system used to perform the methods of claim 2. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 17 recites an system used to perform the methods of claim 3. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 18 recites an system used to perform the methods of claim 4. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claims 6, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Mathews as evidenced by Wikipedia (https://web.archive.org/web/20230920234456/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail).
Regarding claim 6, Mathews discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Mathews teaches a discharging amount of the charging and discharging amount corresponds to energy consumed from the battery ([col. 12 lines 52-54]; “It may be done as a function of distance, rate of power consumption”)
Although Mathews teaches energy being consumed during certain segments of the trip (as shown in Fig. 4) Mathews does not explicitly state a discharging amount when the vehicle is specifically in a non-powered section.
However Wikipedia teaches when the transport vehicle travels in the non-powered section. ([pg. 7 lines 5-6]; “Several systems use a third rail for part of the route, and other motive power such as overhead catenary or diesel power for the remainder.”)
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 Mathews with Wikipedia. This modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that third rails that are used to supply energy to the vehicle are often only used in parts of a route. This would imply that there are sections that are not powered via the third rail and would need to rely on other sources (such as the internal battery of the vehicle) to provide such power.
Regarding claim 13, Mathews discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Additionally Mathews discloses a charging amount of the charging and discharging amount corresponds to energy supplied to the battery when the transport vehicle travels in the powered section ([col. 12 lines 52-54]; “It may be done as a function of distance, rate of power consumption”
([col. 20 lines 27-31]; “Optionally, the one or more processors may determine the amount of available power based at least in part on an amount of regenerative energy that the vehicle system is estimated to capture during braking on the planned trip or to receive from a catenary line or third rail.”
[Fig. 4 item 308 and 320] Depict regenerative energy.), and a discharging amount of the charging and discharging amount corresponds to energy consumed from the battery ([col. 12 lines 52-54]; “It may be done as a function of distance, rate of power consumption”)
Although Mathews teaches energy being consumed during certain segments of the trip (as shown in Fig. 4) Mathews does not explicitly state a discharging amount when the vehicle is specifically in a non-powered section.
However Wikipedia teaches when the transport vehicle travels in the non-powered section. ([pg. 7 lines 5-6]; “Several systems use a third rail for part of the route, and other motive power such as overhead catenary or diesel power for the remainder.”)
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 Mathews with Wikipedia. This modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that third rails that are used to supply energy to the vehicle are often only used in parts of a route. This would imply that there are sections that are not powered via the third rail and would need to rely on other sources (such as the internal battery of the vehicle) to provide such power.
Claim 19 recites an system that contains the apparatus of claim 9. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claims 7-8, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Mathews as evidenced by Wu et al. (US 20220252416 A1; hereafter Wu).
Regarding claim 7, Mathews discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Wu in the same field of endeavor teaches the determining the path comprises selecting a path minimizes a transport time of the transport vehicle. ([0077]; “When the vehicle is driven in the time-saving mode, remaining energy of the vehicle can ensure that the vehicle consumes shortest time to arrive at a destination from a departure place.”)
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 Mathews with Wu. This modification would have been obvious because both Mathews and Wu cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (path planning for vehicles) and it would have been obvious to consider time of arrival as a factor for selecting the route.
Regarding claim 8, Mathews discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Wu discloses the determining of the path comprises selecting a path that maximizes a state of charge (SoC) of the battery. ([0077]; “When the vehicle is driven in the energy-saving mode, remaining energy of the vehicle can ensure that the vehicle consumes minimum energy to arrive at the destination from the departure place before a specified time point.”)
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 Mathews with Wu. This modification would have been obvious because both Mathews and Wu cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (path planning for vehicles) and it would have been obvious to consider energy efficiency as a factor for selecting the route.
Claim 14 recites an apparatus used to perform the methods of claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected in view of Mathews and Lavertu for the same reasoning.
Claim 20 recites an system used to perform the methods of claim 7. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected in view of Mathews and Lavertu for the same reasoning.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON SUNG EUN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, James Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/B.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JUSTIN S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights