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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on June 24, 2026.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Christine Huynh.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 24, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 30, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, applicants argue in pages 6-7 that Raab merely describes calculating a threshold value used to determine when control transitions from a first braking phase to a second braking phase and is not comparable to a “transition speed” and is not used to define or initiate any time-dependent sequence of target speeds but instead serves only as a control threshold (page 6). However, the examiner respectfully disagrees, as Raab teaches (“In particular, this transition speed is calculated as soon as the first braking phase is started. Since the first brake phase can generally run differently, depending on the time profile of the brake request, it is preferred that the transition speed is calculated repeatedly during the first brake phase and the last calculated value is valid for the transition to the second brake phase. This does not exclude that the last determined value is determined taking into account the time profile of the previously determined values of the switching speed during the same braking process, e.g. by using a filter which smoothes the time profile of the determined values of the switching speed.” [0020], “In particular, the predicted speed value is predicted as a function of one of the variables mentioned below or as a function of a combination of two or three of the variables mentioned below: the generated braking effect specification during the first operating phase, the specified deceleration maximum value and the specified jerk maximum value.” [0021], “the predicted transition speed value is dependent on the currently valid value of the delay. In this way, it is taken into account at which level the deceleration and thus in particular the braking force or the braking torque is located when the first braking phase ends.” [0023]), where a transition speed is a threshold value for a vehicle speed, and the speed trajectory is time dependent and predicted as a function computed from the deceleration. The applicant also argues that Raab teaching "controls the travel speed to the setpoint value zero" is describing a feedback control objective, not a trajectory. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees, as Raab teaches (“In the later braking phase, in which the standstill controller controls the travel speed to the setpoint value zero, the travel speed is in particular an input variable, namely a controller input variable of the standstill controller.” [0015], where the speed target trajectory is specified so that the travel speed is controlled to the setpoint value zero, and in FIG. 3, where V goes to 0 from the threshold speed of Vx at Dt2, the second braking phase, and FIG. 3 shows the speed trajectory over time as the vehicle speed goes to a speed of zero. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is maintained. See detailed rejection below.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons as listed above due to dependency. See detailed rejection below.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raab (EP3271226B1), which was provided in the IDS sent on January 22, 2025, in view of Zhang et al. (US 20180354474 A1).
Regarding claims 1-11:
With respect to claims 1, 9, and 11, Raab teaches:
wherein, in a first braking phase, a target value for a braking torque is applied to the electric drive motor (14), (“In the first brake phase, the brake request is in particular the input variable, e.g. a braking force request or a braking torque request. The torque is, for example, the torque of at least one drive motor of the vehicle, which is operated as a generator during an electrodynamic braking process.” [0014]), where the target value for a braking torque is the braking torque request.
wherein a current speed of the vehicle (10) is sensed as the actual speed, (“The information about the travel speed can be obtained in particular from commonly available measurement systems of the vehicle.” [0015]), where the current speed is obtained using vehicle sensors.
wherein, when the actual speed reaches a threshold value (v0) for a vehicle speed, application of the target value for the braking torque is terminated and, in a second braking phase, a speed target trajectory (202) is applied, (“In particular, this transition speed is calculated as soon as the first braking phase is started. Since the first brake phase can generally run differently, depending on the time profile of the brake request, it is preferred that the transition speed is calculated repeatedly during the first brake phase and the last calculated value is valid for the transition to the second brake phase. This does not exclude that the last determined value is determined taking into account the time profile of the previously determined values of the switching speed during the same braking process, e.g. by using a filter which smoothes the time profile of the determined values of the switching speed.” [0020], “In particular, the predicted speed value is predicted as a function of one of the variables mentioned below or as a function of a combination of two or three of the variables mentioned below: the generated braking effect specification during the first operating phase, the specified deceleration maximum value and the specified jerk maximum value.” [0021], “the predicted transition speed value is dependent on the currently valid value of the delay. In this way, it is taken into account at which level the deceleration and thus in particular the braking force or the braking torque is located when the first braking phase ends.” [0023])), where a transition speed is a threshold value for a vehicle speed. When the vehicle speed is the transition speed, then the second braking phase is started. (“In the later braking phase, in which the standstill controller controls the travel speed to the setpoint value zero, the travel speed is in particular an input variable, namely a controller input variable of the standstill controller.” [0015], where the speed target trajectory is specified so that the travel speed is controlled to the setpoint value zero.
However, Raab does not teach that the braking torque is ended, but Zhang teaches, (“upon detecting that a brake of the vehicle is applied and a speed of the vehicle is below a threshold, monotonically reduce a brake torque of the brake so that the brake torque reaches the target brake torque when the speed reaches substantially zero.” [0009], “The computer 32 is programmed to detect that the brakes 44 are applied and that the speed v of the vehicle 30 is below a threshold v0, and, upon so detecting, monotonically reduce the brake torque T of the brakes 44 so that the brake torque T reaches a target brake torque Ttarget when the speed v reaches substantially zero, as shown between a time to and a time t1.” [0028], “With continued reference to FIG. 2, at the time t1, the brake torque T reaches the target brake torque Ttarget substantially simultaneously to the speed v of the vehicle 30 reaching zero.” [0030]), where it also shows that when the vehicle speed is at a speed threshold, then the speed target trajectory is specified to reach zero and the brake torque is reduced to reach a target value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Raab’s vehicle braking with Zhang’s reduced braking torque because (“The computer 32 is programmed to detect that the brakes 44 are applied and that the speed v of the vehicle 30 is below a threshold v0, and, upon so detecting, monotonically reduce the brake torque T of the brakes 44 so that the brake torque T reaches a target brake torque Ttarget when the speed v reaches substantially zero, as shown between a time to and a time t1. As a consequence, an occupant of the vehicle 30 may experience reduced jerk.” See Zhang [0028]).
Raab further teaches:
wherein the speed target trajectory (202) begins at the threshold value (v0) for the vehicle speed and ends at a speed of zero, (“In the later braking phase, in which the standstill controller controls the travel speed to the setpoint value zero, the travel speed is in particular an input variable, namely a controller input variable of the standstill controller.” [0015]), and in FIG. 3, where V goes to 0 from the threshold speed of Vx at Dt2, the second braking phase, and FIG. 3 shows the speed trajectory over time as the vehicle speed goes to a speed of zero.
wherein the threshold value (v0) for the vehicle speed is determined from a current deceleration of the vehicle (10) and a jerk value; (“In particular, the predicted speed value is predicted as a function of one of the variables mentioned below or as a function of a combination of two or three of the variables mentioned below: the generated braking effect specification during the first operating phase, the specified deceleration maximum value and the specified jerk maximum value.” [0021], “Instead of the predefined deceleration maximum value, the actual (in particular measured) deceleration value of the deceleration of the vehicle can be used for the prediction of the transition speed value.” [0022]), where speed is based on the vehicle deceleration and jerk.
With respect to claim 2, Raab in combination with Zhang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Raab and Zhang teaches braking a vehicle of claim 1. Raab further teaches:
wherein the threshold value (v0) for the vehicle speed is determined as a quotient of the square of the current deceleration of the vehicle (10) and twice the jerk value; (“In particular, by a prediction device not shown in FIG. 2, which may also be present in other embodiments of the generating device than shown in FIG. 2, the predicted speed value v x is calculated, by which the transition between the first brake phase and the second brake phase is defined. This predicted speed value is preferably calculated according to the following equation: v x=1/2*â *F out/ΔF/Δ t.
PNG
media_image1.png
59
531
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In this case, the terms a mean the predefined deceleration maximum value, F out as mentioned above, the braking force specification (and specifically preferably the value thereof which is valid last during the first braking phase), and ΔF/Δt the amount of the decrease in the braking force per time interval which corresponds to the predefined jerk maximum value for a predefined or actually present vehicle mass... In particular, if the deceleration in the first brake phase does not reach the predefined deceleration maximum value, instead of the predefined deceleration maximum value a, the actual deceleration a (namely preferably the value thereof that is valid last during the first brake phase) in the first brake phase can be used for the formula.” [0035-0036]), where the formula is comparable to the threshold value for the vehicle speed being determined using the current deceleration and twice the jerk value. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art where the vehicle speed threshold value is determined as a quotient of the square of the current deceleration of the vehicle and twice the jerk value in an attempt to provide an improved system or method, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. In turn, because the product as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, it would have been obvious to make the system or product where the vehicle speed threshold value is determined as a quotient of the square of the current deceleration of the vehicle and twice the jerk value.
With respect to claim 3, Raab in combination with Zhang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Raab and Zhang teaches braking a vehicle of claim 1. The combination of Raab and Zhang further teaches:
wherein the jerk value is a minimum jerk greater than zero or a predetermined jerk value provided by the vehicle; (“the predicted speed value is predicted as a function of one of the variables mentioned below or as a function of a combination of two or three of the variables mentioned below: the generated braking effect specification during the first operating phase, the specified deceleration maximum value and the specified jerk maximum value… The smaller the predetermined jerk maximum value, the greater the predicted transition speed value. In particular, the predicted transition speed value may be inversely proportional to the predetermined jerk maximum value.” [0021]), and FIG. 3, which shows that the jerk value greater than zero.
With respect to claim 4, Raab in combination with Zhang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Raab and Zhang teaches braking a vehicle of claim 1. Raab further teaches:
wherein the speed target trajectory (202) includes a linear decrease in the deceleration starting from the current deceleration at the start of the second braking phase to the value zero at a speed of zero; (“In the later braking phase, in which the standstill controller controls the travel speed to the setpoint value zero, the travel speed is in particular an input variable, namely a controller input variable of the standstill controller.” [0015]), and FIG. 3, which shows the decrease in deceleration in the second braking phase, and the speed reaching the speed of zero. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art where the current deceleration at the start of the second braking phase goes to the value zero at a speed of zero, as the third phase in Raab is optional, in an attempt to provide an improved system or method, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. In turn, because the product as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, it would have been obvious to make the system or product where the current deceleration at the start of the second braking phase goes to the value zero at a speed of zero.
With respect to claim 5, Raab in combination with Zhang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Raab and Zhang teaches braking a vehicle of claim 1. Raab further teaches:
wherein, when the actual speed is less than the target speed predetermined by the speed target trajectory (202), the target speed is set to the actual speed and the speed target trajectory (202) is continued proceeding from the target speed corresponding to the actual speed; (“The result of the prediction determines at which time the first brake phase is ended and the second brake phase begins. This transition time is preferably indirectly predetermined by calculating a travel speed of the vehicle, at the arrival of which the first braking phase is ended and the second braking phase begins. This can be realized in a simple manner in practice if, as is customary, the vehicle is equipped with a travel speed measuring system. If this measuring system delivers the predicted value of the speed as a measured value or if the predicted value of the speed for switching over into the second brake phase is already undershot during a repeated test, the first brake phase is ended and the second brake phase is started. In particular, this transition speed is calculated as soon as the first braking phase is started. Since the first brake phase can generally run differently, depending on the time profile of the brake request, it is preferred that the transition speed is calculated repeatedly during the first brake phase and the last calculated value is valid for the transition to the second brake phase.” [0020]), where the speed target value trajectory is calculated using the current speed of the vehicle.
With respect to claim 6, Raab in combination with Zhang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Raab and Zhang teaches braking a vehicle of claim 1. Raab further teaches:
wherein a deceleration target trajectory is determined from the speed target trajectory (202), wherein a braking torque pilot value trajectory is calculated and predetermined as a function of the deceleration target trajectory; (“In particular, the predicted transition speed value is dependent on the currently valid value of the delay. In this way, it is taken into account at which level the deceleration and thus in particular the braking force or the braking torque is located when the first braking phase ends. A higher value of the deceleration results in a higher predicted transition speed value and vice versa.” [0023], “FIG. 3 shows an example, in particular for the time profile of the travel speed v and the vehicle acceleration a during the braking process as a function of the time t. On the left in the diagram, a phase of the braking process is shown which still takes place before the first braking phase. In this phase, the travel speed v initially decreases slightly per time interval and the deceleration -a increases in the exemplary embodiment in an approximately rectilinear manner, limited by the predefined jerk maximum value, the magnitude of which also applies as a maximum value for the increase in the deceleration.” [0040], “the braking action specification is generated and output as a function of a braking request. The braking request may be, in particular, the request of a driver of the vehicle who requests, for example, a deceleration (negative acceleration) of the vehicle or a braking force (for example, a negative tractive force generated by at least one drive motor of the vehicle).” [0008]), where deceleration can be determined from the vehicle travel speed and the braking specification is calculated as a function of deceleration.
With respect to claim 7, Raab in combination with Zhang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 6. The combination of Raab and Zhang teaches braking a vehicle of claim 6. Raab further teaches:
wherein the braking torque pilot value trajectory is determined as a function of the target braking torque value at the end of the first braking phase, the current deceleration at the start of the second braking phase, and a standstill torque (Mss) necessary at the end of the second braking phase to maintain a vehicle (10) speed of zero; (“the braking action specification is generated and output as a function of a braking request. The braking request may be, in particular, the request of a driver of the vehicle who requests, for example, a deceleration (negative acceleration) of the vehicle or a braking force (for example, a negative tractive force generated by at least one drive motor of the vehicle).” [0008], “FIG. 3 shows an example, in particular for the time profile of the travel speed v and the vehicle acceleration a during the braking process as a function of the time t. On the left in the diagram, a phase of the braking process is shown which still takes place before the first braking phase. In this phase, the travel speed v initially decreases slightly per time interval and the deceleration -a increases in the exemplary embodiment in an approximately rectilinear manner, limited by the predefined jerk maximum value, the magnitude of which also applies as a maximum value for the increase in the deceleration.” [0040], “Starting from the point in time at which the travel speed v reaches the predicted transition speed value v x i.e. in the second braking phase Dt 2, the acceleration a is increased in accordance with the predefined jerk maximum value ĵ and thus increases in a straight line. A dashed line, which in particular has the profile of a parabola which begins at the time of the predicted transition speed v x indicates the profile of the hypothetical vehicle acceleration which results from the output variable of the standstill controller during the second braking phase Dt 2. Due to the jerk limitation in the second brake phase, however, these values of the output variable of the standstill controller are not output to the brake system.” [0042]), where the braking specification is calculated as a function of deceleration and braking torque. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art where the braking torque pilot value trajectory is determined using the standstill torque necessary at the end of the second braking phase to maintain a vehicle speed of zero, as the third phase in Raab is optional, in an attempt to provide an improved system or method, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. In turn, because the product as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, it would have been obvious to make the system or product where the braking torque pilot value trajectory is determined using the standstill torque necessary at the end of the second braking phase to maintain a vehicle speed of zero.
With respect to claim 8, Raab in combination with Zhang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7. The combination of Raab and Zhang teaches braking a vehicle of claim 7. Raab does not teach, but Zhang teaches:
wherein the braking torque pilot value trajectory proceeds in a linear fashion from the target value for the braking torque at the end of the first braking phase to the standstill torque (Mss) necessary to maintain a speed of zero of the vehicle (10); (“upon detecting that a brake of the vehicle is applied and a speed of the vehicle is below a threshold, monotonically reduce a brake torque of the brake so that the brake torque reaches the target brake torque when the speed reaches substantially zero.” [0009], “The computer 32 is programmed to detect that the brakes 44 are applied and that the speed v of the vehicle 30 is below a threshold v0, and, upon so detecting, monotonically reduce the brake torque T of the brakes 44 so that the brake torque T reaches a target brake torque Ttarget when the speed v reaches substantially zero, as shown between a time to and a time t1.” [0028], “With continued reference to FIG. 2, at the time t1, the brake torque T reaches the target brake torque Ttarget substantially simultaneously to the speed v of the vehicle 30 reaching zero.” [0030]), where it also shows that when the vehicle speed is at a speed threshold, then the speed target trajectory is specified to reach zero and the brake torque is reduced to reach a target value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Raab’s vehicle braking with Zhang’s reduced braking torque because (“The computer 32 is programmed to detect that the brakes 44 are applied and that the speed v of the vehicle 30 is below a threshold v0, and, upon so detecting, monotonically reduce the brake torque T of the brakes 44 so that the brake torque T reaches a target brake torque Ttarget when the speed v reaches substantially zero, as shown between a time to and a time t1. As a consequence, an occupant of the vehicle 30 may experience reduced jerk.” See Zhang [0028]).
With respect to claim 10, Raab in combination with Zhang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Raab and Zhang teaches braking a vehicle of claim 1. Raab does not teach, but Zhang teaches:
A computer program that, when executed on a computing unit, causes the computing unit to perform all method steps of a method according to claim 1; (“A brake torque applied by brakes of the vehicle is controlled by a computer. The computer reduces the brake torque shortly before the vehicle comes to a complete stop.” [0008]), where a computer program executes the steps.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Raab’s vehicle braking with Zhang’s computer program because (“The computer 32 is programmed to detect that the brakes 44 are applied and that the speed v of the vehicle 30 is below a threshold v0, and, upon so detecting, monotonically reduce the brake torque T of the brakes 44 so that the brake torque T reaches a target brake torque Ttarget when the speed v reaches substantially zero, as shown between a time to and a time t1. As a consequence, an occupant of the vehicle 30 may experience reduced jerk.” See Zhang [0028]).
With respect to claim 12, Raab in combination with Zhang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Raab and Zhang teaches braking a vehicle of claim 1. Raab further teaches:
wherein the speed target trajectory (202) is defined as a time-dependent function derived from an acceleration profile over the second braking phase; (“In particular, this transition speed is calculated as soon as the first braking phase is started. Since the first brake phase can generally run differently, depending on the time profile of the brake request, it is preferred that the transition speed is calculated repeatedly during the first brake phase and the last calculated value is valid for the transition to the second brake phase. This does not exclude that the last determined value is determined taking into account the time profile of the previously determined values of the switching speed during the same braking process, e.g. by using a filter which smoothes the time profile of the determined values of the switching speed.” [0020], “In particular, the predicted speed value is predicted as a function of one of the variables mentioned below or as a function of a combination of two or three of the variables mentioned below: the generated braking effect specification during the first operating phase, the specified deceleration maximum value and the specified jerk maximum value.” [0021], “the predicted transition speed value is dependent on the currently valid value of the delay. In this way, it is taken into account at which level the deceleration and thus in particular the braking force or the braking torque is located when the first braking phase ends.” [0023]), where a transition speed is a threshold value for a vehicle speed, and the speed trajectory is time dependent and predicted as a function computed from the deceleration.
With respect to claim 13, Raab in combination with Zhang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 12. The combination of Raab and Zhang teaches braking a vehicle of claim 1. Raab further teaches:
wherein the time-dependent function is defined based on an initial speed and an initial deceleration at the start of the second braking phase, and a terminal condition including zero speed; (“it is preferred to predict the time of the beginning of the second braking phase. The result of the prediction determines at which time the first brake phase is ended and the second brake phase begins. This transition time is preferably indirectly predetermined by calculating a travel speed of the vehicle, at the arrival of which the first braking phase is ended and the second braking phase begins.” [0020], “the predicted transition speed value is dependent on the currently valid value of the delay. In this way, it is taken into account at which level the deceleration and thus in particular the braking force or the braking torque is located when the first braking phase ends.” [0023]), where a transition speed is a threshold value for a vehicle speed, and the speed trajectory is time dependent and predicted as a function computed from the current travel speed of the vehicle and the deceleration.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christine N Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-9980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/CHRISTINE NGUYEN HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/CHRISTOPHER GEORGE FEES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights