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 .
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:
Claim 1, line 1 – 2, “A control device configured to deactivate an activated anti-theft function of a vehicle component of a motor vehicle, wherein the control device is configured to:”
Claim 2, “wherein the control device is configured to deactivate the activated anti-theft function ..”
Claim 15, “wherein the control device is configured to deactivate the activated anti-theft function …”
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.
The “control device” is described as an ECU (Specification of publication, par. [0009])
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 § 102
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, 3, 14, 16 – 18, 20are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wagner Armin (English Translation of DE4240596A1; hereinafter Wagner).
Regarding to claim 1, Wagner teaches A control device configured to deactivate an activated anti-theft function of a vehicle component of a motor vehicle, ([Par. 0022], “If the vehicle is parked with the central locking and anti-theft alarm system (ZV-DWA) deactivated and the button T of the radio key (FS) is pressed after leaving the vehicle, the central locking and anti-theft alarm system (ZV-DWA) is switched on or armed (On). … B. 1001011) is issued, which is stored in the memory S of the engine control unit MS as a comparison code (1001011) and by which the engine control unit MS prevents all functions for starting up the internal combustion engine M via the control output lines… If the two code words match as in the case shown, the functions necessary for starting up the internal combustion engine M are released again via the control output signals.” wherein the control device is configured to:
determine whether a previously determined event has occurred, ([Par. 0022], “Pressing button T again switches off or disarms the central locking and anti-theft alarm system (ZV-DWA), thereby transmitting the transmission code (1001011) to the engine control unit MS again via the information line CS. The engine control unit MS compares this transmitted transmission code with the comparison code stored in memory S. If the two code words match as in the case shown, the functions necessary for starting up the internal combustion engine M are released again via the control output signals.” Wherein the code matching corresponds to the “determined event has occurred”) and
deactivate the activated anti-theft function of the vehicle component in a case in which the previously determined event has occurred. ([Par. 0022], “The engine control unit MS compares this transmitted transmission code with the comparison code stored in memory S. If the two code words match as in the case shown, the functions necessary for starting up the internal combustion engine M are released again via the control output signals.”)
Regarding to claim 3, Wagner teaches the device of claim 1.
Wagner further teaches wherein the previously determined event comprises the control device receiving a release signal. ([Par. 0022], “The engine control unit MS compares this transmitted transmission code with the comparison code stored in memory S. If the two code words match as in the case shown, the functions necessary for starting up the internal combustion engine M are released again via the control output signals.” Wherein when the transmission code matched, it indicates a releasing signal sent to the anti-thef device to release the drive control unit.)
Claims 14, 16 recite the motor vehicle with substantially same scope as claims 1, 3 respectively, thus being rejected for the same basis as claims 1, 3 respectively above.
Claim 17 recites the method with substantially similar scope as claim 1, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 1 above.
Claim 18 recites the non-transitory computer-readable medium with substantially similar scope as claim 17 and 1, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 17 and 1 above.
Claim 20 recites the non-transitory computer-readable medium with substantially similar scope as claim 3, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 3 above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner in view of Bornschlegl et al. (English Translation of DE102019110055A1; hereinafter Bornschlegl).
Regarding to claim 2, Wagner teaches the device of claim 1.
Wagner teaches to deactivate the anti-thef function of the vehicle component as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose canceling a cryptographically protected coupling between the vehicle component and the motor vehicle.
However, Bornschlegl teaches canceling a cryptographically protected coupling between the vehicle component and the motor vehicle. ([Par. 0022], “Component protection requires basic training or basic assignment of the component to the first vehicle 202. Thus, the component will only become functional after a coupling, secured by a cryptographic process, with the first vehicle 202… The backend 206 sends back the cryptographic keys necessary for basic learning and enables the basic learning or assignment of the component to the first vehicle 202 .”; [Par. 0034], “the customer can also perform the second action 24, whereby the customer deactivates the online cross-exchange prevention assigned to the component in his online account 20.As a second alternative reaction 28, it follows that the status indicator or The flag for preventing cross-swapping is adjusted, deleting the status indicator for preventing cross-swapping, allowing cross-swapping from the customer's first vehicle 2 to another vehicle 4, in particular cross-swapping of a use of the component (status indicator = "cross-swapping possible"), and enabling the component for this second vehicle 4.” This is interpreted as the component is coupled via a cryptographic process and it can be deactivated by canceling the coupling via deactivating the online cross-exchange prevention.)
It would have been obvious to modify Wagner’s anti-theft system to incorporate Bornschlegl’s cryptographically secured component-to-vehicle coupling and its reversible deactivation mechanism in order to enhance theft protection. Born teaches preventing unauthorized reuse of stolen components in other vehicles and allowing controlled reassignment. A person of ordinary skill would have applied this known cryptographic coupling technique to Wagner’s system to improve component-level security in a predictable manner.
Regarding to claim 4, the combination of Wagner and Bornschlegl teaches the device of claim 2.
Wagner further teaches wherein the previously determined event comprises the control device receiving a release signal. ([Par. 0022], “The engine control unit MS compares this transmitted transmission code with the comparison code stored in memory S. If the two code words match as in the case shown, the functions necessary for starting up the internal combustion engine M are released again via the control output signals.” Wherein when the transmission code matched, it indicates a releasing signal sent to the anti-thef device to release the drive control unit.)
Claim 15 recites the vehicle with substantially similar scope as claim 2, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 2 above.
Claim 19 recites the non-transitory computer-readable medium with substantially similar scope as claim 2, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 2 above.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner in view of Friedrich et al. (English Translation of DE19532744A1; hereinafter Friedrich).
Regarding to claim 5, Wagner teaches the device of claim 1.
Wagner teaches to deactivate the anti-thef function of the vehicle component based on a previously determined event as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined mileage of the motor vehicle.
However Friedrich teaches wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined mileage of the motor vehicle. (page 2, “An odometer for storing the current mileage of the motor vehicle and for specifying at least one limit value (maxidistance): the distance traveledmeter is in a non-volatile, not directly accessible from the outside stores and not directly changeable memory; only as long as none the specified limit values for the mileage can be reached the control unit containing the immobilizer function is activated will.” This is interpreted as the immobilizer is activated by the mileage threshold. When the mileage threshold reached, the immobilizer is deactivated.)
It would have been obvious to modify Wagner’s anti-theft control system to include the usage-dependent limitation taught by Fried—specifically, disabling or restricting vehicle operation upon reaching a predetermined mileage threshold. Fried teaches that monitoring mileage and requiring reauthorization after a preset limit increases theft deterrence and long-term security. Incorporating Fried’s mileage-based event trigger into Wagner’s anti-theft system would have predictably enhanced security by limiting continued vehicle use without periodic authorization, thereby improving theft prevention using known techniques for their intended purpose.
Regarding to claim 7, Wagner teaches the device of claim 3.
Wagner teaches to deactivate the anti-thef function of the vehicle component based on a previously determined event as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined mileage of the motor vehicle.
However Friedrich teaches wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined mileage of the motor vehicle. (page 2, “An odometer for storing the current mileage of the motor vehicle and for specifying at least one limit value (maxidistance): the distance traveledmeter is in a non-volatile, not directly accessible from the outside stores and not directly changeable memory; only as long as none the specified limit values for the mileage can be reached the control unit containing the immobilizer function is activated will.” This is interpreted as the immobilizer is activated by the mileage threshold. When the mileage threshold reached, the immobilizer is deactivated.)
It would have been obvious to modify Wagner’s anti-theft control system to include the usage-dependent limitation taught by Fried—specifically, disabling or restricting vehicle operation upon reaching a predetermined mileage threshold. Fried teaches that monitoring mileage and requiring reauthorization after a preset limit increases theft deterrence and long-term security. Incorporating Fried’s mileage-based event trigger into Wagner’s anti-theft system would have predictably enhanced security by limiting continued vehicle use without periodic authorization, thereby improving theft prevention using known techniques for their intended purpose.
Regarding to claim 11, Wagner teaches the device of claim 1.
Wagner teaches to deactivate the anti-thef function of the vehicle component based on a previously determined event as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined age of the motor vehicle.
However, Friedrich teaches wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined age of the motor vehicle. (page 2, “This "immobilizer" control unit contains depending on the intended use dependent sizes at least one of the following components:- A timer to store the time duration of the force vehicle and for specifying at least one time limit (maximalwert): for this, the current time is either via an internal(battery operated and cannot be switched off) clock or an external central Clock (e.g. time signal transmitter) and at short intervals(at once a minute, for example) in a non-volatile, not from the outside directly accessible and not directly changeable timer stored (the Timer can also be used as a time counter incremented at short intervalsbe trained); only as long as none of the specified time Limit values is reached, may include the immobilizer function Control unit can be activated,”)
It would have been obvious to modify Wagner’s anti-theft control system to incorporate Fried’s time-based limitation mechanism, such that deactivation of the anti-theft function occurs upon reaching a predetermined time threshold. Fried teaches monitoring elapsed time and restricting vehicle operation when a defined limit is reached to enhance theft protection. Applying this known time-triggered restriction to Wagner’s anti-theft system would have predictably improved long-term security by conditioning continued activation on the age or elapsed time associated with the vehicle.
Regarding to claim 13, Wagner teaches the device of claim 3.
Wagner teaches to deactivate the anti-thef function of the vehicle component based on a previously determined event as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined age of the motor vehicle.
However, Friedrich teaches wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined age of the motor vehicle. (page 2, “This "immobilizer" control unit contains depending on the intended use dependent sizes at least one of the following components:- A timer to store the time duration of the force vehicle and for specifying at least one time limit (maximalwert): for this, the current time is either via an internal(battery operated and cannot be switched off) clock or an external central Clock (e.g. time signal transmitter) and at short intervals(at once a minute, for example) in a non-volatile, not from the outside directly accessible and not directly changeable timer stored (the Timer can also be used as a time counter incremented at short intervalsbe trained); only as long as none of the specified time Limit values is reached, may include the immobilizer function Control unit can be activated,”)
It would have been obvious to modify Wagner’s anti-theft control system to incorporate Fried’s time-based limitation mechanism, such that deactivation of the anti-theft function occurs upon reaching a predetermined time threshold. Fried teaches monitoring elapsed time and restricting vehicle operation when a defined limit is reached to enhance theft protection. Applying this known time-triggered restriction to Wagner’s anti-theft system would have predictably improved long-term security by conditioning continued activation on the age or elapsed time associated with the vehicle.
Claim(s) 6, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination Wagner and Bornschlegl in view of Friedrich.
Regarding to claim 6, the combination of Wagner and Bornschlegl teahes the device of claim 2.
The combination of Wagner and Bornschlegl teaches to deactivate the anti-thef function of the vehicle component based on a previously determined event as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined mileage of the motor vehicle.
However Friedrich teaches wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined mileage of the motor vehicle. (page 2, “An odometer for storing the current mileage of the motor vehicle and for specifying at least one limit value (maxidistance): the distance traveled meter is in a non-volatile, not directly accessible from the outside stores and not directly changeable memory; only as long as none the specified limit values for the mileage can be reached the control unit containing the immobilizer function is activated will.” This is interpreted as the immobilizer is activated by the mileage threshold. When the mileage threshold reached, the immobilizer is deactivated.)
It would have been obvious to modify the combination of Wagner and Bornschlegl to include the usage-dependent limitation taught by Fried—specifically, disabling or restricting vehicle operation upon reaching a predetermined mileage threshold. Fried teaches that monitoring mileage and requiring reauthorization after a preset limit increases theft deterrence and long-term security. Incorporating Fried’s mileage-based event trigger into Wagner’s anti-theft system would have predictably enhanced security by limiting continued vehicle use without periodic authorization, thereby improving theft prevention using known techniques for their intended purpose.
Regarding to claim 12, the combination of Wagner and Bornschlegl teaches the device of claim 2.
Wagner teaches to deactivate the anti-thef function of the vehicle component based on a previously determined event as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined age of the motor vehicle.
However, Friedrich teaches wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined age of the motor vehicle. (page 2, “This "immobilizer" control unit contains depending on the intended use dependent sizes at least one of the following components:- A timer to store the time duration of the force vehicle and for specifying at least one time limit (maximalwert): for this, the current time is either via an internal(battery operated and cannot be switched off) clock or an external central Clock (e.g. time signal transmitter) and at short intervals(at once a minute, for example) in a non-volatile, not from the outside directly accessible and not directly changeable timer stored (the Timer can also be used as a time counter incremented at short intervalsbe trained); only as long as none of the specified time Limit values is reached, may include the immobilizer function Control unit can be activated,”)
It would have been obvious to modify Wagner’s anti-theft control system to incorporate Fried’s time-based limitation mechanism, such that deactivation of the anti-theft function occurs upon reaching a predetermined time threshold. Fried teaches monitoring elapsed time and restricting vehicle operation when a defined limit is reached to enhance theft protection. Applying this known time-triggered restriction to Wagner’s anti-theft system would have predictably improved long-term security by conditioning continued activation on the age or elapsed time associated with the vehicle.
Claim(s) 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner in view of Zimmermann et al. (English Translation of DE102018126334A1; hereinafter Zimmermann).
Regarding to claim 8, Wagner teaches the device of claim 1.
Wagner teaches to deactivate the anti-thef function of the vehicle component based on a previously determined event as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined age of the vehicle component.
However, Zimmermann teaches wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined age of the vehicle component. ([Par. 0037], “When it is determined that the end-of-life state has been reached, the control unit 112 and/or the control device 112 can cause the deactivation component 114 to be (irreversibly) deactivated and/or destroyed in order to take the vehicle component 113 out of service. This ensures that a (safety-relevant) vehicle component 113 is no longer used once it has reached it send-of-life state. This ensures the safe operation of vehicle 110.” Wherein deactivating the component also implies that the component is deactivated from any protection from any anti-thef function if applicable.)
It would have been obvious to modify Wagner’s anti-theft control system to incorporate Zimmermann’s lifecycle-based deactivation mechanism, such that the anti-theft function is deactivated upon reaching a predetermined age or end-of-life state of the vehicle component. Zimmermann teaches determining, via a control unit, when a component has reached a predefined lifecycle threshold and disabling the component in response. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that integrating such lifecycle-based control into Wagner’s anti-theft system would predictably enhance security by preventing continued use or reuse of aging or unsupported components, thereby improving theft deterrence and operational safety.
Regarding to claim 10, Wagner teaches the device of claim 3.
Wagner teaches to deactivate the anti-thef function of the vehicle component based on a previously determined event as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined age of the vehicle component.
However, Zimmermann teaches wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined age of the vehicle component. ([Par. 0037], “When it is determined that the end-of-life state has been reached, the control unit 112 and/or the control device 112 can cause the deactivation component 114 to be (irreversibly) deactivated and/or destroyed in order to take the vehicle component 113 out of service. This ensures that a (safety-relevant) vehicle component 113 is no longer used once it has reached it send-of-life state. This ensures the safe operation of vehicle 110.” Wherein deactivating the component also implies that the component is deactivated from any protection from any anti-thef function if applicable.)
It would have been obvious to modify Wagner’s anti-theft control system to incorporate Zimmermann’s lifecycle-based deactivation mechanism, such that the anti-theft function is deactivated upon reaching a predetermined age or end-of-life state of the vehicle component. Zimmermann teaches determining, via a control unit, when a component has reached a predefined lifecycle threshold and disabling the component in response. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that integrating such lifecycle-based control into Wagner’s anti-theft system would predictably enhance security by preventing continued use or reuse of aging or unsupported components, thereby improving theft deterrence and operational safety.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wagner and Bornschlegl in view of Zimmermann.
Regarding to claim 9, the combination of Wagner and Bornschlegl teaches the device of claim 2.
Wagner teaches to deactivate the anti-thef function of the vehicle component based on a previously determined event as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined age of the vehicle component.
However, Zimmermann teaches wherein the previously determined event comprises reaching a previously determined age of the vehicle component. ([Par. 0037], “When it is determined that the end-of-life state has been reached, the control unit 112 and/or the control device 112 can cause the deactivation component 114 to be (irreversibly) deactivated and/or destroyed in order to take the vehicle component 113 out of service. This ensures that a (safety-relevant) vehicle component 113 is no longer used once it has reached it send-of-life state. This ensures the safe operation of vehicle 110.” Wherein deactivating the component also implies that the component is deactivated from any protection from any anti-thef function if applicable.)
It would have been obvious to modify Wagner’s anti-theft control system to incorporate Zimmermann’s lifecycle-based deactivation mechanism, such that the anti-theft function is deactivated upon reaching a predetermined age or end-of-life state of the vehicle component. Zimmermann teaches determining, via a control unit, when a component has reached a predefined lifecycle threshold and disabling the component in response. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that integrating such lifecycle-based control into Wagner’s anti-theft system would predictably enhance security by preventing continued use or reuse of aging or unsupported components, thereby improving theft deterrence and operational safety.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 11am - 7pm 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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/STEVEN VU NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3668