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 . 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.
Status of the Claims
The pending claims in the present application are original claims 1-17 from 09 November 2024.
Election/Restrictions
The applicant’s election without traverse of Group VI, independent claim 11, in the Response to Restriction Requirement filed on 09 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09 November 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. The IDSs submitted on 06 August 2025, 22 April 2026, and 09 June 2026 also are in compliance and are being considered by the examiner.
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: the recited “space insurance management business device to manage space insurance,” “management business device used by a management business operator,” and “collision avoidance assistance device to assist” in independent claim 11.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. See, for example, paras. [0035], [0038], and [0039] of the originally-filed specification from 09 November 2024.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations 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 § 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.
Independent claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The paragraphs below provide rationales for the rejection. The rationales are based on the multi-step subject matter eligibility test outlined in MPEP 2106.
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis involves determining whether a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101. (See MPEP 2106.03(I).) That is, Step 1 asks whether a claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (See MPEP 2106.03(II).) The “device” of independent claim 11 constitutes a machine under 35 USC 101. Accordingly, claim 11 meets the criteria of Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. The claim, however, fails to meet the criteria of subsequent steps of the eligibility analysis, as explained in the paragraphs below.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2A, involves determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.04(II).) This step asks whether a claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. (See id.) Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).) Prong One and Prong Two are addressed below.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong One asks whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1).) Independent claim 11 recites the following abstract idea limitations:
“A space insurance management business ... to manage space insurance, the space insurance management business ... comprising: ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... a space information ... that is used to assist avoidance of a collision between space objects among a plurality of space objects flying in space, ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... wherein the space information ... includes orbit forecast information in which a forecast epoch of an orbit of each of the plurality of space objects, a forecast orbital element that identifies the orbit, and a forecast error that is forecast for the orbit are set, based on flight forecast information that indicates a flight forecast for each of the plurality of space objects, the flight forecast information being acquired from a management business ... used by a management business operator that manages each of the plurality of space objects, and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... the space insurance management business ... acquires orbit information of a space object from a collision avoidance assistance ... to assist avoidance of a collision between space objects among a plurality of space objects flying in space, the collision avoidance assistance ... including ... acquire flight forecast information indicating a flight forecast of each of the plurality of space objects from a management business ... used by a management business operator that manages the plurality of space objects, set a forecast epoch of an orbit of each of the plurality of space objects, a forecast orbital element that identifies the orbit, and a forecast error that is forecast for the orbit, as orbit forecast information, based on the acquired flight forecast information, and store a space information ... including the orbit forecast information ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
The above-listed limitations of independent claim 11, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, fall under enumerated groupings of abstract ideas outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a). For example, limitations of the claim can be characterized as: fundamental economic principles or practices, including mitigating risk in business, and also including insurance; and commercial interactions involving insurance, which fall under the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Limitations of the claim also can be characterized as: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation (e.g., the recited “acquired,” “acquire,” and “store” steps), and evaluation and/or judgment (e.g., the recited “manage” and “assist avoidance” steps), which fall under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Accordingly, for at least these reasons, claim 11 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong Two asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2).) As for independent claim 11, the claim recites the following additional element limitations:
The claimed “space insurance management business” involves use of a “device” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “space information” involves use of a “recorder” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “management business” involves use of a “device” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “collision avoidance assistance” involves use of a “device” that includes a “recorder processing circuit” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “store” is “in a memory” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The above-listed additional element limitations of independent claim 11, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, are analogous to: mere automation of manual processes, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)); a commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, and selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform from within a range of fundamental or commonplace functions performed by the hardware, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)); a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions, and merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, which do not qualify as a particular machine or use thereof (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)); a machine that is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(II)); use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, which does not integrate a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(III)); transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment, which is not likely to provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, and requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); mere data gathering in the form of obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify transactions and consulting and updating an activity log, which courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and identifying the participants in a process for hedging risk as commodity providers and commodity consumers, because limiting the use of the process to these participants did no more than describe how the abstract idea of hedging risk could be used in the commodities and energy markets, and specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, which courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, claim 11 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2B, asks whether a claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(II).) The step involves identifying whether there are any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept. (See id.) The ineligibility rationales applied at Step 2A, Prong Two, also apply to Step 2B. (See id.) For all of the reasons covered in the analysis performed at Step 2A, Prong Two, independent claim 11 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B. As a result, claim 11 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible for patenting.
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.
Independent claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 6,757,612 B1 to Talent et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Talent”), in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2004/0024527 A1 to Patera (hereinafter referred to as “Patera”).
Regarding independent claim 11, Talent discloses features that read on the following limitations:
“A space insurance management business device to manage space insurance, the space insurance management business device comprising: ...” - Talent discloses, “An orbital debris impact risk assessment and management model is provided for low-Earth orbit (LEO)” (Abstract), “Use of risk assessment to calculate insurance for high-value assets” (col. 6, ll. 38 and 39), and “present invention uniquely provides a device” (col. 11, ll. 61 and 62). The device utilizing the orbital debris impact risk assessment and management model, to calculate insurance, in Talent, reads on the recited limitation.
The combination of Talent and Patera (hereinafter referred to as “Talent/Patera”) teaches features that read on the limitations below of independent claim 1:
“... a space information recorder that is used to assist avoidance of a collision between space objects among a plurality of space objects flying in space, ...” - Talent discloses, “There is a need to characterize the orbital debris environment, even when observations are not practical, such as when the size or altitude of objects makes measurements difficult. Modeling, then, is required to combine existing measurements and theory in such a way that predictions can be made. Several types of models are required to make these predictions: (1) A model to describe future launches, the amount of debris resulting from these launches, and the frequency of accidental or intentional explosions in orbit (traffic model). (2) A model to describe the number of fragments, fragment size, and velocity distribution of ejected fragments resulting from a satellite explosion or collision (breakup models). (3) A model which will make long-term predictions of how debris orbits will change with time (propagation model). (4) A model which predicts collision probabilities for spacecraft (flux or risk model). (5) A model which predicts hazards in the near term from a breakup event” (col. 2, ll. 12-33), “Collision avoidance” (col. 10, l. 22), and “NASA and other users of LEO will be consulted for user input involving other mitigation or modeling features to be included” (col. 10, ll. 28-30). Talent does not appear to disclose details about the modelling, use thereof with respect to collision avoidance, and the other inputs and modeling features. Patera discloses, “predicting potential collisions” (para. [0011]), “to reduce risk to a subject object from collision with one or more target objects” (para. [0012]), “collision prediction and collision avoidance maneuvering. The invention method determines risk of a potential collision between a subject object and a target object, and determines an optimum maneuver to avoid potential collision. The subject object may be an aircraft, an orbiting spacecraft, a launch spacecraft, or a free space traveling spacecraft. The target object may be one of many target objects that may also be an aircraft, an orbiting spacecraft, a launch spacecraft, a free space traveling spacecraft, space debris, or airborne debris” (para. [0017]), and “A tracking data catalog 10 is maintained with data for indicating the paths of many target objects and the subject object” (para. [0033]). The device, in Talent, including the tracking data catalog, used to avoid potential collisions between space objects, in Patera, reads on the recited limitation.
“... wherein the space information recorder includes orbit forecast information in which a forecast epoch of an orbit of each of the plurality of space objects, a forecast orbital element that identifies the orbit, and a forecast error that is forecast for the orbit are set, based on flight forecast information that indicates a flight forecast for each of the plurality of space objects, the flight forecast information being acquired from a management business device used by a management business operator that manages each of the plurality of space objects, and ...” - See the aspects of Talent and Patera that have been cited above. Patera also discloses, “The data for each object is with respect to an initial time, that is, the current time, and hence, the data includes time data indicating the current time of the data. The data for each object includes an initial position, initial velocity, an error covariance matrix, and a conflict volume, particularly useful for spacecraft. The tracking data catalog 10 is maintained with a data list indicating the orbital paths of orbiting bodies, flight paths for aircraft, launch trajectories for launch vehicles, or free space paths for free space vehicles, any one of which can be a target object or the subject object. In the case of orbital bodies, for example, a subject object orbiting satellite, or for example, a target object orbiting space debris, the data list 10 includes position, velocity, apogee, perigee, error covariance matrix and conflict volume data associated with each target object so as to describe the path and size of the target object. In the case of flying aircraft, the data list 10 can be maintained with flight data, for example, longitude, latitude, and altitude, as a position indication, with a velocity vector, an error covariance matrix and a keep-out box volume as a safety conflict volume. For free space vehicles, the data list can be maintained 10 to include current positions, velocities, error covariance matrices and conflict volumes that may be for example, hard-body volumes such as a sphere approximating a space vehicle. For launch vehicles experiencing timed thrust, the data list can be maintained 10 with trajectory data of expected timed positions, respective expected velocities, error covariance matrices and conflict volumes” (para. [0033]), “trajectory prediction” (para. [0070]). The device, in Talent, including the tracking data catalog, which includes predicting trajectories of objects following orbital paths, accounting for error, and predicting flight paths with risk of collisions, in Patera, reads on the recited limitation.
“... the space insurance management business device acquires orbit information of a space object from a collision avoidance assistance device to assist avoidance of a collision between space objects among a plurality of space objects flying in space, the collision avoidance assistance device including a recorder processing circuit to acquire flight forecast information indicating a flight forecast of each of the plurality of space objects from a management business device used by a management business operator that manages the plurality of space objects, set a forecast epoch of an orbit of each of the plurality of space objects, a forecast orbital element that identifies the orbit, and a forecast error that is forecast for the orbit, as orbit forecast information, based on the acquired flight forecast information, and store a space information recorder including the orbit forecast information in a memory.” - See the aspects of Talent and Patera that have been cited above. Patera also discloses, “the probability for each of several identified conjunctions between the two vehicles is computed. For this case, there were no conjunctions between the subject object and any other object except the target object. The run length was 14 days and there were no conjunctions prior to 3 days. The cumulative probability of collision was 7.74 e.sup.-5. The individual conjunction probabilities exhibit a general decrease in risk as time increases from epoch” (para. [0092]). The device, in Talent, acquiring orbit information of objects from the tracking data catalog, to avoid potential collisions between space objects flying through space, wherein the tracking data catalog receives and stores predicted flight paths of the objects, probability data with epoch information, orbit information, error information, and the like, in Patera, reads on the recited limitation.
Patera discloses collision prediction (see Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Talent. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the determining of impact risk, of Talent, to include the tracking data catalog and forms of data, of Patera, to better avoid collisions between objects, per Patera (see para. [0032]). Additional reasons for combining the cited references are disclosed in para. [0096]) of Patera.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such prior art includes the following:
WIPO Int’l Pub. No. 2018/112502 A1 to Grant et al. discloses, “A method and system for generating extended satellite ephemeris data for a satellite for use by a terminal apparatus is described. Historical orbital parameter data (e.g. from historical TLEs) are used to build a predictor for future values of the orbital parameters. The orbital parameter prediction model is then stored on the terminal apparatus (or an existing model can be updated), and at a desired epoch the pre-stored orbital parameter predictor is used to produce estimates of the orbital parameters for the satellite for that epoch (ie synthetic or predicted TLEs). These predicted orbital parameters (predicted TLE) are then used as input to a standard orbit predictor to produce an estimate of the satellite's location, for example to determine satellite pass times. This method allows generation satellite ephemeris data which is valid out to a year or more as compared to the normal validity of ephemeris data of a few hours or days.” (Abstract.)
William H. Ailor. “Space traffic management: Implementations and implications.” Acta Astronautica, Volume 58, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 279-286.
Crassidis, John, et al. "Space collision avoidance." Proceedings of National Symposium on Sensor and Data Fusion. 2011.
Di Cairano, Stefano, Hyeoungjun Park, and Ilya Kolmanovsky. "Model predictive control approach for guidance of spacecraft rendezvous and proximity maneuvering." International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control 22.12 (2012): 1398-1427.
Kennewell, John A., and Ba-Ngu Vo. "An overview of space situational awareness." Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Information Fusion. IEEE, 2013.
Bonnal, Christophe, et al. “IAA Situation Report on Space Debris - 2016.” International Academy of Astronautics, 2016 (last accessed on 30 July 2026 at https://iaaspace.org/wp-content/uploads/iaa/Scientific%20Activity/sg514finalreport.pdf).
Aon. “Insuring Space Activities.” Aon Risk Solutions, Global Broking Centre, Space, October 2016 (last accessed on 30 July 2026 at https://www.aon.com/russia/files/Insuring_Space_Activities_whitepaper.pdf).
Zhang, Xiaojing, Alexander Liniger, and Francesco Borrelli. "Optimization-based collision avoidance." arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.03449 (2017).
ESA. “Reentry and collision avoidance.” ESA/Space Safety/Space Debris, 04 December 2017 (last accessed on 30 July 2026 at https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Space_Debris/Reentry_and_collision_avoidance).
Al-Rodhan, Nayef. “Space traffic control: technological means and governance implications.” Journal of Business Ethics, 16 April 2018 (last accessed on 30 July 2026 at https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3473/1).
Murakami (NPL) - Murakami, David D., et al. "Space traffic management with a NASA UAS traffic management (UTM) inspired architecture." AIA A Scitech 2019 Forum. 2019.
UNOOSA. “Research on space debris, safety of space objects with nuclear power sources on board and problems relating to their collision with space debris.” Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, Scientific and Technical Subcommittee, Fifty-sixth session, 08 February 2019 (last accessed on 30 July 2026 at https://www.unoosa.org/res/oosadoc/data/documents/2019/aac_105c_12019crp/aac_105c_12019crp_7_0_html/AC105_C1_2019_CRP07E.pdf).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS Y. HO, whose telephone number is (571)270-7918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern.
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, Jerry O'Connor, can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/THOMAS YIH HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights