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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 330V either way. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 8-9 and claim 11 lines 9-10 read "between the second battery, and a reference battery of specification set in advance, based on the battery information" which appears to be a punction error and should read "between the second battery and a reference battery of specification set in advance based on the battery information" to improve clarity. The current utilization of commas makes it confusing when the “when…” phrase starts and ends. Examiner took reference from claim 9 regarding recommended correction.
Claim 2 line 1 reads "after the second battery being connected" which appears to be a conjugation error and should read "after the second battery is connected" to improve clarity.
Claim 3 line 3 reads "after the battery being replaced" which appears to be a conjugation error and should read "after the first battery is replaced" to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. (See claim interpretation below.) When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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:
In claim(s) 1, the “acquisition device” in the limitation “an acquisition device that acquires battery information ” invokes 112(f) as “device” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the acquisition of battery information.
In claim(s) 1 and 11, the “notification device” in the limitation “a notification device that performs notification” invokes 112(f) as “device” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the performance of a notification.
In claim(s) 1 and 11, the “control device” in the limitation “a control device that controls the notification device” invokes 112(f) as “device” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables control operations.
In claim(s) 3, the “display device” in the limitation “display device to display an image” invokes 112(f) as “device” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the display of an image.
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.
Regarding the acquisition device, a review of the specification shows no corresponding structure. (See 112(b) rejection below.) Since the control device performs the same functions of the acquisition device (see at least ¶ 0023), for the purpose of examination, the acquisition device and control device will be interpreted as one and the same device.
Regarding the control device, a review of the specification (¶ 0034) shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure to these claim limitations:
"The ECU 18a corresponds to a control device (EV-ECU) that manages various kinds of control related to the vehicle 100. The ECU 18b corresponds to a control device (Plg-ECU) that detects the states of the DC inlet 14b and the AC inlet 15b. The ECU 18c corresponds to a control device (Bat-C-ECU) that controls the DC charging relay 14a and the AC charger 15a. The ECU 28a corresponds to a control device (Bat-ECU) that monitors a state of the battery 21 and controls the SMR 23."
The control device will thus be interpreted as one or more ECUs (electronic control units).
Regarding the notification device and display device, a review of the specification (¶ 0010 and 0042) shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure to these claim limitations:
"In the vehicle according to the above aspect, the notification device may be a display device."
"The HMI 19a includes an input device and a display device provided in a vehicle cabin. The HMI 19a may include a touchscreen display."
Examiner understands the touchscreen display in the cited excerpt above is applicable to both the input device and display device generically recited as being comprised in the HMI as touchscreens are well known devices capable of performing both input and display functions.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “acquisition device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As stated above, there is no explicitly recited structure for the acquisition device. Only ¶ 0006 of the specification explicitly mentions the acquisition device but does not recite any structure for the claimed limitations. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim(s) 2-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations:
acquiring battery information from a second battery after a first battery is replaced with the second battery; and
when a difference in characteristics is found between the second battery and a reference battery of specifications set in advance based on the battery information of the second battery,
providing notification of information indicating that there is the difference in the characteristics before and after replacement.
The limitations (a-b) recited above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting ECUs, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person can easily observe voltage measurements from sensors or other characteristics (such as observing a supplier name pasted on the car battery) of a car battery before and after replacement (a) to determine if a difference exists between the measurements/characteristics before and after replacement (b). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the ECU is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The limitation of acquiring battery information (a), if not interpreted as an observation step, may instead be interpreted as an insignificant extra pre-solution activity of mere data gathering. Mere data gathering cannot form an inventive concept. The limitation of providing a notification (c) is an insignificant extra post-solution activity of mere display. Mere display cannot form an inventive concept.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the ECU is generically recited as detailed above. A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity in the field. The limitation of acquiring battery information (a) is a WURC activity because buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) indicated that the reception of data over a network is a WURC function. If instead the data is obtained from memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 indicated that the retrieval of data from memory is a WURC function. The limitation of providing a notification (c) is a WURC activity because Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018) indicated that the display of data without any limitations specifying how the desired result is achieved is a WURC function. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and 2106.05(d)(II). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-8 and 10 do(es) not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim(s) is/are directed towards additional aspects of the abstract idea.
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 (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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. CN 111257771 A (hereinafter Liu; a translated copy has been provided by the examiner which the examiner relies upon) in view of Yi et al. US 20230298395 A1 (hereinafter Yi).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 11;
Liu teaches
A vehicle (Abstract “vehicle”) comprising:
a notification device that performs notification of vehicle information regarding the vehicle (¶ 0021 discloses outputting an alarm to an instrument panel); and
a control device comprising one of more ECUs (Abstract discloses a controller to perform the method) that controls the notification device (¶ 0021 discloses controller outputs alarm to the instrument panel), wherein the control device is configured to
acquire battery information from a battery installed as a power supply in the vehicle (Abstract discloses a battery sensor obtains information about a replacement battery and inputs it into the controller), and
perform, after a first battery installed in the vehicle is replaced with a second battery (Abstract discloses determining consistency of replacement batteries), when a difference in characteristics is found between the second battery and a reference battery of specifications set in advance based on the battery information acquired from the second battery (¶ 0020 discloses comparing battery parameters to reference values at four charge levels), notification of information indicating that there is the difference in the characteristics before and after replacement, using the notification device (¶ 0020-0021 discloses determining that the difference indicates battery is incompatible and providing an alarm in response to the mismatch).
Liu does not teach that
the notification device comprises a touchscreen display.
Yi teaches that
the notification device comprises a touchscreen display (¶ 0053 discloses a driver touch screen that displays data indicating that a battery is abnormal or malfunctioning).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Yi. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the touch screen of Yi for the instrument panel of Liu. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of displaying battery abnormality information renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, the modified Liu reference teaches all of claims 1 and 9 as detailed above.
Liu further teaches that
after the second battery is connected to the vehicle as the power supply, when a magnitude in difference between a value indicating a characteristic of the reference battery that is set in advance and a value indicating the characteristic of the second battery that is set in advance is greater than a threshold value (¶ 0020 discloses determining that the difference between battery parameters and reference values is outside of an error range indicating incompatibility), the control device performs notification of information indicating that there is the difference in the characteristics, using the notification device (¶ 0021 discloses providing an alarm in response to the mismatch).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Liu reference teaches all of claim 2 as detailed above.
Liu further teaches that
when the vehicle is started for a first time after the battery is replaced with the second battery (¶ 0012 discloses that comparison between parameters occurs after battery has been fully charged implying comparison occurs during first time starting the vehicle after the battery has been fully charged following the vehicle start), and the magnitude of the difference is greater than the threshold value (¶ 0020), the control device uses the notification device to indicate information that there is the difference in the characteristics (¶ 0021).
Liu does not teach that
the notification device is a display device comprising a touchscreen display; and
the control device uses the notification device to cause the display device to display an image including information indicating that there is the difference in the characteristics.
Yi further teaches that
the notification device is a display device comprising a touchscreen display (¶ 0053 “touch screen”); and
the control device uses the notification device to cause the display device to display an image including information indicating that there is the difference in the characteristics (¶ 0053 discloses a driver touch screen that displays a highlighted image indicating that a battery is abnormal or malfunctioning).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Liu to incorporate the further teachings of Yi. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the touch screen of Yi for the instrument panel of Liu. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of displaying battery abnormality information renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Liu reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Liu further teaches that
when a magnitude in difference between a first voltage of the reference battery and a second voltage of the second battery is greater than a threshold value (¶ 0020 discloses determining that the difference between battery parameters and reference values is outside of an error range indicating incompatibility; ¶ 0004 discloses battery information includes voltage information), in a state in which the reference battery and the second battery are at a same state of charge (¶ 0020 discloses comparing parameters at four charge levels), the control device performs notification of information indicating that there is the difference in the characteristics, using the notification device (¶ 0021 discloses providing an alarm in response to the mismatch).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Liu reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Liu further teaches that
the specifications set in advance include specifications of the first battery (¶ 0019 discloses determining whether the replacement battery is the same model as the original battery installed at the factory; examiner understands this “original battery” to be equivalent to the first battery before replacement).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as modified by Yi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuoka JP 2020114121 A (hereinafter Matsuoka; a translated copy has been provided by the applicant which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Liu reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Liu further teaches that
the control device performs notification of information indicating that there is the difference in the characteristics, using the notification device (¶ 0021 discloses providing an alarm in response to the mismatch).
Liu does not teach that
when a supplier of the reference battery and a supplier of the second battery are different, the control device performs notification of information indicating that there is the difference in the characteristics, using the notification device.
Matsuoka teaches that
when a supplier of the reference battery and a supplier of the second battery are different (¶ 0020 discloses determining if a replacement battery is genuine and thus made by the same manufacturer of the vehicle), the control device performs notification of information indicating that there is the difference in the characteristics, using the notification device (¶ 0022 discloses providing a warning of the battery being non-genuine).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Matsuoka such that a difference in manufacturer of a new battery can also be checked after installation according to Matsuoka wherein the alarm of Liu can occur following determination of a non-genuine battery. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of faulty battery detection that may prevent a vehicle from being properly driven as disclosed in Matsuoka (¶ 0019 and Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112(b) and 101 rejections detailed above and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, none of the prior art of record teaches that
when a magnitude in difference between a first amount of time necessary to change a state of charge of the reference battery by a value set in advance and a second amount of time necessary to change the state of charge of the second battery by the value set in advance is greater than a threshold value, the control device performs notification of information indicating that there is the difference in the characteristics, using the notification device.
Liu makes a suggestion of utilizing a change in state of charge over a period of time to obtain battery capacity (¶ 0054), but this is ultimately utilized such that the replacement battery can be discharged to four distinct states of charge wherein the battery parameters can be compared to reference parameters at these states of charge to determined battery compatibility (¶ 0055). Liu does not teach any comparison between the charging/discharging speeds of the replacement battery and reference parameters required to teach the claim limitations. Since none of the prior art of record makes up for the deficiencies of Liu, the claim appears to be non-obvious and novel in light of the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 8, none of the prior art teaches that
when an installation position of the first battery and an installation position of the second battery differ, the control device performs notification of information indicating that there is the difference in the characteristics, using the notification device.
Prior art Lee US 20230006295 A1 (hereinafter Lee) does teach determining if a detachable battery is installed at a predetermined mounting position (¶ 0084), but Lee fails to teach a comparison between the mounting positions of a previous battery and the replacement battery. None of the prior art of record appears to teach such a comparison. Instead, the prior art of record is either utterly silent on the mounting location of the battery or compares the battery location to a predetermined mounting location. As there is no inherent guarantee that a first battery was mounted “properly”, mere recitations of determining if a battery is properly mounted is insufficient to teach the claimed limitations. Therefore, the claim appears to be non-obvious and novel in light of the prior art of record.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. KR 20220036701 A discloses determining that a replacement battery is faulty based on a deviation between post-replacement voltage and pre-replacement voltage.
Seo KR 20220072040 A discloses determining a replacement battery is a different type than a previous battery (such as a different manufacturer) and notifying a user to input the new battery’s specification into a display such that the vehicle can adapt operation to the new battery.
Zhou et al. CN 102205800 B discloses providing a warning of an abnormal battery module through a touch screen.
Gu CN 101624017 A discloses determining if a battery has been properly positioned during installation.
Okura US 20130197734 A1 discloses determining if a post-replacement battery is certified or not.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 5:00 am - 3:30 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights