DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant's argument that the amendments "identifying location drift in the information" and "wherein updating the at least some of the location information corrects the location drift in the location information from the GNSS receiver, the INS, or the communication interface of the first device" (paragraph bridging pages 15-16 of response) tie the claims to a specific technological improvement in PNT systems, and that this amendment directly addresses Examiner's concern that "claim 1 does not recite the updated location information being used in any GNSS or PNT system such that the problem of location drift could be solved", Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Initially, the amended language "identifying location drift in the location information by..." and "wherein updating the at least some of the location information corrects the location drift in the location information from the GNSS receiver, the INS, or the communication interface of the first device" does not appear to add any new features to the claims. Rather, it appears to merely describe features already present in the claims as “location drift”. That is, the amendment describes determining the lack of coincidence between the location information and the indication (claim 1 lines 13-16) as “identifying location drift”, and further describes updating the location information to coincide with the indication (claim 1 lines 20-25) as “corrects the location drift”. As for addressing Examiner’s concern that "claim 1 does not recite the updated location information being used in any GNSS or PNT system such that the problem of location drift could be solved", the problem of location drift is that a GNSS or PNT system experiencing drift provides inaccurate location information to a user of the GNSS or PNT system. Applicant’s claims, however, remain limited to a processor accessing data and performing calculations, with no use of the updated location information that could amount to a solution of the problem of location drift, i.e. a practical application of the recited calculations.
Further, the updating has been identified as part of the abstract idea, and therefore cannot be relied upon to provide the improvement – see MPEP 21605(a) “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.”
Regarding Applicant’s argument that claim 1 is directed to a particular improvement in PNT systems, similar to how claim 1 of Example 40 is directed to a specific improvement in collecting traffic data (response page 16), in that it recites a specific improvement to PNT systems and is not merely a processor accessing and processing data, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike Example 40, Applicant’s claim 1 is limited to a processor collecting and processing data.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the claims are similar to Example 42 because they recite a combination of additional elements that recite a specific improvement (response page 16), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has identified, as additional elements:
Accessing magnetic values
Determining from those values that the device did not move
Accessing location information from a GNSS receiver, INS, or communication interface
Comparing the location information with the magnetic-based indication
Identifying location drift
Correcting the location drift
Applicant has therefore identified, as additional elements, all of the limitations of claim 1. These limitations have already been identified as either the abstract idea itself or insignificant extra solution activity. The abstract idea cannot itself be an additional element, and the insignificant extra solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more for the reasons discussed previously.
Regarding Applicant's argument that Ryden does not disclose a single embodiment that uses both magnetic sensor data and GNSS together in the manner recited by the amended claims (response page 17, first paragraph under (A)), Examiner agrees. Shuman has been cited to supply this deficiency.
Regarding Applicant's argument that Ryden does not disclose a single embodiment combining magnetic sensor data with gnss location information (section (A), pages 17-18), Examiner agrees. Shuman has been relied upon to supply this deficiency.
Regarding Applicant's argument that Shuman never discloses a processor using magnetometer data to determine that a device's location or orientation did not substantially change (paragraph bridging pages 18-19 of response), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Shuman para. [0097] discloses "In the absence of corresponding indications of an abrupt location change from the non-SPS sensors, a sudden change in an SPS derived location estimate may indicate that the SPS signals are anomalous and suspicious, and necessary remedial steps may be required," where para. [0073] describes magnetometers as providing a type of non-SPS information "non-SPS information, such as ... magnetometer(s), etc." The "absence of corresponding indications of an abrupt location change from the non-SPS sensors" is a determination that a device's location did not substantially change.
Regarding Applicant's argument that Shuman's comparison at block 510 of Fig. 5 is between an SPS-derived location estimate and a non-SPS-derived location estimate to determine a confidence level in the SPS estimate, not a comparison between location information and an indication that the device did not move (response page 19, first full paragraph), Examiner notes that Shuman's block 510 is labeled "Determine confidence in location Information from the location engine" and is described in paras. [0096]-[0097], where para. [0097] includes "In the absence of corresponding indications of an abrupt location change from the non-SPS sensors, a sudden change in an SPS derived location estimate may indicate that the SPS signals are anomalous and suspicious, and necessary remedial steps may be required" as discussed above, where the "absence of corresponding indications of an abrupt location change from the non-SPS sensors" is an indication that the device did not move.
Regarding Applicant's argument that Shuman does not teach updating location information based on a determination that the location information does not substantially coincide with an indication that the device did not move, but instead teaches "selecting which location estimate to transmit to other UEs based on a confidence level - if the confidence level is high, the SPS-derived estimate is transmitted; if the confidence level is low, a non-SPS-derived estimate is transmitted. See Shuman, Fig. 5, blocks 512, 514, 516" (response page 19, second full paragraph), Examiner respectfully disagrees. It would be clear to one of ordinary skill that the "absence of an abrupt location change from the non-SPS sensors" in Shuman’s para. [0097] would correspond to low confidence in the SPS-derived estimate at 510 and corresponding transmission of a non-SPS-derived estimate.
Regarding Applicant's argument that Shuman does not teach identifying location drift in the location information or correcting location drift as recited in the amended claims, but is directed to detecting spoofed SPS signals and transmitting accurate location estimates to other UEs when SPS signals are unreliable (paragraph bridging pages 19-20 of response), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's para. [13] describes location drift as "Location drift may include any inaccuracy in location information from a GNSS or other PNT system and may be caused by one or more technical or environmental factors such as, for example, atmospheric conditions, too few GNSS satellites being in line of site, locking on to different GNSS constellations (e.g. switching between GPS, Galileo, GLONASS, BDS, etc.), the functionality of the GNSS satellites locked on to, GNSS satellites being clustered together rather than more dispersed, interference from nearby structures (such as shadowing or reflection), being underground or indoors, radio interference or jamming, solar storms, or gaps in GNSS coverage". One of ordinary skill would recognize that spoofed SPS signals could also be a source of location drift as understood in view of Applicant's specification.
Regarding Applicant's argument that the combination of Ryden and Shuman does not cure these deficiencies (response page 20, first full paragraph), Examiner respectfully disagrees, for the reasons set forth above and in the rejections below.
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, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 17-19, 21, 22, 26-28, 30, 35-37, 39, 40, 44-46, 48, and 53-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 recites a method and is therefore a process.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of a Judicial Exception
Claim 1 recites:
based on the series of magnetic values, determining an indication that a location or orientation of the magnetic-measurement device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time;
comparing the location information with the indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time;
identifying location drift in the location information by determining that the location information does not substantially coincide with the indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time;
based on the determination that the location information does not substantially coincide with the indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time: updating at least some of the location information to coincide with the indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time, wherein updating the at least some of the location information corrects the location drift in the location information from the GNSS receiver, the INS, or the communication interface of the first device.
These steps fall within the mathematical concepts or mental processes grouping of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG.
The step “based on the series of magnetic values, determining an indication that a location or orientation of the magnetic-measurement device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time” could be performed mentally or with pencil and paper by observing the series of magnetic values and evaluating to what extent they have changed during the predetermined period of time, or by performing mathematical calculations such as the variance calculation recited in dependent claim 2.
The step “comparing the location information with the indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time” could similarly be performed mentally or with pencil and paper, as could the step “identifying location drift in the location information by determining that the location information does not substantially coincide with the indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time” and the step “based on the determination that the location information does not substantially coincide with the indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time: updating at least some of the location information to coincide with the indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time, wherein updating the at least some of the location information corrects the location drift in the location information from the GNSS receiver, the INS, or the communication interface of the first device.
Claim 1 therefore recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
Claim 1 further recites:
accessing a series of magnetic values measured by a magnetic-sensor system of a first device over a predetermined period of time;
accessing location information from a GNSS receiver, an INS, or a communication interface of the first device during the predetermined period of time;
the method performed by “a processor”.
However accessing the series of magnetic values and the location information is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. data gathering, and the “processor” includes within its scope generic computer equipment that is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. In performing the abstract idea the “electronic device” merely performs the generic computer functions of receiving data and performing calculations.
These elements therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements recited in the claim include data gathering and generic computer equipment. These elements therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, i.e. they do not amount to an inventive concept. Claim 1 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 describe calculations performed to obtain the variance without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or adding significantly more.
Claim 8 recites the first device comprising the processor, magnetic-sensor system, GNSS receiver, INS, and communication interface. This is merely a description of the source of the accessed data and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Claim 9 further describes the step of “updating” without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or adding significantly more.
Claim 10 further describes the “updating” as comprising the mathematical calculation of a spatial midpoint between or among two or more locations indicated by at least some of the magnetic values, and therefore merely further describes the abstract idea without integrating it into a practical application or adding significantly more.
Claim 12 describes the magnetic values without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or adding significantly more.
Claims 17 and 18 merely further describe the first device without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or adding significantly more.
Claims 56-60 merely further describe the magnetic values, variance, and updating without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or adding significantly more.
Claim 19 and its dependents differ from claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 17, 18 and 56-60 in reciting computer readable non-transitory storage media. Claim 37 and its dependents differ from claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 17, 18 and 56-60 in reciting a system comprising one or more processors and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media. Claim 55 differs from claim 1 in reciting “means”. However these elements comprise or include within their scope generic computer equipment that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 12, 17-19, 21, 26, 27, 30, 35-37, 39, 44, 45, 48, 53-56, 59, 60, 61, 66-68, 73, and 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryden (US 20200120479 A1) in view of Shuman (US 20220350030 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 19, 37, and 55, Ryden (US 20200120479 A1) teaches [NOTE: limitations not taught by Ryden are lined through; limitations added by amendment are underlined] a method comprising:
by a processor (wireless device 202, Fig. 2 comprises a processor as shown at 502, Fig. 5;), accessing a series of magnetic values (2:5, Fig. 2; para. [0056] “sensor measurements may be related to… magnetic intensity” where “magnetic intensity may refer to the strength or intensity of a magnetic field, or to magnetic flux density”) measured by a magnetic-sensor system of a first device (sensors of 202, Fig. 2, including magnetometer as per para. [0032]; 202 is the first device) over a predetermined period of time (para. [0059] “measurements… made over one or more predefined time windows”);
by the processor, based on the series of magnetic values, determining an indication that a location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time (2:5, Fig. 2 as per para. [0044] “wireless device 202…evaluates the received mobility criterion with respect to the monitored sensor measurements” and paras. [0121]-[0123] “the mobility status change criteria can be based upon… variance in magnetic intensity >= magnetic intensity threshold”, where the threshold distinguishes between a location/orientation change or lack thereof);
by the processor, accessing location information from a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver, an inertial navigation system (INS), or a communication interface of the first device during the predetermined period of time (para. [0054) “the wireless device is capable of estimating its position based on …. GNSS”);
Shuman, in analogous art (sensors 213, SPS receiver 217, Fig. 2; para. [0065] “sensor(s) 213 may include one or more magnetometers”), teaches:
by a processor, comparing (510, Fig. 5 in view of para. [0096] “At block 510... compare changes in the position and time determined using the SPS signals with information derived from non-SPS information”) location information (502 “Location information from the Location Engine”, Fig. 5) with an indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time (“Location information from the Sensor(s)” 508, Fig. 5; para. [0065] “sensor(s) 213 may include one or more magnetometers”; see description of comparison in para. [0096]; the magnetometers will indicate no substantial change in location or orientation at least at some times – for example see para. [0097] "In the absence of corresponding indications of an abrupt location change from the non-SPS sensors, a sudden change in an SPS derived location estimate may indicate that the SPS signals are anomalous and suspicious, and necessary remedial steps may be required"); and
by the processor, identifying location drift in the location information by determining that the location information does not substantially coincide with the indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time (510 and 512 “N”, Fig. 5); and
by the processor, based on the determination that the location information does not substantially coincide with the indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time (512 “N”, Fig. 5):
updatinq at least some of the location information to coincide with the indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time (516 “Determine Location Estimate... Based on Sensor information”, 514 “Transmit Location in a wireless message” and “Update Cache location”, 506 “Cached Location Information”, Fig. 5),
wherein updating the at least some of the location information corrects the location drift in the location information from the GNSS receiver, the INS, or the communication interface of the first device (updating the location information inherently provides correction for location drift).
Shuman provides for “accurate location estimates ... when the SPS signals are not reliable” (abstract). It would have been obvious to modify Ryden in view of Shuman in order to provide for accurate location estimates when Ryden’s GNSS signals are not reliable.
Regarding claims 3, 21, and 39, Ryden teaches wherein determining the indication that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time comprises: calculating a variance in the magnetic values over the predetermined period of time (para. [0123] “variance in magnetic intensity”); comparing the variance with a predetermine range of values (para. [0123] “variance in magnetic intensity>=magnetic intensity threshold”, where the corresponding range or variance values less than the magnetic intensity threshold meets the claimed range); and when the variance is within the predetermine range of values, determining that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time (when the variance is less than the threshold, mobility status is not fulfilled as per para [0121] and [0121], corresponding to no substantial change in location as claimed).
Regarding claims 8, 26, and 44, Ryden further teaches: wherein the first device (202, Fig. 2, with details shown at 502, Fig 5) comprises the processor (P, Fig. 5), magnetic-sensor system (sensors of 202, Fig. 2, including magnetometer as per para. [0032]), GNSS receiver (para. [0054] “the wireless device is capable of estimating its position based on... GNSS”), INS (para. [0091] “IMU Sensor measurements can be integrated for reporting location measurements”; para. [0031] “IMU, which is also referred to as an Inertial Navigation System (INS)”), and communication interface (C, Fig. 5).
Regarding claims 9, 27, and 45, Shuman’s updating comprises:
updating at least some of the location information to indicate that the location or orientation of the first device did not substantially change during the predetermined period of time (one would expect lack of movement at least at some times, e.g. when the “amount... of movement” in para. [0135] is zero); or
updating at least some of the location information to coincide with one or more locations or orientations indicated by one or more of the magnetic values (516 “Determine Location Estimate... Based on Sensor information”, 514 “Transmit Location in a wireless message” and “Update Cache location”, 506 “Cached Location Information”, Fig. 5).
Regarding claims 12, 30, and 48, each of Ryden’s magnetic values comprises one or more of a total value of a magnetic field, an inclination angle of the magnetic field, a declination angle of the magnetic field, an x component of the magnetic field, a y component of the magnetic field, or a z component of the magnetic field or a magnetic-susceptibility or magnetic-conductivity value (para. [0056] “magnetic intensity” meets at least total value of a magnetic field).
Regarding claims 17, 35, and 53, Ryden’s first device (202, Fig. 2, with details shown at 502, Fig 5) comprises the magnetic-sensor system (sensors of 202, Fig. 2, including magnetometer as per para. [0032]), GNSS receiver (para. [0054] “the wireless device is capable of estimating its position based on... GNSS”), INS (para. [0091] “IMU Sensor measurements can be integrated for reporting location measurements”; para. [0031] “IMU, which is also referred to as an Inertial Navigation System (INS)”), and communication interface (C, Fig. 5). Ryden’s first device further comprises processor(s) and media (P, M at 502, Fig. 5). Ryden does not teach a third device comprises the processor(s) and media instead of the first device However, modifying Ryden such that a third device comprises the processor(s) and media is merely a matter of making separable (MPEP 2144.04 V. C). It would have been obvious to modify Ryden by separating the sensors from the processor(s) and media, i.e. as a peripheral device, because it is merely a matter of making separable with the advantage of allowing the sensors and processor(s)/media to be independently optimized for different applications.
Regarding claims 18, 36, and 54, Ryden’s magnetic-measurement device is a vehicle, a robot, or a handheld device (wireless device 202, Fig. 2 may be a “mobile telephone” as per para. [0002]).
Regarding claims 56, 61, and 68, each of Ryden’s magnetic values implicitly correspond to the location or orientation of the first device during the predetermined period of time.
Regarding claim 59, 66, 73 Ryden teaches wherein the series of magnetic values are in a window of a predetermined length corresponding to the predetermined period of time (para. [0059] “measurements… made over one or more predefined time windows”).
Regarding claims 60, 67, 74 Ryden teaches wherein the predetermined length is a predetermined number of samples at a predetermined sampling rate (para. [0051] “sensor capabilities” including “sampling frequency”, where the predefined time window in para. [0059] and the predefined sampling frequency in para. [0051] result in a predetermined number of samples).
Claims 4, 6, 22, 40, 57, 62, 63, 69, and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryden (US 20200120479 A1) in view of Shuman (US 20220350030 A1) as applied to claims 3, 21, 39 above, and further in view of Zangvil (US 20220236425 A1) and OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Regarding claims 4, 6, 22, 40, 57, 62, 63, 69, and 70 Ryden does not teach the variance comprising the claimed features. However, Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is well known to calculate variance according to:
PNG
media_image1.png
120
322
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
meeting the claim language “wherein the variance comprises a squared deviation from a means of the series of magnetic values”, “wherein calculating the variance comprises calculating one or more difference or distance calculations”, and “wherein the variance comprises a measure of dispersion of the magnetic values within a window relative to their mean or median”.
It would have been obvious to modify Ryden by calculating variance as claimed because it is a well-known mathematical method that could be used with predictable results.
Claims 7, 64, and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryden (US 20200120479 A1) in view of Shuman (US 20220350030 A1) as applied to claims 3, 21, 39 above, and further in view of Zangvil (US 20220236425 A1) and Toutov (US 20220026235 A1).
Regarding claims 7, 64, and 71, Ryden does not provide details of the variance calculation, and therefore does not teach wherein the variance is calculated using a nearest centroid classifier, correlation optimized warping (COW), dynamic time warping (DTW), or one or more similarity correlation analyses. However Ryden’s variance measures the similarity of magnetic value over the period of time, and Toutov, in analogous art, teaches comparing similarity of magnetic measurements over time using similarity correlation analyses (para. [0057] “When multiple magnetic measurements… are available within a region, analysis can be performed to evaluate the similarities… through the use of correlation analysis”).
It would have been obvious to modify Ryden according to Toutov because it is a matter of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Claims 10, 28, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryden (US 20200120479 A1) in view of Shuman (US 20220350030 A1) as applied to claims 9, 27, and 45 above, and further in view of [Wang (US 20070118286 A1) or Lennen (US 20100134354 A1)].
Regarding claims 10, 28, and 46, Ryden and Shuman do not teach wherein updating at least some of the location information to coincide with one or more locations or orientations indicated by one or more of the magnetic values comprises: calculating a spatial midpoint between or among two or more locations indicated by at least some of the magnetic values; and updating at least some of the location information to coincide with the spatial midpoint. However the calculated spatial midpoint comprises an interpolation between two locations, and interpolation is a well-known mathematical technique. For example, Wang para. [0085] teaches interpolating inertial-based position measurements in order to align with GPS-based measurements, and Lennen para. [0061] teaches interpolation in order to improve measurement resolution. It would have been obvious to further modify Ryden by performing interpolation as taught by Wang or Lennen in order to align measurements or improve resolution. Further, any interpolation points, including the spatial midpoint between or among two or more locations indicated by at least some of the magnetic values, would at least be obvious to try. One of ordinary skill would recognize that the spatial midpoint between two locations would provide the advantage of doubling the resolution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 58, 65, and 72 have not been rejected over the prior art and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are overcome.
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 CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, RESHA DESAI can be reached on (571)270-7792. 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights