DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
The following is a Final Office Action. In response to Examiner's communication on 01/12/2026, Applicant on 04/07/2026, amended Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-15, cancelled Claims 2, 7 and 12, and added new Claims 16-21. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-21 are now pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendments are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections set forth in the previous action. The rejections have been updated to address the amendments and are maintained below.
Applicants’ amendments are insufficient to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and interpretation under 35 USC 112(f), as it pertains Claims 1, 3-5, as set forth in the previous action. The rejections have been updated to address the amendments and are maintained below. However, the interpretation of Claims 6, 8-10 under 35 USC 112(f) is withdrawn below.
Applicants’ amendments are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the previous action. Therefore, these rejections have been updated to address the amendments and are maintained below.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 112(b)
Applicant points to the amendments as overcoming rejections submitted under 35 USC 112(b). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, claims that fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention are indefinite. As “unstable” continues to be an indefinite term whose meaning would not be readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, the rejections of Claims 5, 10, and 15 are maintained below.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 112(f)
Applicant points to the amendments as overcoming the interpretation of Claims 1, 3-5, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the section Claim Interpretation below as to the rationale for maintaining such an interpretation.
As the nonce term “unit” has been removed from the limitations previously invoking 35 USC 112(f) interpretation in Claim 6, we rescind its interpretation under 35 USC 112(f).
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that even if the claims involve an abstract idea, which Applicant disputes, the claims are integrated into a practical application and additionally represent significantly more per Step 2B of the analysis because while some steps may arguably recite an abstract idea, in view of the ordered combination of the steps of using the various forms of sensors and automatically generating a recovery plan, the claim as a whole is directed to an improvement to power grid recovery. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Pursuant to MPEP 2106, in order to determine whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, under Step 2A, we first (1) determine whether the claims recite limitations, individually or in combination, that fall within the enumerated subject matter groupings of abstract ideas (mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes), and (2) determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04.
Next, if a claim (1) recites an abstract idea and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, in order to determine whether the claim recites an “inventive concept,” under Step 2B, we then determine whether any of the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and in combination, are significantly more than the abstract idea itself. MPEP 2106.05.
That is, only after determining whether the claims recite limitations that, individually or in combination, that fall within one of the enumerated subject matter groups of abstract ideas in the first prong of Step 2B, under the second prong of Step 2A, we determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. However, the steps referred to by Applicant are not additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, but rather, for the reason detailed in the following paragraphs, the limitations referred to by Applicant are part of and directed to the recited abstract idea because they are recitations of mental processes that can be practically performed mentally and merely use generic computer components as a tool (i.e., “sensors…” and various “devices” in Claim 1) to implement the mental processes.
As set forth in the MPEP, mere automation of a manual or mental process or a business method being applied on a general purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or other technology, and the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. MPEP 2106.05(a). Merely requiring that the claims use generic computer components, such as the various devices that are interpreted as generic computers or the “sensors”, to implement the recited abstract idea does not make the claims directed to an improvement in technology or otherwise transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible invention.
The steps referred to by Applicant do not recite a significant improvement in technology, but rather, the steps referred to by Applicant are recitation of mental processes that can be practically performed mentally and merely use a generic computer components as a tool to implement the mental process. In fact, aside from the generic component used as a tool to implement the steps, the steps referred to by Applicant are not additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, but, as noted above, they are recitations of mental processes that recite an abstract idea.
Viewing the limitations in combination per the pen and paper test recited in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(iii), a human can mentally observe data pertaining to the functioning of a power grid, mentally perform a judgment to arrive at a calculation as to the confidence of the data, mentally record the degree of confidence in association with the data, and mentally perform judgments in tandem with the observation of data and its confidence to arrive at a blackout recovery plan.
In combination, these steps do not reflect an improvement in computer technology, but rather a mental process of ascertaining the confidence of given data as well as performing judgments on the basis of said data as well as confidence. See MPEP 2106 as to examples of claims that recite a mental process, “a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
As detailed below with respect to the second prong of Step 2A, the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical Application because the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea merely use generic computer components as a tool to apply the recited abstract idea.
As set forth in the MPEP, mere automation of a manual or mental process or a business method being applied on a general purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or other technology, and the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. MPEP 2106.05(a). Merely requiring that the claims use generic computer components, such as the generically recited sensors or devices functioning as a computer, to implement the recited abstract idea does not make the claims directed to an improvement in technology or otherwise transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible invention.
Further, regarding the benefit of recovery plan generation, see MPEP 2106.05(f), “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”. Applicant argues that the recovery plan is to be the subject of the improvement to technology, but the broad requirement that the claimed apparatus “generate…and output the recovery plan to a worker terminal” is insufficient to amount to an improvement in technology.
Claims 6 and 11 offer substantially similar limitations as Claim 1, and Claims 3-5, 7-10, 13-15, 16-21 similarly merely recite mental processes that can be performed by a human mentally observing data, and subsequently performing a mental evaluation and judgment using the observed information.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 103
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and 13-21 under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are not found to be persuasive.
Applicant firstly argues that Cella does not disclose how to compute prediction confidence and does not calculate a degree of certainability as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per MPEP 2111, claims are interpreted according to their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. While Examiner does agree that exact formulas and equations are not specified in Cella, as they are in [0056-0057] in Applicant’s specification, this requirement is not present in the language of the claims, “calculate a degree of certainability of the operation data that represents certainability of the operation data …by using … as variables”.
Pertaining to acquisition period, acquisition location and characteristic element in [1395], "In an illustrative and non-limiting example, the monitoring device may be used to collect and process sensor data to measure mechanical torque. The monitoring device may be in communication with or include a high resolution, high speed vibration sensor to collect data over an extended period of time, enough to measure multiple cycles of rotation. For gear driven equipment, the sampling resolution should be such that the number of samples taken per cycle is at least equal to the number of gear teeth driving the component. It will be understood that a lower sampling resolution may also be utilized, which may result in a lower confidence determination and/or taking data over a longer period of time to develop sufficient statistical confidence". Note that the location come from the specific component being monitored as well as the particulars of collecting sufficiently high resolution data from said component. It would be implicit to one of ordinary skill in the art that a confidence determination functions as a measure of data certainability – the actual steps performed to arrive at a calculation are not present in the language of the claims, and therefore determining a confidence metric teaches the claimed limitation of “calculate a degree of certainability”.
Applicant further argues that Liao does not teach a level of confidence as recited in the claims. Examiner notes that this argument is rendered moot in light of updated rejections necessitated by amendment’s to the claims. Examiner notes that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. The test for obviousness is not that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed.Cir. 1986). As stated in the previous Non-Final Rejection, Cella teaches the determination of a degree of certainability that represents operation data certainability. As Cella discloses the limitations relevant to the derivation of the degree of certainability, Liao need not disclose a “degree of certainability” that corresponds to operation data to be applicable in teaching other limitations as it pertains to storage and plan generation.
Applicants' amendments are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the previous action. Therefore, these rejections have been updated to address the amendments and are maintained below.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) are:
In Claim 1: “a communication device…a storage device…an arithmetic device”
See [0029] of Applicant’s specification. With regards to the arithmetic device, it is understood to be an ordinary CPU. The storage device is understood to be one of a “HDD, SSD, or memory card”. As [0028] asserts “The power grid recovery plan support apparatus 10 can be implemented by a computer, includes an arithmetic device 101, a storage device 102, an input device 103, an output device 104, and a communication device 105, and connects these devices through a communication channel”, the communication device will be considered to be performed by a generic computer.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/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.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 10, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “unstable” in Claims 5, 10, 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “unstable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purpose of examination, "unstable" is read in light of [0066] of Applicant's specification, and “the degree of uncertainability is less than a reference value of certainability”.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that is directed to a judicial expectation, namely a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea and will henceforth be used as a representative claim for the 101 rejection until otherwise noted. Claim 1 recites:
A facility operation support apparatus for supporting operation of a power grid, the power grid including, as equipment, electrical energy meters and electric poles that are connected to the electric energy meter through a network, the electric poles each being equipped with a sensor that detects an inclination of the respective electric pole, the apparatus comprising:a communication device configured to receive as operation data an operation status of the electric energy meter, the operation data obtained from the sensors of the electric poles, and a communication status of the network; a storage device connected to the communication device through a communication channel and configured to store a data management program; and an arithmetic device connected to the communication device and the storage device through the communication channel and configured to: calculate a degree of certainability of the operation data that represents certainability of the operation data in accordance with the data management program by using an acquisition period element, an acquisition location element, and a characteristic element of the operation data as variables, reproduce the degree of certainability, store in the storage device in association with each other,generate a recovery plan of the facility when the certainability stored in the storage device satisfies a predetermined condition.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers a mental process.
“receive as operation data…”, “calculate a degree of certainability…”, “reproduce the degree of certainability”, “store the operation data and …in association with each other”, “generate a recovery plan of the facility…when the certainability stored in the storage device satisfies a predetermined condition” recite abstract ideas - namely, mental processes that could be performed by a human with a pen and paper, per the MPEP, merely adapting them into the context of a technological environment with computing parts does not preclude them from being abstract.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claims 6 and 11 recite at least one abstract idea by virtue of presenting substantially similar limitations.
Claims 3-5, 8-10, 13-15, 16-21 recite at least one abstract idea by virtue of their dependency from independent Claims 1, 6, and 11.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into practical application. As noted in the MPEP, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exception 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, such as 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.
A facility operation support apparatus for supporting operation of a power grid, the power grid including, as equipment, electrical energy meters and electric poles that are connected to the electric energy meter through a network, the electric poles each being equipped with a sensor that detects an inclination of the respective electric pole, the apparatus comprising:a communication device configured to receive as operation data an operation status of the electric energy meter, the operation data obtained from the sensors of the electric poles, and a communication status of the network; a storage device connected to the communication device through a communication channel and configured to store a data management program; and an arithmetic device connected to the communication device and the storage device through the communication channel and configured to: calculate a degree of certainability of the operation data that represents certainability of the operation data in accordance with the data management program by using an acquisition period element, an acquisition location element, and a characteristic element of the operation data as variables, reproduce the degree of certainability, store in the storage device in association with each other,generate a recovery plan of the facility and output the recovery plan to a worker terminal using the operation data stored in the storage device when the certainability stored in the storage device satisfies a predetermined condition.
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”):
As it pertains to Claim 1, the additional elements in the claims include “A facility operation support apparatus for supporting operation of a power grid, the power grid including, as equipment, electrical energy meters and electric poles that are connected to the electric energy meter through a network, the electric poles each being equipped with a sensor that detects an inclination of the respective electric pole, the apparatus comprising: a communication device”, “a storage device”, “an arithmetic device”, “in the storage device”, “and output the recovery plan to a worker terminal using the operation data stored in the storage device”.
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.
When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under Step 2A Prong Two.
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, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, 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 limitation(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing an abstract idea.
Claim 6 does not integrate recited abstract ideas into a practical application by virtue of presenting substantially similar limitations.
Claims 4 and 9 recites “a recovery plan making program”.
Claims 11-15 recite “a non-transitory storage medium”.
Claims 16, 18, 20 recite “the sensitivity of the sensor”.
Claims 17, 29, 21 recite “normality or abnormality of an electric pole”.
These do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application by analogous reasoning.
Claims 3, 5 and 8, 10 do not recite additional elements beyond those found in Claims from which they depend, and therefore do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP, 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 with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to generic computing components that are merely used
as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than
generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular
technological environment or field of use. Further, looking at the additional
elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already
present when considering the additional elements individually.
Claim 6 does not integrate recited abstract ideas into a practical application by virtue of presenting substantially similar limitations.
Claims 4 and 9 recites “a recovery plan making program”.
Claims 11-15 recite “a non-transitory storage medium”.
Claims 16, 18, 20 recite “the sensitivity of the sensor”.
Claims 17, 29, 21 recite “normality or abnormality of an electric pole”.
These do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more by analogous reasoning.
Claims 3, 5 and 8, 10 do not recite additional elements beyond those found in Claims from which they depend, and therefore do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella(US 20210157312 A1) in view of Hutson(US 20230077781 A1 ) in further view of Liao (US 20200251360 A1).
Claims 1, 6, 11
As to Claim 1,
Cella teaches:
A facility operation support apparatus for supporting operation of…the apparatus comprising: a communication device configured to receive operation data
In [1329], "These sensors may be connected either directly to a monitoring device or through an intermediary device using a mix of wired and wireless connection techniques. A monitoring device may have access to detection values corresponding to the sensors where the detection values correspond directly to the sensor output of a processed version of the data output such as a digitized or sampled version of the sensor output. The monitoring device may access and process the detection values using methods described elsewhere herein to evaluate the health of the compressor overall, evaluate the health of compressor components and/or predict potential down line issues arising from atypical compressor performance".
a storage device connected to the communication device through a communication channel and configured to store a data management program
See [1721].
and an arithmetic device connected to the communication device and the storage device through the communication channel and configured to: calculate a degree of certainability of the operation data that represents certainability o the operation data in accordanc with the data management program by using an acquisition period element, an acquisition location element, and a characteristic element of the operation data as variables
Pertaining to acquisition period, acquisition location and characteristic element in [1395], "In an illustrative and non-limiting example, the monitoring device may be used to collect and process sensor data to measure mechanical torque. The monitoring device may be in communication with or include a high resolution, high speed vibration sensor to collect data over an extended period of time, enough to measure multiple cycles of rotation. For gear driven equipment, the sampling resolution should be such that the number of samples taken per cycle is at least equal to the number of gear teeth driving the component. It will be understood that a lower sampling resolution may also be utilized, which may result in a lower confidence determination and/or taking data over a longer period of time to develop sufficient statistical confidence". Note that the location come from the specific component being monitored as well as the particulars of collecting sufficiently high resolution data from said component.
reproduce the degree of certainability,
See [1395], “In an illustrative and non-limiting example, the monitoring device may be used to collect and process sensor data to measure mechanical torque. The monitoring device may be in communication with or include a high resolution, high speed vibration sensor to collect data over an extended period of time, enough to measure multiple cycles of rotation. For gear driven equipment, the sampling resolution should be such that the number of samples taken per cycle is at least equal to the number of gear teeth driving the component. It will be understood that a lower sampling resolution may also be utilized, which may result in a lower confidence determination and/or taking data over a longer period of time to develop sufficient statistical confidence”. If lower confidence data is available, we add to our sample by continuing to collect data. We consider this modification of available data from a given sensor in light of certainability to constitute reproducing our available the available samples, and therefore our data. In light of [0067-0068] of Applicant’s specification, we understand reproduction to correspond to actions of conversion/selection that improve data quality.
degree of certainability of the operation data
See [1395] as outlined above.
Cella does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Hutson teaches:
power grid, the power grid including, as equipment, electrical energy meters and electric poles that are connected to the electric energy meter through a network, the electric poles each being equipped with a sensor that detects an inclination of the respective electric pole, the apparatus comprising:a communication device configured to receiveas operation data an operation status of the electric energy meter, the operation data obtained from the sensors of the electric poles, and a communication status of the network
Regarding power metering in [0065], “In some embodiments, any number of small cell networking devices 2a and smart sensor devices 4a-4h are arranged to provide utility grade power metering functions”. Regarding power pole incline sensor in [0041], “FIG. 6D is a power pole having one embodiment of an electric power industry structure monitor arranged as a tilt sensor mounted thereon”. Regarding a communications device to receive operations data in [0150], “In these and in other cases, the processing may also include transmitting data to a computing device. The transmitted data may include any sensor data or data derived therefrom, location data, device identification data, and the like. The data may be communicated to another electric power industry structure monitor 100a, a computing server 160, a mobile device, a user device, or some other computing device”.
Cella discloses a system for monitoring industrial environments. Hutson discloses a system for monitoring electrical power structures. Each reference discloses means for managing industrial environments, particularly through sensor data. Extending the particular sensors to the system of Cella is applicable as they are directed to the same field of endeavor, namely that of monitoring industrial environments.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the sensors of Hutson and apply that to the system of Cella. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that integrating said specific sensors is a simple substitution of the generalized industrial monitoring of Cella to the particulars of monitoring power grid infrastructure – said infrastructure would be relevant to the industrial environments of Cella and would enable a user to add more granularity to the data received in monitoring industrial environments.
Cella combined with Hutson does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
While Cella discloses the degree of certainability (as outlined above), Cella does not expressly disclose the storage or generation of a recovery plan on the basis of a degree of certainability.
However, Liao teaches:
store the operation data and the degree of certainability … in the storage device in association with each other,
In [0029], "Data store 140 may be a memory (e.g., random access memory), a drive (e.g., a hard drive, a flash drive), a database system, or another type of component or device capable of storing data. Data store 140 may include multiple storage components (e.g., multiple drives or multiple databases) that may span multiple computing devices (e.g., multiple server computers). The data store 140 may store one or more of sensor data 142 (e.g., historical sensor data 144, historical features 146, historical additional features 148, current sensor data 150, current features 152, current additional features 154, etc.), windows 156 (e.g., historical windows 156A, predicted windows 156B), levels of confidence 158, etc".
generate a recovery plan of the facility and output the recovery plan to a worker terminal using the operation data stored in the storage device when the certainability stored in the storage device satisfies a predetermined condition
In [0016], "The one or more outputs may be indicative of a level of confidence of a predicted window. The processing device may predict, based on the level of confidence of the predicted window, whether one or more components of the ion implant tool are within a pre-failure window. A pre-failure window may be a window of time (e.g., 24 hours, 48 hours) before failure of a component is predicted to occur. The processing device may further, responsive to predicting that the one or more components are within the pre-failure window, perform a corrective action associated with the ion implant tool. The corrective action (e.g., correcting and/or preemptively correcting component failures) may include providing an alert, interrupting operation of the manufacturing equipment, and/or causing the one or more components to be replaced". We consider the predetermined condition to correspond to the failure prediction predicated on the level of confidence of the predicted window, and the corrective actions to correspond to a recovery plan.
Liao discloses a system for monitoring an industrial environment and making failure predictions. Cella combined with Hutson discloses a system for monitoring industrial environments. Each reference discloses means for managing industrial environments, particularly through sensor data. Extending the analytics as recorded in Liao to the system of Cella combined with Hutson is applicable as they are directed to the same field of endeavor, namely that of managing industrial environments.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the analytics of Liao and apply that to the system of Cella combined with Hutson. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting said techniques would enable users to perform analytics and actions derivative from the measurements of Cella combined with Hutson.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 1.
Claim 11 additionally recites “a storage medium”, “a computer” “a data evaluation unit”, a “UI unit”, “a data reproduction unit”, and “a data storage unit”. The processor of [0016] of Liao teaches the hardware device that performs claimed functionality. As these units serve to describe behaviors of the computer, we consider the different states resulting from execution of encoded instructions in [0108] of Liao to be the plurality of units, and the storage itself to be the storage medium.
Claims 3, 8, 13
As to Claim 3, Cella combined with combined with Hutson and Liao teaches all the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above.
Cella does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Liao teaches:
The facility operation support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein when the arithmetic device is configured to, when the facility is affected by a disaster, collect the operation data through the communication device in accordance with the data management program
Data capture can occur through the time of a failure, in [0079], "At block 506, the processing logic determines windows (e.g., historical windows 156A) including a normal operation window for a first subset of the historical sensor data and a pre-failure window for a second subset of the historical sensor data. The processing logic may determine windows by determining a time of failure (e.g., based on a peak of sensor data values, based on a peak of health index values such as in FIG. 8B). The processing logic may determine sensor data captured more than a set amount of time (e.g., 24 hours, 48 hours) before the time of failure corresponds to the normal operation window, sensor data captured between the time of failure and the set amount of time before the failure corresponds to the pre-failure window, and the sensor data captured after the time of failure corresponds to the failure window".
and calculate the degree of certainability at the time of the disaster, wherein the operation plan of the facility is the recovery plan of the facility.
Note that our prediction is inherently for a given time failure window, meaning by calculating our confidence for a failure window we have the degree of certainability at the time of disaster. In [0016], "The one or more outputs may be indicative of a level of confidence of a predicted window. The processing device may predict, based on the level of confidence of the predicted window, whether one or more components of the ion implant tool are within a pre-failure window. A pre-failure window may be a window of time (e.g., 24 hours, 48 hours) before failure of a component is predicted to occur. The processing device may further, responsive to predicting that the one or more components are within the pre-failure window, perform a corrective action associated with the ion implant tool. The corrective action (e.g., correcting and/or preemptively correcting component failures) may include providing an alert, interrupting operation of the manufacturing equipment, and/or causing the one or more components to be replaced". We consider these corrective actions to encompass a recovery plan.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the data analytics of Liao to the system of Cella combined with Hutson. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 3.
Claim 13 additionally recites “storage medium”, “facility operation support apparatus” a “data collection unit”, “UI unit”, and “a data evaluation unit”. The processor of [0016] of Liao teaches the hardware device that performs claimed functionality. As these units serve to describe behaviors of the computer, we consider the different states resulting from execution of encoded instructions in [0108] of Liao to be the plurality of units, and the storage itself to be the storage medium.
Claims 4, 9, 14
As to Claim 4, Cella combined with Hutson and Liao teaches all the limitations of Claim 4 as discussed above.
Cella teaches:
operation data having a degree of certainability; operation data
See [1395] as outlined above.
Liao teaches:
The facility operation support apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the storage device stores a recovery plan making program, and wherein the arithmetic device is configured to generate the recovery plan of the facility using … a degree of certainability required for making the recovery plan among the … stored in the storage device in accordance with the recovery plan making program.
In [0042], "In general, functions described in one embodiment as being performed by client device 120, server machine 170, and server machine 180 can also be performed on failure prediction server 130 in other embodiments, if appropriate. In addition, the functionality attributed to a particular component can be performed by different or multiple components operating together. For example, in some embodiments, the failure prediction server 130 may receive the user input indicating manufacturing equipment 124 (e.g., a semiconductor processing tool) for the failure prediction and the failure prediction server 130 may provide the alert, shut down the manufacturing equipment 124, etc. based on the level of confidence 158 of the predicted window 156B". Here, we are given that the level of confidence factors into the decision to enact various recovery actions, and thus we have the imposition of a requisite degree of certainability, namely that indicating sufficient predictive certainty to enact a recovery action.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the data analytics of Liao to the system of Cella combined with Hutson. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 4.
Claim 14 additionally recites “facility operation support apparatus”, “a recovery plan making unit”, and “a data storage unit”. The processor of [0016] teaches the hardware device that performs claimed functionality. As these units serve to describe behaviors of the computer, we consider the different states resulting from execution of encoded instructions in [0108] of Liao to be the plurality of units, and the storage itself to be the storage medium.
Claims 5, 10, 15
As to Claim 5, Cella combined with Hutson and Liao teaches all the limitations of Claim 4 as discussed above.
Cella teaches:
using an occurrence order of a failure caused by the disaster and a hierarchical relationship in the facility that represent an acquisition period of the operation data,
Regarding the mechanics of data acquisition pertaining to period information and hierarchical templates, in [0470], "In embodiments, the local data collection system is configured to obtain long blocks of data at a single relatively high-sampling rate as opposed to multiple sets of data taken at different sampling rates. In embodiments, the single relatively high-sampling rate corresponds to a maximum frequency of about forty kilohertz. In embodiments, the long blocks of data are for a duration that is in excess of one minute. In embodiments, the local data collection system includes multiple data acquisition units each having an onboard card set configured to store calibration information and maintenance history of a data acquisition unit in which the onboard card set is located". In [0471], "In embodiments, the local data collection system is configured to create data acquisition routes based on hierarchical templates that each include the data collection bands related to machines associated with the data acquisition routes. In embodiments, at least one of the hierarchical templates is associated with multiple interconnected elements of the first machine. In embodiments, at least one of the hierarchical templates is associated with similar elements associated with at least the first machine and a second machine. In embodiments, at least one of the hierarchical templates is associated with at least the first machine being proximate in location to a second machine".
when the failure is recovered, execute end-to-end communication using the communication device,
In [2973], "In embodiments, the end-to-end real time or periodic connection between a set of industrial digital twins 13734 through the platform 13700, the edge system 13718, control systems 13742, data collectors 13702, SLAM systems 13714, SLAMDC systems 13740 and sensors 13722 to industrial entities 13736 and their various onboard sensors, data collection systems, diagnostic systems, buses, and the like may facilitate control over the various elements of these systems via manipulation of elements in interfaces and dashboards 13738 of the digital twins 13734, including ones that are linked to, included in, or integrated with one or more applications 13732, such as via APIs". Note the maintenance of this end-to-end system after the performance of actions, in [0219], "In embodiments, the industrial-workpiece digital twins are a first industrial-workpiece digital twin corresponding to the industrial workpiece prior to performance of any physical interaction and a second industrial-workpiece digital twin corresponding to the industrial workpiece after performance of the set of physical interactions".
and detect a hidden failure of the facility through the end-to- end communication.
In [2984], "In embodiments, the sensor kit 28700 is configured to self-monitor for failing components (e.g., failing sensors 28702) and to report failing components to the operator. For example, in some embodiments, the edge device 28704 may be configured to detect failure of a sensor 28702 based on a lack of reporting from a sensor, a lack of response to requests (e.g., “pings”), and/or based on unreliable data (e.g., data regularly falling out of the expected sensor readings)". Note that we are interpreting this overall workflow as following enacting a recovery plan, we utilize our end to end communication to run diagnostics on the overall system to detect additional component failures.
Cella does not disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Liao teaches:
The facility operation support apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the arithmetic device is configured to: evaluate whether the degree of certainability is unstable in accordance with the data management program
Regarding a threshold standard of accuracy in [0032], "The validation engine 184 may be capable of validating a trained machine learning model 190 using the validation set from data set generator 172. The validation engine 184 may determine an accuracy of each of the trained machine learning models 190 based on the validation set. The validation engine 184 may discard trained machine learning models 190 that have an accuracy that does not meet a threshold accuracy".
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the data analytics of Liao to the system of Cella combined with Hutson. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 5.
Claim 15 additionally recites “storage medium”, “data evaluation unit”, “data collection unit“. The processor of [0016] of Liao teaches the hardware device that performs claimed functionality. As these units serve to describe behaviors of the computer, we consider the different states resulting from execution of encoded instructions in [0108] of Liao to be the plurality of units, and the storage itself to be the storage medium.
Claims 17, 19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella(US 20210157312 A1) in view of Hutson(US 20230077781 A1) in further view of Liao (US 20200251360 A1) in further view of Metts(US 12235300 B1) in further view of Pogorelik(US 20180205783 A1).
Claims 17, 19, 21
As to Claim 17, Cella combined with Hutson and Liao teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Cella teaches:
and determining the degree of certainability according to a presence or absence of a sensor…and a data missing status of smart meter sensor data.
In [2287], “Benchmarking data 12240 may reference, generally, expected data (e.g., according to an expert system 12242, user input, prior experience, and/or modeling outputs), data from an offset system (including as adjusted for differences in the contemplated system 12200), aggregated data for similar systems (e.g., as external data 12246 which may be cloud-based), and the like. Benchmarking data may be relative to the entire system, the network, a node on the network, a data collector, and/or a single sensor or selected group of sensors. Example and non-limiting benchmarking data include… a signal diversity 12332 (e.g., whether systematic gaps exist which increase the consequences of degradation—e.g., 1% of the data is missing, but it's s systematically a single critical sensor; do critical sensed parameters have multiple potential sources of information)”. As we identify sensors, with attention paid to potential backups, and what data is missing for the purpose of data quality assessment, we consider this to be a factor in data certainability.
Cella does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Hutson teaches:
a normality or abnormality of an electric pole,
In [0020], “And in some cases, the at least one accelerometer circuit includes at least one 3-axis accelerometer circuit arranged to detect motion due to tilt, sway, deflection, shock, falling, or displacement caused by at least one of wind, earthquake, structural impact, flooding, age-related failure, or vandalism”. Discerning between possible natural disasters and failures is effectuated by means of a plurality of sensors in [0021], “accelerometer readings (e.g., to capture tilt information, vibration information, rate of change information, and other information), tilt (e.g., amount of deflection from true vertical in 360 degrees), vibration, weather information (e.g., rainfall, windspeed, humidity, flooding conditions proximal the power pole 16a, and the like), gunshot detection, fire detection, environmental information (e.g., pollen count, particulate count, carbon count, air quality, and the like)”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the sensors of Hutson and apply that to the system of Cella. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Liao teaches:
The facility operation support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the arithmetic device is configured to reproduce the degree of certainability according to a reproduction process executed on sensor data to make a … recovery plan,
In [0016], "A processing device may receive, from a plurality of sensors associated with manufacturing equipment (e.g., an ion implant tool), current sensor data corresponding to features (e.g., pressure, temperature, flow, power, etc.). The processing device may further perform feature analysis to generate additional features for the current sensor data…The one or more outputs may be indicative of a level of confidence of a predicted window. The processing device may predict, based on the level of confidence of the predicted window, whether one or more components of the ion implant tool are within a pre-failure window…The processing device may further, responsive to predicting that the one or more components are within the pre-failure window, perform a corrective action associated with the ion implant tool. The corrective action (e.g., correcting and/or preemptively correcting component failures) may include providing an alert, interrupting operation of the manufacturing equipment, and/or causing the one or more components to be replaced". We consider the predetermined condition to correspond to the failure prediction predicated on the level of confidence of the predicted window. Note the generalizability of the adverse event monitoring that is applied to a variety of equipment failures.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the analytics of Liao and apply that to the system of Cella combined with Hutson. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Cella combined with Hutson and Liao does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Metts teaches:
blackout
Given the generalizability of Liao in forming recovery plans for various types of failures, we note blackout monitoring in Col 16 Line 57-67, “Each status indicator 822, 824, 826, 828 indicates electric power grid status within its respective map cell, based on notifications 114 generated by notification subsystem 106. In this example, a status indicator including a check mark indicates no reported electric power events within its correspond cell, while a status indicator including an “X” indicates reported occurrence of at least one electric power event within the corresponding cell. Accordingly, there are no reported electric power events within cells 302, 304, and 308, but at least one electric power event, e.g., a power outage, has been reported within cell 306”.
Cella combined with Hutson and Liao discloses a system for monitoring facilities with a distributed sensor network for failures. Metts discloses a system meant to evaluate power grids with a distributed sensor network for outages. Each reference discloses means of monitoring industrial settings with a distributed sensor network. Extending the lookback weighting and outage monitoring as recorded in Metts to the system of Cella combined with Hutson and Liao is applicable as they are directed both to the shared field of endeavor of live industrial systems monitoring and the problem of interpreting sensor data and reliability to inform such live monitoring and analysis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the outage monitoring as taught in Metts and apply that to the system of Cella combined with Hutson and Liao. The outage monitoring as taught in Metts is a simple substitution as to the type of failure that Liao supports monitoring for, applying our failure response plans to the particular problem of electrical grid management. Applying the techniques of Metts to Cella combined with Hutson and Liao would enable the teachings of Cella combined with Hutson and Liao to be applied to the specific problem of electrical power grid management.
Pogorelik teaches:
the reproduction process including conversion and selection based on sensor data characteristics and system configuration data,
In [0129-0130], “Selected measurement(s) 718 may represent measurement(s) deemed (directly or indirectly), to be of the highest quality (e.g., with respect to accuracy, precision, and/or other measure of quality), amongst measurements 704. In the example of FIG. 7, evaluation engine 705 includes multiple modules or engines, each to identify a subset of measurements 704 and/or to rank measurements 704 based on respective evaluation techniques. In another embodiment(s), selection engine 705 may include a subset of the evaluation engines illustrated in FIG. 7, and/or other evaluation engine(s) 714”. See [0133] for sensor specification comparison.
Cella combined with Hutson, Liao and Metts discloses a system for monitoring facilities with a distributed sensor network for failures. Pogorelik discloses a system meant to evaluate distributed sensors for reliability and confidence. Each reference discloses means of monitoring with a distributed sensor network. Extending the parameter based weighting of sensor reliability as recorded in Pogorelik to the system of Cella combined with Hutson, Liao and Metts is applicable as they are directed both to the shared field of endeavor of live systems monitoring and the problem of interpreting sensor data and reliability to inform such live monitoring and analysis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the parameter based weighting of sensor reliability as taught in Pogorelik and apply that to the system as taught in Cella combined with Hutson, Liao, Metts. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting said parameter based weighting of sensor reliability would aid the system in comparing sensor values more accurately, similar but more expansively to the benefit introduced by Metts.
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 17.
Conclusion
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 THEODORE L XIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/THEODORE XIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3623
/CHARLES GUILIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights