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 .
Examiner’s Note
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the voluminous references submitted as part of the Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) to the extent required by MPEP §609.05(b). If Applicants are aware of pertinent material in the references, Applicants are requested to point the specific pertinence in the response to this Office action.
The following is an excerpt from MPEP §609.04(a)III:
Although a concise explanation of the relevance of the information is not required for English language information, applicants are encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the English-language information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability.
Applicants are reminded of MPEP § 2004 (presenting "Aids to Compliance With Duty of Disclosure," including "helpful suggestions for avoiding duty of disclosure problems") and the specific suggestion in § 2004 ¶ 13, stating:
It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents … specifically brought to applicant's attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff'd, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 18 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites “a reflected signal” which should be amended to “[[a]]the reflected signal” to properly refer to the previously recited reflected signal in claim 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 10-20 is/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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the shoulder frequency". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) 11-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 10.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) are directed to a system and a method and recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Independent claim(s) 1 and 10:
Claim 1:
A method for determining spin of an object comprising: transmitting an electromagnetic signal towards the object from a transmitter; receiving a reflected signal from the object; performing a correlation process on the reflected signal using the reflected signal to generate a plurality of estimates; normalizing the plurality of the estimates; and generating an estimate of the spin of the object as a function of the normalized plurality of the estimates.
Claim 10:
A system for determining spin of an object comprising: a radar system transmitting a signal towards the object; a peak detection system configured to identify a component spectrum of a reflected signal; and a correlation system configured to perform a correlation process on the reflected signal and the shoulder frequency using the component spectrum to generate a plurality of estimates, to normalize the plurality of the estimates and to generate an estimate of the spin of the object as a function of the normalized plurality of the estimates.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 recites a series of steps, and therefore, is a process. Claim 10 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes.
The focus of the claim (i.e., “performing a correlation process on the reflected signal using the reflected signal to generate a plurality of estimates; normalizing the plurality of the estimates; and generating an estimate of the spin of the object as a function of the normalized plurality of the estimates”) is on selecting certain information and analyzing it. These observations or evaluations are simply mathematical concepts (e.g., algorithms, spatial relationships, geometry) and data evaluation. MPEP § 2106.4(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations”. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A), “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols.” When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, the claim is simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from an abstract idea.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitation(s) (“transmitting an electromagnetic signal towards the object from a transmitter; receiving a reflected signal from the object”) are recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The further limitation(s) are considered insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. They are insignificant extra-solution activities, which are data gathering (i.e., pre-solution activities) in conjunction with the abstract idea. The limitation(s) represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on generic devices, and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). The additional limitation(s) represent no more than mere attempt to recite a field in which the device is intended to be applied.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1.
The additional recitation(s) do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitation(s) are at a high level of generality and are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The limitation(s) are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1 and does not state an inventive concept. The limitation(s) are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in claim 1 (i.e., the claim element(s) in addition to the abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Therefore, independent claim(s) 1 and 10 are ineligible.
Claim(s) 2-9 and 11-20:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim(s) 2-9 recite a series of steps, and therefore, fall under a process. Claim(s) 11-20 recite a system, and therefore, fall under a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 3-9 and 11-20 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same or sufficiently similar defects as those noted for claim 2 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept and data evaluation (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate from the abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 2-9 and 11-20 are ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smothermon et al. (US 2022/0283302 A1 “SMOTHERMON”).
Regarding claim 1, SMOTHERMON discloses a method for determining spin of an object (a system 100 for determining spin of a projectile [0023]) comprising:
transmitting an electromagnetic signal towards the object from a transmitter (an antenna structure that transmits the radio frequency electromagnetic radiation towards a selected target [0033])
receiving a reflected signal from the object (an antenna structure that receives reflected radio frequency electromagnetic radiation from the target and other objects [0033])
performing a correlation process on the reflected signal using the reflected signal to generate a plurality of estimates (performing a correlation process on the reflected signal using the component spectrum to generate an estimate of a spin of the object as a function of the correlation process and a lag of one or more peaks in the component spectrum [claim 20]); normalizing the plurality of the estimates; and generating an estimate of the spin of the object as a function of the normalized plurality of the estimates (normalize and accentuate peaks peakLocation = location of maximum(y) [0027]); (all autocorrelations that were found to have a spin close to this spin can be averaged together to get an accurate estimate of the spin [0064]); (spin is inversely proportional to peakLocation [0028]).
Regarding claim 2, SMOTHERMON discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: finding a lag of the plurality of the estimates; and using the lag to estimate the spin of the object (performing a correlation process on the reflected signal using the component spectrum to generate an estimate of a spin of the object as a function of the correlation process and a lag of one or more peaks in the component spectrum [claim 20]).
Regarding claim 3, SMOTHERMON discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: finding a lag of the plurality of the estimates having a greatest energy; and using the lag with the greatest energy to estimate the spin of the object (performing a correlation process on the reflected signal using the component spectrum to generate an estimate of a spin of the object as a function of the correlation process and a lag of one or more peaks in the component spectrum [claim 20]).
Regarding claim 4, SMOTHERMON discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: generating a score of the estimate of the spin of the object; and using the estimate of the spin of the object if the score is greater than a threshold (at 610, a score (such as quality of spin measurement estimate) of the selected value of SpinAC[n] is compared to a threshold to determine whether the score (i.e. quality) is good enough, such as by comparing it to a predetermined value. If the score is less than the predetermined value, no spin information is presented to the user, and the algorithm terminates at 614. Otherwise, if it is determined that the score is above the predetermined value, the algorithm proceeds to 612, where the score is presented to the user [0064]). Examiner’s note: Claim 4 recites a method. Limitation “using the estimate of the spin of the object if the score is greater than a threshold” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step A (i.e. “using the estimate of the spin of the object”) if a first condition (i.e. “if the score is greater than a threshold”) happens. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
Regarding claim 5, SMOTHERMON discloses the method of claim 1 wherein performing the correlation process on the reflected signal comprises comparing a first spectrum of reflected signal from the object from a first time with a second spectrum of reflected signal from the object from a second time, wherein the second time is different from the first time, to determine a spin rate in revolutions per minute (performing the correlation process on the reflected signal comprises comparing a first spectrum of reflected signal from the object from a first time with a second spectrum of reflected signal from the object from a second time, wherein the second time is different from the first time [claim 24]).
Regarding claim 6, SMOTHERMON discloses the method of claim 1 wherein performing the correlation process on the reflected signal comprises comparing a first spectrum from a reflected signal from the object with a second spectrum from the reflected signal from the object to identify a metric from the first spectrum in the second spectrum (performing the correlation process on the reflected signal comprises comparing a first spectrum from a reflected signal from the object with a second spectrum from a reflected signal from the object to identify a metric from the first spectrum in the second spectrum [claim 25]).
Regarding claim 7, SMOTHERMON discloses the method of claim 1 wherein performing the correlation process on the reflected signal comprises comparing a first spectrum of frequency data from a reflected signal from the object with a second spectrum of frequency data from the reflected signal from the object to identify a matching pattern (performing the correlation process on the reflected signal comprises comparing a first spectrum of frequency data from a reflected signal from the object with a second spectrum of frequency data from the reflected signal from the object to identify a matching pattern [claim 26]).
Regarding claim 8, SMOTHERMON discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising generating an estimate of the spin of the object as a function of shoulder frequencies using calibration data that specifies a known shoulder width associated with a known spin of the object (the shoulder detection system can receive calibration data that specifies a known shoulder width associated with a known revolutions per minute (RPM) of a projectile and can use that calibration data to determine the predetermined level, predetermined energy or other suitable data [0036]).
Regarding claim 9, SMOTHERMON discloses the method of claim 8 further comprising generating a score as a function of the estimate of the spin of the object as the function of the shoulder frequencies and the estimate of the spin of the object as the function of the correlation process (generating a score as a function of the estimate of the spin of the object as the function of the shoulder frequencies and the estimate of the spin of the object as the function of the correlation process [claim 28]).
Regarding claim 10, SMOTHERMON discloses a system for determining spin of an object (a system 100 for determining spin of a projectile [0023]) comprising:
a radar system transmitting a signal towards the object (an antenna structure that transmits the radio frequency electromagnetic radiation towards a selected target [0033])
a peak detection system configured to identify a component spectrum of a reflected signal (peak detection system 306 [0031]); (identifying a component spectrum of the reflected signal [claim 20])
and a correlation system configured to perform a correlation process on the reflected signal and the shoulder frequency using the component spectrum to generate a plurality of estimates (performing a correlation process on the reflected signal using the component spectrum to generate an estimate of a spin of the object as a function of the correlation process and a lag of one or more peaks in the component spectrum [claim 20]); (generating a score as a function of the estimate of the spin of the object as the function of the shoulder frequencies and the estimate of the spin of the object as the function of the correlation process [claim 28]), to normalize the plurality of the estimates and to generate an estimate of the spin of the object as a function of the normalized plurality of the estimates (compute autocorrelation of data efficiently using ifft(fft(x)*conj(fft(x)); y = ifft(fft(x) * conj(fft(x)) [0028]); (normalize and accentuate peaks peakLocation = location of maximum(y) [0027]); (all autocorrelations that were found to have a spin close to this spin can be averaged together to get an accurate estimate of the spin [0064]); (spin is inversely proportional to peakLocation [0028]).
Regarding claim 11, SMOTHERMON discloses the system of claim 10 wherein the correlation system is further configured to find a lag of the plurality of the estimates and to use the lag to estimate the spin of the object (performing a correlation process on the reflected signal using the component spectrum to generate an estimate of a spin of the object as a function of the correlation process and a lag of one or more peaks in the component spectrum [claim 20], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 10).
Regarding claim 12, SMOTHERMON discloses the system of claim 10 wherein the correlation system is further configured to find a lag of the plurality of the estimates having a greatest energy and to use the lag with the greatest energy to estimate the spin of the object (performing a correlation process on the reflected signal using the component spectrum to generate an estimate of a spin of the object as a function of the correlation process and a lag of one or more peaks in the component spectrum [claim 20], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 10).
Regarding claim 13, SMOTHERMON discloses the system of claim 10 wherein the correlation system is further configured to generate a score of the estimate of the spin of the object and to use the estimate of the spin of the object if the score is greater than a threshold (at 610, a score (such as quality of spin measurement estimate) of the selected value of SpinAC[n] is compared to a threshold to determine whether the score (i.e. quality) is good enough, such as by comparing it to a predetermined value. If the score is less than the predetermined value, no spin information is presented to the user, and the algorithm terminates at 614. Otherwise, if it is determined that the score is above the predetermined value, the algorithm proceeds to 612, where the score is presented to the user [0064]).
Regarding claim 14, SMOTHERMON discloses the system of claim 10 further comprising a time to frequency domain transform system configured to transform the reflected signal from the time domain to a frequency domain by performing a Fourier transform on the reflected signal (FFT system 304 receives a time domain radar signal from radar data system 302 or other suitable sources, and converts it to a frequency domain signal, such as by using an analog or digital Fast Fourier Transform. FFT system 304 can operate under algorithmic control of projectile spin detection system 102, and can transmit FFT data to peak detection system 306, shoulder detection system 308, projectile RPM system 312 or other suitable systems [0034]).
Regarding claim 15, SMOTHERMON discloses the system of claim 10 wherein the peak detection system is configured to detect a frequency component of the reflected signal that has a greater magnitude than a magnitude of other frequency components of the reflected signal (peak detection system 306 [0031]); (identifying the component spectrum of the reflected signal comprises detecting a frequency component of the reflected signal that has a greater magnitude than a magnitude of other frequency components of the reflected signal [claim 22]).
Regarding claim 16, SMOTHERMON discloses the system of claim 10 wherein the correlation system is configured to compare a first set of the reflected signals from the object with a second set of the reflected signals from the object (the correlation system is configured to compare a first set of reflected signal from the object with a second set of reflected signal from the object [claim 32]).
Regarding claim 17, SMOTHERMON discloses the system of claim 10 wherein the correlation system is configured to compare a first set of reflected signals from the object from a first time with a second set of reflected signal from the object from a second time, wherein the second time is different from the first time (performing the correlation process on the reflected signal comprises comparing a first spectrum of reflected signal from the object from a first time with a second spectrum of reflected signal from the object from a second time, wherein the second time is different from the first time [claim 24]).
Regarding claim 18, SMOTHERMON discloses the system of claim 10 wherein the correlation system is configured to compare a first set of peaks from a reflected signal from the object with a second set of peaks from the reflected signal from the object (wherein the correlation system is configured to compare a first set of peaks from a reflected signal from the object with a second set of peaks from a reflected signal from the object [claim 34]).
Regarding claim 19, SMOTHERMON discloses the system of claim 10 wherein the correlation system is configured to compare a first set of frequency data from a reflected signal from the object with a second set of frequency data from the reflected signal from the object (the correlation system is configured to compare a first set of frequency data from a reflected signal from the object with a second set of frequency data from the reflected signal from the object [claim 35]).
Regarding claim 20, SMOTHERMON discloses the system of claim 10 further comprising a shoulder detection system configured to identify shoulder frequencies in the reflected signal (shoulder detection system 308 [0033]); (at 410, the algorithm identifies one or more of the “shoulders” at the left and right of the peak. In one example embodiment, one or more of the shoulders can be determined by analyzing the magnitude of the FFT frequency components on either side of the peak, to determine a point at which the FFT frequency components begin to fall off below a predetermined value, at a predetermined rate or in other suitable manners [0046]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smothermon et al. (US 2020/0355827 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure of a method for determining spin of a projectile comprising generating an electromagnetic radar signal and transmitting the electromagnetic radar signal towards a projectile. Receiving a reflected electromagnetic radar signal from the projectile. Identifying a component of the reflected electromagnetic radar signal, and performing an autocorrelation process on the reflected electromagnetic radar signal using the component to generate an estimate of a spin of the projectile as a function of the autocorrelation process.
Brumley et al. (US 2008/0080314 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of the digital signal processor using normalized values by dividing each by the autocorrelation at zero lag, i.e., the normalized autocorrelation function may be used.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 July 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights