DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16 – 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 21, 2026.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on April 21, 2026. With claims 16 – 19 being withdrawn from further consideration, claims 1 – 15 and 20 remain pending and are examined below.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
a dynamic flight planning system in claim 1;
a computation fluid dynamics component in claims 2 and 9;
a means of determining a first flight plan of a first aircraft in claim 8; and
a component in claims 12 and 14.
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.
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 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claims 1 and 8, applicant recite “means of determining a first flight plan of a
first aircraft” and/or “a dynamic flight planning system” (Emphasis added); however, the features of the “means” and the dynamic flight planning “system” are not clearly defined in the claims or the specification. Clarification is required.
Any claims not specifically mentioned herein above, but nonetheless rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement, are rejected for incorporating the errors of their respective base claims by dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 15 and 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claims 1 and 8, applicant recite “means of determining a first flight plan of a
first aircraft” and/or “a dynamic flight planning system” (Emphasis added); however, the features of the “means” and the dynamic flight planning “system” are not clearly defined in the claims or the specification. Clarification is required.
Any claims not specifically mentioned herein above, but nonetheless rejected as being indefinite, are rejected for incorporating the errors of their respective base claims by dependency.
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 8 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because features of the claimed “means of determining a first flight plan of a first aircraft” and “dynamic flight planning system”, recited in claim 8, are not clearly defined in the claim or in the specification. Clarification is required.
Claims 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed
invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The following rejection is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. (See 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019).
Does claim 1 fall into one of four of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claim 1 recites an aircraft. The body of claim 1 recites at least one physical element that forms part of the claimed device/apparatus. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an apparatus.
Does claim 8 fall into one of four of the statutory categories? No. The preamble of claim 8 recites an aircraft control system; however, the elements of this control system are not clearly defined in the claim(s) or in the specification. For instance, in lines 2 – 3 of claim 8, applicant recite “means of determining a first flight plan of a first aircraft” and “a dynamic flight planning system” (Emphasis added); however, the features of the “means” and the dynamic flight planning “system” are not clearly defined in the claims or the specification. As such, independent claim 8 does not fall into one of four of the statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Do claims 1 – 3 recite a judicial exception? Yes. The claims recite the limitations of
determining a first forecast, the first forecast being associated with a first flight plan (see Claim 1),
determining a first set of grid points, each grid point of the first set of grid points being a four-dimensional grid point associated with the first flight plan (see Claim 1), and
determining a first set of flight data, the first set of flight data being associated with the first set of grid points and being determined based on a characteristic of the aircraft (see Claim 1);
determining anticipated circumstances associated with the first forecast (see Claim 2); and
determining a second forecast, the second forecast being associated with a first alternative flight plan (see Claim 3),
determining a second set of grid points, each grid point of the second set of grid points being a four-dimensional grid point associated with the first alternative flight plan (see Claim 3), and
determining a second set of aircraft data, the second set of aircraft data being associated with the second set of grid points and being determined based on a characteristic of the aircraft (see Claim 3);
The determining limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performances of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a dynamic flight planning system” and “a computation fluid dynamics component” nothing in the claim precludes the determining steps from practically being performed in the human mind and/or visually. For example, but for the “dynamic flight planning system” and the “computation fluid dynamics component” language, the claims encompass the user to manually and/or visually perform the aforementioned steps. As such, claims 1 – 3 are considered mental processes.
Step 2A – Prong 2
Do claims 1 – 3 integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. Claims 1 – 3 recite five additional elements:
receiving a first set of parameter data (see Claim 1),
obtaining a first set of atmospheric data (see Claim 1);
a computation fluid dynamics component (see Claim 2); and
receiving a second set of parameter data (see Claim 3),
obtaining a second set of atmospheric data (see Claim 3).
The receiving and obtaining steps recited in the claims are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of a first set of parameter data, the first set of parameter data being associated with the first flight plan or an electronic representation of a first set of atmospheric data, the first set of atmospheric data being associated with the first set of parameter data or an electronic representation of a second set of parameter data, the second set of parameter data being associated with the first alternative flight plan or an electronic representation of a second set of atmospheric data, the second set of atmospheric data being associated with the second set of parameter data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
As for the “computation fluid dynamics component”, applicant recites no improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Claim 2 uses the generic “computation fluid dynamics component” phrase without a particular computer architecture, data structure constraints, or algorithmic mechanisms for determining anticipated circumstances associated with the first forecast. In addition, there are no particular machine recited beyond the generic computation component, nor are there any transformations of an article recited.
As such, these generic processor limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1 – 3 are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Do claims 1 – 3 provide an inventive concept? No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Claims 1 – 3 are ineligible.
As to claims 4 and 6,
the limitation of “data being obtained from the first sensor” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of at least some of the data of the first set of parameter data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
As to claims 5 and 7,
the limitation of these claims further define the abstract idea and fail to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 8, and its dependent claims 9 – 15, do not fall into one of four of the statutory categories.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2009101988 A1 to Yokota (herein after “Yokota publication”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,134,500 A to Tang et al. (herein after “Tang et al. patent").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1 and 8,
the Yokota publication discloses an aircraft control system comprising:
a means of determining a first flight plan of a first aircraft (see Page 3 for “a flight plan acquisition unit”); and
a dynamic flight planning system for determining a first forecast, the first forecast being associated with the first flight plan of the first aircraft (see Page 3, where “the turbulence prediction system . . . includes an association unit that associates the position information of the plurality of regions with the predicted value in the region indicated by the position information, and the position information and the position information based on the association. The image generation means which acquires the said predicted value in the area | region which shows, and produces | generates the forecast image which has arrange | positioned the acquired said predicted value according to the said positional information may be provided . . . [t]he turbulence prediction system . . . includes a flight plan acquisition unit that acquires a flight plan including a planned route of the aircraft, and the image generation unit relates to the planned route based on the flight plan and the association”)(Emphasis added), wherein determining the first forecast comprises:
receiving a first set of parameter data, the first set of parameter data being associated with the first flight plan of the first aircraft (see Id.); and
obtaining a first set of atmospheric data, the first set of atmospheric data being associated with the first set of parameter data (see Id.).
The Yokota publication, however, fails to specifically disclose
determining a first set of grid points, each grid point of the first set of grid points being a four-dimensional grid point associated with the first flight plan of the first aircraft; and
determining a first set of flight data, the first set of flight data being associated with the first set of grid points and being determined based on a characteristic of the first aircraft.
The Tang et al. patent discloses a known approach to flight plan optimization which considers mathematical programming techniques such as dynamic programming. According to Tang et al., a grid of potential waypoints is constructed around a great circle route between the origin and the destination to develop an elliptical region of search. The potential waypoints are constructed so that their projections on the great circle route between the origin and the destination subdivides the great circle route into a number of stages. Thus, the structure of the problem gets transformed to a typical stage based dynamic programming problem. The problem is then solved using backward search by either decomposing the problem into a two-dimensional search over the location and a subsequent altitude profile search, or a combined four dimensional search over location, altitude and speed. (See Col. 3, lns 13 – 30.)
Such disclosure suggests determining a first set of grid points, each grid point of the first set of grid points being a four-dimensional grid point associated with the first flight plan of the first aircraft, and determining a first set of flight data, the first set of flight data being associated with the first set of grid points and being determined based on a characteristic of the first aircraft.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Yokota publication to determine a first set of grid points, each grid point of the first set of grid points being a four-dimensional grid point associated with the first flight plan of the first aircraft, and determine a first set of flight data, the first set of flight data being associated with the first set of grid points and being determined based on a characteristic of the first aircraft, as suggested by the Tang et al. patent, in order to provide an innovative system and method for computing a minimum-cost airline flight plan in real time while satisfying the navigation, performance, weather, revenue and regulatory constraints for commercial airlines.
As to claims 2 and 9,
modify the Yokota publication, as modified by the Tang et al. patent, is considered to disclose a computation fluid dynamics component for determining anticipated circumstances associated with the first forecast.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable the Yokota publication in view the Tang et al. patent, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,630,790 B1 to Bailey et al. (herein after “Bailey et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 6,
the modified Yokota publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
a first sensor, at least some of the data of the first set of parameter data being obtained from the first sensor.
Using sensors to obtain data, specifically a set of parameter associated with the first flight plan, is old and well-known as demonstrated by the Bailey et al. publication who discloses that “[e]ach source of flight information represents a myopic view of the overall flight trajectory and aircraft state of a particular aircraft . . . (i.e., the sensed, entered and calculated flight information data such as flight plan, aircraft state, etc.).” (See Col. 4, lns 63 – 64.)
Such disclosure suggests employing a first sensor, where at least some of the data of the first set of parameter data is obtained from the first sensor.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify and/or provide the Yokota publication with a first sensor, where at least some of the data of the first set of parameter data is obtained from the first sensor, as suggested by the Bailey et al. publication, in order to provide an innovative system and method for computing a minimum-cost airline flight plan in real time while satisfying the navigation, performance, weather, revenue and regulatory constraints for commercial airlines.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Yokota publication in view the Tang et al. patent, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,085,147 A to Myers (herein after “Myers patent").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 7,
the modified Yokota publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
three of the four dimensions of each grid point of the first set of grid points represents a point in three-dimensional space, and wherein the fourth dimension of each grid point of the first set of grid points represents a point in time.
The Myers patent discloses “[a] model output . . . presented on a four-dimensional grid, to enable the system to interpolate the results to any specified time and three-dimensional location in the multi-dimensional space.” (See Col. 9, lns 4 – 7.)
Such disclosure suggests three of the four dimensions of each grid point of the first set of grid points represents a point in three-dimensional space, and wherein the fourth dimension of each grid point of the first set of grid points represents a point in time.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Yokota publication so that three of the four dimensions of each grid point of the first set of grid points represents a point in three-dimensional space, and wherein the fourth dimension of each grid point of the first set of grid points represents a point in time, as suggested by the Myers patent, in order to provide an innovative system and method for computing a minimum-cost airline flight plan in real time while satisfying the navigation, performance, weather, revenue and regulatory constraints for commercial airlines.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Yokota publication in view the Tang et al. patent, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,630,790 B1 to Bailey et al. (herein after “Bailey et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 14,
the modified Yokota publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
a component for determining existing circumstances associated with the aircraft.
Using sensors to obtain data, specifically for determining existing circumstances associated with the aircraft, is old and well-known as demonstrated by the Bailey et al. publication who discloses that “[e]ach source of flight information represents a myopic view of the overall flight trajectory and aircraft state of a particular aircraft . . . (i.e., the sensed, entered and calculated flight information data such as flight plan, aircraft state, etc.).” (See Col. 4, lns 63 – 64.)(Emphasis added.)
Such disclosure suggests employing a component for determining existing circumstances associated with the aircraft.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify and/or provide the first aircraft in the Yokota publication with a component for determining existing circumstances associated with the aircraft, as suggested by the Bailey et al. publication, in order to provide an innovative system and method for computing a minimum-cost airline flight plan in real time while satisfying the navigation, performance, weather, revenue and regulatory constraints for commercial airlines.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights