DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) is/are: “slip module” and “evaluating module” in claims 16-26; “vertical force calculating module” in claim 19; “friction braking torque calculating module” in claim 20; “slip regulator” in claim 28; and “plausibility checking device” in claim 29.
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, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Corresponding structure for the claimed “slip module”, “evaluating module”, “vertical force calculating module”, and “friction braking torque calculating module” is given on page 4, lines 5-12 of the specification as-filed.
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
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 28-29 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.
Regarding claim 28, claim limitation “slip regulator” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The claimed “slip regulator” is described on page 14, lines 1-6 of the specification as-filed. However, no corresponding structure for the “slip regulator” is provided. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 29, claim limitation “plausibility checking device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The claimed “plausibility checking device” is described on page 14, lines 7-11 of the specification as-filed. However, no corresponding structure for the “plausibility checking device” is provided. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites, in part, “determine a wheel circumferential speed value and a sliding indication which indicates any sliding of a respective axle of the rail vehicle” and “determine a new estimated movement value of the estimating device on a basis of the Kalman-estimated vehicle speed value, the wheel circumferential speed value, and the sliding indications.” These limitations, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind in the form of judgements and/or calculations. Additionally or alternatively, the limitations are mathematical operations. Mental processes and mathematical operations have been held as being abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
The claim additionally recites “on a basis of the input values and on a basis of a Kalman filtration, determine a Kalman-estimated vehicle speed value.” This limitations, when read in light of the specification, is a mathematical operation. A Kalman filter is a known mathematical algorithm and thus the claim limitation is a mathematical operation.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not purport the improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology, is not applied by way of a particular machine, does not effect a tangible transformation in state of a particular article, and is not otherwise applied in some meaningful way beyond being generally linked to a specific technological environment, namely rail vehicles (see MPEP 2106.05).
The claim recites an additional element of “a Kalman filter to be supplied, on an input side, with a plurality of input values including torque values, vertical force values, wheel size values, and wheel rotary speed values.” In light of the specification, the Kalman filter as recited in the claim is a conventional Kalman filter used in the known manner to those of ordinary skill in the art. As such, the element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim also recites additional elements of “an estimating device”, “a slip module to be supplied, on an input side, with the torque values, the wheel size values, the wheel rotary speed values, and a respective prior estimated movement value from the estimating device”, and “an evaluating module.” As noted above under the claim interpretation of these elements under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), these elements are generic computing components. The invocation of generic computing components to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites “during a braking operation of the rail vehicle, to output the wheel circumferential speed value of an axle with a highest wheel circumferential speed value to said evaluating module; during a driving operation, to output the wheel circumferential speed value of an axle with a smallest wheel circumferential speed value to said evaluating module; and during a sliding of all the axles, to output an all-sliding indication to said evaluating module.” These limitations, when read in light of the specification and the context of base claim 16, are still mental processes and/or mathematical operations. The claim merely further specifies what information is output during specific scenarios. The collection, analysis, and outputting of available information has been held as still being abstract ideas (see Electric Power Group, LLC. v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites “said evaluating module is configured: during a braking or driving operation of the rail vehicle and no sliding of all the axles, to output the wheel circumferential speed value as the new estimated movement value; and during a sliding of all the axles, to determine the new estimated movement value on a basis of the Kalman-estimated vehicle speed value of the Kalman filter.” These limitations, when read in light of the specification and the context of base claim 16, are still mental processes and/or mathematical operations. The claim merely further specifies what information is output during specific scenarios. As noted previously, the collection, analysis, and outputting of available information has been held as still being abstract ideas (see Electric Power Group, LLC. v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites “a vertical force calculating module configured to generate, at least on a basis of the torque values that are also used by the Kalman filter, the wheel size values, and the respective prior estimated movement value of the estimating device, a vertical force value per axle; and wherein each of the vertical force values of the vertical force calculating module forms one of the vertical force values to be used by the Kalman filter.” These limitations, when read in light of the specification and the context of base claim 16, are still mental processes and/or mathematical operations.
Additionally, the claimed “vertical force calculating module” is a generic computing component as noted above in the claim interpretation of the element under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As previously noted, the invocation of generic computing components to perform an abstract idea has been held as not being significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites “a friction braking torque calculating module configured to generate, at least on a basis of a braking pressure value per axle, the wheel size values, and the respective prior estimated movement value of the estimating device, a friction braking torque value per axle; and wherein each of the friction braking torque values forms one of the torque values to be used by the Kalman filter.” These limitations, when read in light of the specification and the context of base claim 16, are still mental processes and/or mathematical operations.
Additionally, the claimed “friction braking torque calculating module” is a generic computing component as noted above in the claim interpretation of the element under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As previously noted, the invocation of generic computing components to perform an abstract idea has been held as not being significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites “the Kalman filter uses axle-related motor torque values as torque values or takes the axle- related motor torque values into account.” This does not change the operation of the Kalman filter, as claimed in claim 16, from being a mathematical operation as discussed above in the rejection of claim 16.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites “the Kalman filter is an extended Kalman filter.” In light of the specification, this does not change the Kalman filter from operating in its known and conventional manner and its configuration from being a mathematical operation.
Regarding claim 23, the claim recites “the estimating device is configured to output, as a further estimated movement value, a vehicle acceleration value indicating an acceleration of the rail vehicle.” As noted previously, the collection, analysis, and outputting of available information has been held as still being abstract ideas (see Electric Power Group, LLC. v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Regarding claim 24, the claim recites “the Kalman filter is configured to also determine a traction value relating to a force-rail contact per axle.” This limitation, in light of the specification and the conventional operation of a Kalman filter, is a mathematical operation.
The claim additionally recites “the estimating device is configured to output the traction values.” As noted previously, the collection, analysis, and outputting of available information has been held as still being abstract ideas (see Electric Power Group, LLC. v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Regarding claim 25, the claim recites the device further comprises “a computer and a memory connected to said computer, said memory having stored therein: a Kalman filter software module which, when executed by said computer, forms the Kalman filter; a slip software module which, when executed by said computer, forms the slip module; and an evaluating software module which, when executed by said computer, forms the evaluating module.” As noted above, the invocation of generic computing components to perform an abstract idea has been held as not being significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 26, the claim recites “said memory has stored therein: a vertical force calculating software module which, when executed by said computer, forms a vertical force calculating module; and/or a friction braking torque calculating software module which, when executed by said computer, forms a friction braking torque calculating module.” As noted above, the invocation of generic computing components to perform an abstract idea has been held as not being significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 27, the claim recites “[a] rail vehicle, comprising an estimating device according to claim 16.” As such, claim 27 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 16 above. Additionally, the “rail vehicle” as claimed is not a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), but rather specifies the technological environment for application of the claimed abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Regarding claim 28, the claim recites “a slip regulator connected to said estimating device, said slip regulator being configured to regulate the slip of the respective axle while taking into account the estimated traction values per axle, the wheel circumferential speed values, and the respective estimated movement value from said estimating device.” This limitation is recited at a high level of generality such that it is not required that the slip regulator perform some form of active control to adjust the slip of the axle, which would be a tangible transformation in state of the rail vehicle (see MPEP 2106.05(c)).
The specification states the following (page 14, lines 1-6 of the specification as-filed):
PNG
media_image1.png
162
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The specification does not show what the “regulating” involves. Therefore, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the slip regulator may simply monitor the slipping of the axles and “regulate” the slip by recording and providing some form of output to an operator. The display of available information has been held as being an extra-solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and is not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites “a plausibility checking device connected to said estimating device, said plausibility checking device being configured to carry out, with the estimated movement values from the estimating device, a plausibility check in relation to movement information from other sources.” This limitation, read in light of the specification (see page 14, lines 7-11 of the specification as-filed), is recited at a high level of generality such that it is a mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being can mentally view an estimated movement value and determine if such a result is plausible or not. For example, a human being while driving a vehicle may view a speedometer reading of 200 mph and determine mentally that such a value is implausible.
Regarding claim 30, the claim recites, in part, “determining with the wheel size values, the wheel rotary speed values, and a respective prior estimated movement value, a wheel circumferential speed value and a sliding indication which indicates any sliding of a respective axle; and determining a new estimated movement value on a basis of the Kalman- estimated vehicle speed value, the wheel circumferential speed value, and the sliding indications.” These limitations, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind in the form of judgements and/or calculations. Additionally or alternatively, the limitations are mathematical operations. Mental processes and mathematical operations have been held as being abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
The claim additionally recites “based on the input values and based on a Kalman filtration, determining a Kalman-estimated vehicle speed value.” This limitations, when read in light of the specification, is a mathematical operation. A Kalman filter is a known mathematical algorithm and thus the claim limitation is a mathematical operation.
The claim additionally recites “supplying to an input side of a Kalman filter input values, including at least torque values, vertical force values, wheel size values, and wheel rotary speed values.” The collection and analysis of available information has been held as being within the realm of abstract ideas (see Electric Power Group). Additionally, the transmission of data, such as inputting data into a filter, has been held as a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Additionally, in light of the specification, the Kalman filter as recited in the claim is a conventional Kalman filter used in the known manner to those of ordinary skill in the art. As such, the element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not purport the improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology, is not applied by way of a particular machine, does not effect a tangible transformation in state of a particular article, and is not otherwise applied in some meaningful way beyond being generally linked to a specific technological environment, namely rail vehicles (see MPEP 2106.05).
The claim recites additional elements of “a rail vehicle having at least two axles.” However, this limitation does not limit the claimed method to execution by way of a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)). Instead, this merely links the claimed method to a particular technological environment, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Barraud et al. (US 2025/0130338 A1) generally teaches:
The invention relates to a method for estimating the speed of a rail vehicle (100) comprising an inertial measurement unit (1) that is configured to receive GNSS signals that are associated with a satellite navigation system, comprising the following steps: —analyzing (1031) the received GNSS signals to determine the reliability of these GNSS signals; —a step of defining a measurement vector comprising the measurements taken by the initial measurement unit; —defining a state vector comprising components that are associated with the speed of the vehicle, with the attitude of the vehicle and with the bias errors in the angular velocity and acceleration measurements; —applying (1035) a state estimator to estimate the state vector using the measurement vector; —correcting the estimate of the state vector on the basis of the GNSS signals depending on the determined reliability of these GNSS signals; —extracting the speed of the rail vehicle and the error associated with the speed of the rail vehicle (100) from the corrected state vector.
Frea (US 2024/0201221 A1) generally teaches:
This invention generally lies within the railway vehicle sector; in particular, this invention relates to a method for estimating a longitudinal acceleration of at least one railway vehicle.
Johannes (US 2022/0185348 A1) generally teaches:
A method detects systematic deviations during a determination of a movement variable of a ground-based, more particularly rail-based, vehicle. To optimize the operation of the vehicle, more particularly to minimize operational restrictions during operation of the vehicle, the method proposes that—based on a measurement value, assigned to a time, of at least one sensor, a value, assigned to the time, of the movement variable is determined and—subject to the value, assigned to the time, of the movement variable and a statistical sensor accuracy value, determined for this value, of the at least one sensor, a test variable value, assigned to the time, is formed and is compared in a comparison with a predefined test bound in order to make an assumption regarding an existence of a systematic deviation. The assumption is subject to a comparison result obtained from the comparison.
Oswald et al. (US 2022/0185346 A1) generally teaches:
A monitoring system includes a sensor that may output a sensed moving speed of a vehicle system. The monitoring system may also include one or more processors in communication with the sensor. The one or more processors may calculate a predicted speed of the vehicle system based on one or more forces acting on the vehicle system, and compare the predicted speed with the sensed moving speed. The one or more processors may also control movement of the vehicle system based on comparing the predicted speed with the sensed moving speed.
Tione (US 2021/0039691 A1) generally teaches:
A method includes estimating, as a function of an angular speed of wheels of an axle of a vehicle, a value of adhesion of a contact area of the wheels of said axle to a route, and calculating a value of slip of the wheels of said axle. The method also includes generating signals representative of a derivative of said adhesion as a function of the slip of the wheels of said axle, and calculating an error signal as a difference between a value of said derivative and a predetermined reference value. The method includes generating, via an adaptive filter that implements a Least Mean Square (LMS) algorithm, a driving signal based on said derivative. The LMS algorithm is continuously adapted based on the error signal to reduce and keep the error signal substantially at zero. The method includes applying said driving signal to a torque control module.
Herden et al. (US 2013/0261924 A1) generally teaches:
A method for controlling an antislip-regulated friction brake system of a rail vehicle or rail vehicle train having a number of braked axles which subjects at least two selected axles to a braking pressure exceeding the braking pressure required for braking; measures at least one variable representing the maximum transmittable frictional force in each case between the wheels of the selected axles and the rail; prepares a list associating the selected axles with the respectively transmittable brake friction force; identifies at least one brake-slipping axle from the selected axles in which a brake slip exceeding a predetermined extent occurs; calculates lost braking work; identifies from the list at least one axle in which brake-slipping does not occur or occurs to a permissible extent; and applies the brakes on at least one axle.
Rehberger et al. (DE 102019211944 A1) generally teaches:
A method is disclosed for determining a car speed (vWagen) of a car with the following steps: - Acquisition of sensor data available in the car as a respective input variable for an observer model (1, 2); - Inputting the input variables into the observer model (1, 2); - Carrying out a continuous determination of the car speed (vWagen) by the observer model (1, 2). Furthermore, a device, a vehicle and a computer program product for carrying out the method are disclosed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHUL SOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-9411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5 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.
/ANSHUL SOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights