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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-7, 15, 16, and 18-28 are currently pending and addressed below; claims 8-14 and 17 have been cancelled; claims 2, 4, 15, and 16 have been amended; and claims 18-28 have been added.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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. No action on the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/6/2024 was filed before the mailing date of the present Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-7, 15, 16, and 18-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claims 1-7 recite a method, therefore claims 1-7 are a process, which is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claims 15 and 18-23 recites a device, therefore claims 15 and 18-23 is a machine, which is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claims 16 and 24-28 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, therefore claims 16 and 24-28 is a machine, which is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within 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 (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for distributing an energy recovery torque of a vehicle, comprising:
acquiring an actual yaw rate of the vehicle in a driving process; and
determining a first distribution parameter of front and rear axle torques according to the actual yaw rate, wherein the first distribution parameter is a stability distribution parameter of the front and rear axle torques of the vehicle.
These limitations, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as certain mental processes and/or mathematical concepts. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as in the mind (or on paper). For example, “determining a first distribution parameter of front and rear axle torques…” encompass a human mentally determining the stability of the front and rear axles based on received data. Thus, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims of similar scope of claim 1 also recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 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. 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 method for distributing an energy recovery torque of a vehicle, comprising:
acquiring an actual yaw rate of the vehicle in a driving process; and
determining a first distribution parameter of front and rear axle torques according to the actual yaw rate, wherein the first distribution parameter is a stability distribution parameter of the front and rear axle torques of the vehicle.
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.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations 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 or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular process for determining the stability of the front and rear axles based on received data, 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).
Specifically with respect to claims 15 and 16, the additional elements of a memory and processor are mere instructions to apply the above-noted abstract idea by using a general processor and computer system to perform the process. In particular, the devices recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program and processors determining the stability of the front and rear axles based on received data amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, the “acquiring an actual yaw rate…” amounts to nothing more than 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 limitation of “acquiring an actual yaw rate…” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Additionally, the remaining elements 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):
a. data gathering… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 1, 15, and 16 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 18-28 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, claims 2-7 and 18-28 are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (“determining a target yaw rate, a maximum yaw rate, and a first initial distribution parameter…,” “acquiring a steering wheel angle, a wheelbase, a wheel tread, an actual deceleration, an actual lateral acceleration, an actual vehicle speed…,” “determining an initial yaw rate…obtaining an initial yaw rate correction parameter…determining the target yaw rate…determining a first sub-initial distribution parameter…determining a second sub-initial distribution parameter…,” “determining a second distribution parameter…determining a first fusion parameter…determining a distribution parameter…,” “determining the driving condition according to the actual yaw rate…” Therefore, dependent claims 2-7 and 18-28 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 15, and 16.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 15, 16, 18, 21, 23, 24, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 10,518,775 to Velazquez Alcantar et al.
Regarding claim 1, Velazquez Alcantar et al. discloses:
A method for distributing an energy recovery torque of a vehicle (Col. 1, ll. 34-42), comprising:
acquiring an actual yaw rate of the vehicle in a driving process (Col. 4, ll. 1 – 15 describing acquiring an actual yaw rate using a yaw rate sensor); and
determining a first distribution parameter of front and rear axle torques according to the actual yaw rate, wherein the first distribution parameter is a stability distribution parameter of the front and rear axle torques of the vehicle (Col. 5, ll. 1 – 30 describing determining a first distribution parameter of the front and rear axles torques according to the measured yaw rate).
Regarding claim 2, Velazquez Alcantar et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Velazquez Alcantar et al. further discloses:
wherein before determining the first distribution parameter of the front and rear axle torques according to the actual yaw rate, the method further comprises:
determining a target yaw rate of the vehicle, a maximum yaw rate of the vehicle, and a first initial distribution parameter of the front and rear axle torques of the vehicle (Col. 6, ll. 28 – 45 describing determining a target yaw rate of the vehicle, a maximum yaw rate of the vehicle from a lookup table, and an initial parameter of the front and rear axles);
wherein determining the first distribution parameter of the front and rear axle torques according to the actual yaw rate comprises:
obtaining the first distribution parameter by correcting the first initial distribution parameter according to at least one of a relationship between the actual yaw rate and the target yaw rate or a relationship between the actual yaw rate and the maximum yaw rate (Col. 6, ll. 28 – 45, l. 58 – Col. 7, l. 26 describing determining the first distribution parameter by correcting the initial parameter according to the difference between the actual yaw rate and the target yaw rate).
Regarding claim 5, Velazquez Alcantar et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Velazquez Alcantar et al. further discloses:
acquiring a road condition, a driving condition (Col. 4, ll. 1-28 describing the various sensors used to determine the road conditions and driving conditions of the vehicle), an actual vehicle speed (Col. and a torque request (Col. 4, ll. 66-67 braking torque request) of the vehicle in the driving process;
determining a second distribution parameter of the front and rear axle torques according to the actual vehicle speed and the torque request, wherein the second distribution parameter is an economic distribution parameter of the front and rear axle torques of the vehicle (Col. 5, ll. 14-30 describing a second distribution parameter of the front and rear axle torques; NOTE: The specification does not provide a definition of an economic distribution. Therefore, the term economic distribution parameter is being interpreted as simply a parameter);
determining a first fusion parameter corresponding to the first distribution parameter according to the road condition and the driving condition; and determining a distribution parameter of the front and rear axle torques of the vehicle according to the first fusion parameter, the first distribution parameter and the second distribution parameter (Col. 4, l. 66 – Col. 7, l. 5 describing determining the distribution parameter of the front and rear axle torques by fusing the parameters of the road condition and driving condition, the first distribution parameter determined at the time of receiving the torque request, and the second distribution parameter, which is determined after modifying the initial distribution of the front and rear axle torques).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Velazquez Alcantar et al. and Ding et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 5. Velazquez Alcantar et al. further discloses:
wherein before acquiring the road condition, the driving condition, the actual vehicle speed and the torque request of the vehicle in the driving process, the method further comprises:
determining the driving condition according to the actual yaw rate of the vehicle, an actual longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle, an actual lateral acceleration of the vehicle and the actual vehicle speed (Col. 4, ll. 1-18 describing determining the driving condition based on the actual yaw rate, longitudinal acceleration, later acceleration, and vehicle speed).
Claims 15 and 18, 21, and 23 contains all the limitations of claims 1, 2, 5, and 7, but with the additional elements of a processor and memory (Col. 3, ll. 19-42 describing the processors and memory used in the method). Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, and 7 applies equally as well to claims 15 and 18, 21, and 23.
Claims 16, 24, 27, and 28 contains all the limitations of claims 1, 2, 5, and 7, but with the additional elements of non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and a processor (Col. 3, ll. 19-42 describing the processors and memory used in the method; Col. 4, ll. 57-65 describing the computer-readable medium). Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, and 7 applies equally as well to claims 16 and 24, 27, and 28.
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 3, 19, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velazquez Alcantar et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0090004 to Ienaga and CN 113085578 to Ding et al.
Regarding claim 3, Velazquez Alcantar et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Velazquez Alcantar et al. further discloses:
wherein determining the target yaw rate of the vehicle, the maximum yaw rate of the vehicle, and the first initial distribution parameter of the front and rear axle torques of the vehicle comprises:
acquiring a steering wheel angle (Col. 5, ll. 44 – 47 describing acquiring a steering wheel angle), a wheelbase, a wheel tread, an actual deceleration, an actual lateral acceleration, an actual vehicle speed (Col. 4, ll. 1 – 18 describing acquiring actual deceleration, lateral acceleration, and vehicle speed) and a road adhesion coefficient of the vehicle;
determining the target yaw rate of the vehicle according to the steering wheel angle and the actual vehicle speed (Col. 6, ll. 28 – 45 describing determining the target yaw rate according to the steering wheel angle and the actual vehicle speed);
determining the first initial distribution parameter of the front and rear axle torques of the vehicle according to the actual yaw rate, the actual deceleration, the actual lateral acceleration and the actual vehicle speed (Col. 4, ll. 1-18 describing acquiring this data; Col. 5, ll. 1-13 describing using this data to determine the initial distribution parameter of the front and rear axle torques).
Velazquez Alcantar et al. does not expressly disclose acquiring a wheelbase, a wheel tread, a road adhesion coefficient, or determining the maximum yaw rate according to the road adhesion coefficient.
Ienaga, in the same field of endeavor, teaches acquiring wheelbase and wheel tread in determining the target yaw rate (¶ [0040] describing acquiring wheelbase and wheel treads in determining target yaw rate).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Velazquez Alcantar et al.’s invention to incorporate acquiring the wheelbase and wheel tread in determining target yaw rate, as taught by Ienaga, with a reasonable expectation of success in optimally distributing the torque to the left and right wheel on the basis of steering and to redistribute the torque as necessary (Ienaga at ¶¶ [0035] – [0040]).
Ding et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining the maximum yaw rate according to the road adhesion coefficient (Page 4, l. 8 describing calculating the maximum yaw rate according to the road attachment coefficient; see also Page 4, l. 17 equation using the road adhesion coefficient).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Velazquez Alcantar et al.’s invention to incorporate determining the max yaw rate based on the road adhesion coefficient, as taught by Ding et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in realizing reasonable distribution of front and rear shaft torque so as to improve stability of the vehicle (Ding et al. at Page 3, ll. 16-17).
Claim 19 contains all the limitations of claim 3, but with the additional elements of a processor and memory (Col. 3, ll. 19-42 describing the processors and memory used in the method). Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection of claim 3 applies equally as well to claim 19.
Claim 25 contains all the limitations of claims 3, but with the additional elements of non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and a processor (Col. 3, ll. 19-42 describing the processors and memory used in the method; Col. 4, ll. 57-65 describing the computer-readable medium). Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection of claims 3 applies equally as well to claim 25.
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 20, 22, and 26 would be objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, if Applicant overcomes the above § 101 rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of potential allowable subject matter:
The combination of claim limitations of determining a first sub-initial distribution parameter of the front and rear axle torques of the vehicle according to the actual yaw rate and the actual deceleration, determining a second sub-initial distribution parameter of the front and rear axle torques of the vehicle according to the actual lateral acceleration and the actual vehicle speed, and determining the first initial distribution parameter according to the first sub- initial distribution parameter and the second sub-initial distribution parameter of claims 4, 20, and 26, when considered with all other claim features contained in the claims from which claims 4, 20, and 26 depend, renders the claim, as well as its dependents, novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
The combination of claim limitations of a first front axle torque distribution parameter and a first rear axle torque distribution parameter, and the second distribution parameter comprises a second front axle torque distribution parameter and a second rear axle torque distribution parameter, wherein determining the distribution parameter of the front and rear axle torques of the vehicle according to the first fusion parameter, the first distribution parameter and the second distribution parameter comprises determining a second fusion parameter corresponding to the second distribution parameter according to the first fusion parameter, determining a front axle torque distribution parameter of the vehicle according to the first fusion parameter, the first front axle torque distribution parameter, the second fusion parameter and the second front axle torque distribution parameter and determining a rear axle torque distribution parameter of the vehicle according to the first fusion parameter, the first rear axle torque distribution parameter, the second fusion parameter and the second rear axle torque distribution parameter of claims 6 and 22, when considered with all other claim features contained in the claims from which claims 6 and 22 depend, renders the claim, as well as its dependents, novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
The closest prior art, Velazquez Alcantar and Ding, teaches acquiring an actual yaw rate of a vehicle in a driving process, determining a first distribution parameter of the front and rear axle torques relating to a stability distribution parameter of the front and rear axle torques of the vehicle. However, there is no teaching determining a first sub-initial distribution parameter of the front and rear axle torques of the vehicle according to the actual yaw rate and the actual deceleration, determining a second sub-initial distribution parameter of the front and rear axle torques of the vehicle according to the actual lateral acceleration and the actual vehicle speed (claims 4, 20, and 26), or determining a second fusion parameter corresponding to the second distribution parameter according to the first fusion parameter, determining a front axle torque distribution parameter of the vehicle according to the first fusion parameter, the first front axle torque distribution parameter, the second fusion parameter and the second front axle torque distribution parameter and determining a rear axle torque distribution parameter of the vehicle according to the first fusion parameter, the first rear axle torque distribution parameter, the second fusion parameter and the second rear axle torque distribution parameter (claims 6 and 22).
As such, the combination of Velazquez Alcantar and Ding does not teach the combination of determining a first sub-initial distribution parameter of the front and rear axle torques of the vehicle according to the actual yaw rate and the actual deceleration, determining a second sub-initial distribution parameter of the front and rear axle torques of the vehicle according to the actual lateral acceleration and the actual vehicle speed, and determining the first initial distribution parameter according to the first sub- initial distribution parameter and the second sub-initial distribution parameter, as required by claims 4, 20, and 26, or a first front axle torque distribution parameter and a first rear axle torque distribution parameter, and the second distribution parameter comprises a second front axle torque distribution parameter and a second rear axle torque distribution parameter, wherein determining the distribution parameter of the front and rear axle torques of the vehicle according to the first fusion parameter, the first distribution parameter and the second distribution parameter comprises determining a second fusion parameter corresponding to the second distribution parameter according to the first fusion parameter, determining a front axle torque distribution parameter of the vehicle according to the first fusion parameter, the first front axle torque distribution parameter, the second fusion parameter and the second front axle torque distribution parameter and determining a rear axle torque distribution parameter of the vehicle according to the first fusion parameter, the first rear axle torque distribution parameter, the second fusion parameter and the second rear axle torque distribution parameter, as required by claims 6 and 22. No other prior art has been found which remedies the deficiencies of the Velazquez Alcantar and Ding combination.
Therefore, the claims 4, 6, 20, 22, and 26 would be allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0297585 to Lian et al. teaches acquiring an actual yaw rate of a vehicle, determining a distribution parameter of the front and rear axle torques, and determining a target yaw rate, and a maximum yaw rate (¶¶ [0036] – [0039]);
U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0183008 to Isono et al. teaches acquiring an actual yaw rate and a target yaw rate (¶¶ [0057] – [0059]);
U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0102778 to Kim et al. teaches acquiring an actual and target yaw rate for distributing energy recovery torque of a vehicle (¶¶ [0054] – [0057]);
U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0099677 to Sugai teaches acquiring an actual and target yaw rate for continuously changing the torque distribution between the front and rear wheels (¶¶ [0011] – [0016]);
NPL, “An Energy-Saving Torque Vectoring Control Strategy for Electric Vehicles Considering Handling Stability Under Extreme Condition” to Hu et al. teaches acquiring an actual and target yaw rate for stability determinations (See Section III – Torque Distribution Module and Section IV – Additional Yaw Moment Decision Module);
NPL, “An Optimal Torque Distribution Control Strategy for Four-Wheel Independent Drive Electric Vehicles Considering Energy Economy” to Hu et al. teaches acquiring an actual and target torque for vehicle stability control purposes (See Section II – Vehicle Modeling and Section III – Controller Design).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm ET.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/JDH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
6/8/26
Prosecution Insights