DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This NON-FINAL communication is the first action on the merits.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/18/2025 and 05/30/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 10-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duo’ et al. (US 20220063494 A1) in view of Kittaka et al. (US 20250214453 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Duo’ teaches:
A system for providing a simulated clutch function for an electric vehicle, the system comprising:
a clutch input mechanism;
(Duo’ – [0150] “A fixed handle, gripped by the driver's left hand, is located on the left side of the handlebar 106 and a clutch lever 101 is located in front of the fixed handle.”)
one or more sensors providing signals representing a position of the clutch input mechanism; and
(Duo’ – [0184] “Emulator 1 also includes a clutch 101 equipped with a first sensor 2 configured to emit a clutch signal 2a relative to the position of a clutch 101 of the vehicle 100.”)
a controller, the controller configured to:
(Duo’ – Fig. 2, control unit 4.)
based on the signals from the one or more sensors, determine whether the clutch input mechanism has been released from an engaged state, and
(Duo’ – [0184] “In general, the first sensor 2 is a potentiometer and the clutch signal 2a is an analog signal, such as a voltage signal (e.g. between 0 and 5V), which is a function of clutch travel 101. In other words, depending on the position of the clutch lever, the potentiometer will transmit a signal between 0 Volt (clutch fully released) and a signal of 5 Volt (clutch fully activated).””)
in response to determining that the clutch input mechanism has been released from the engaged state:
determine a clutch multiplier,
(Duo’ – [0185] “Control unit 4 receives the voltage signal emitted by the potentiometer and is configured to convert the analogue signal into a percentage clutch signal by means of a specific conversion curve 20, which can be optionally calibrated (see FIG. 4). In other words, control unit 4 receives the clutch potentiometer voltage signal as input. A software loaded on the control unit 4 converts the values from Volt to percentage values by means of the aforementioned calibratable curve 20, generating a clutch signal in percentage (ClutchPercentage), which is the percentage actuation value of the clutch. When the clutch is released the clutch signal in percentage (ClutchPercentage) is 0%, when the clutch is fully actuated the clutch signal in percentage (ClutchPercentage) is 100%. In fact, clutch signal 2a varies between a released clutch signal, e.g. 0% percentage value, and a fully actuated clutch value, e.g. 100% value.”)
adjust a power curve mapping the position of a throttle mechanism to a power output based on the clutch multiplier and control power to a motor based on a position of a throttle input mechanism and the adjusted power curve for the clutch delivery time.
(Duo’ – [0244] “The calculation is a function of the torque value relative to the simulated gear inserted (TorqueGearOut) of the simulated endothermic combustion vehicle and of the clutch signal 2a, in particular the clutch signal in percentage (ClutchPercentage). The requested simulated torque value (TorqueFinal) is calculated by interpolating, preferably linearly, between a zero value and the torque value relative to the simulated gear inserted (TorqueGearOut) as a function of the clutch signal 2a. With the released clutch signal, the requested simulated torque value (TorqueFinal) coincides with the torque value relative to the simulated gear inserted (TorqueGearOut); with the clutch signal fully activated, the requested simulated torque value (TorqueFinal) is zero. In an electric propulsion vehicle configured with emulator 1 with direct control on the motorcycle/vehicle controller/controller (and not in accelerator bypass), the requested simulated torque value (TorqueFinal) is the value sent to the controller for the torque request.” [0253] “Memory 8 contains a real torque map in which, following a function input of the engine revolutions value (RpmExt) of the electric motor 104 and the requested simulated torque value (TorqueFinal), an accelerator control value is associated, in particular a percentage command (AccPercentageOut). Control unit 4 accesses memory 8 and selects the real torque map to receive the acceleration command value (AccPercentageOut) and determine an accelerator control signal (OutputThrottle) to be sent to the electric propulsion vehicle control unit 100 to control it.”)
Duo’ does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Kittaka teaches:
determine a clutch delivery time, and
(Kittaka – [0029] “FIG. 7 is a flowchart showing torque map switching control at the time of a shift to normal traveling. The ECU 5 obtains the engagement state of the clutch 25 detected by the disengagement detecting means 40 using the detected information obtaining means 24 (step SC1). The ECU 5 determines whether the clutch 25 is in an engagement completed state using the determination means 27 (step SC2). The clutch engagement completed state at this time may be either a state in which the clutch 25 is fully engaged or a state in which there is no clutch rotation difference. When it is determined that the clutch 25 is in the engagement completed state (step SC2: YES), the output controlling means 33 switches the torque map to a normal traveling map (step SC3: a second switching step).”)
Duo’ and Kittaka are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling an electric motorcycle with a clutch. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Duo’ with Kittaka to include controlling the vehicle at a time when the clutch is engaged in order to enable a rider to start driving without a sense of discomfort when operating a clutch to perform a start operation (Kittaka, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 3,
The combination of Duo’ and Kittaka teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Duo’ further teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to:
determine, based on the signals from the one or more sensors, whether the clutch input mechanism is in the engaged state; and
(Duo’ – [0184] “Emulator 1 also includes a clutch 101 equipped with a first sensor 2 configured to emit a clutch signal 2a relative to the position of a clutch 101 of the vehicle 100. The clutch signal 2a is received and processed by control unit 4. In general, the first sensor 2 is a potentiometer and the clutch signal 2a is an analog signal, such as a voltage signal (e.g. between 0 and 5V), which is a function of clutch travel 101. In other words, depending on the position of the clutch lever, the potentiometer will transmit a signal between 0 Volt (clutch fully released) and a signal of 5 Volt (clutch fully activated).”)
Kittaka further teaches:
in response to determining that the clutch input mechanism is in the engaged state, control power to the motor to reduce output of the motor while the clutch input mechanism is in the engaged state.
(Kittaka – [0031] “FIG. 9 shows output control following the normal traveling map. The horizontal axis is the rotation speed of the motor, and the vertical axis is the torque amount. The torque curve corresponding to the accelerator operation amount is set. The normal traveling map outputs a larger torque than the start required output map, for example, in the rotation speed range from 4000 rpm to 6000 rpm when the accelerator operation amount is large (region X). Such flavoring enables powerful driving in the medium speed range. In addition, in a region Z in FIG. 9, the map is flavored to reduce torque as the rotation speed increases. This has the effect of prompting shift up when falling out of a region of high motor driving efficiency to return to the region of high driving efficiency.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Duo’ with Kittaka to include controlling the vehicle at a time when the clutch is engaged in order to enable a rider to start driving without a sense of discomfort when operating a clutch to perform a start operation (Kittaka, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 10,
The combination of Duo’ and Kittaka teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Duo’ further teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured, in response to determining that the position of the throttle input mechanism decreased while power to the motor is controlled based on the adjusted power curve, control power to the motor based on the power curve regardless of whether the clutch delivery time has elapsed.
(Duo’ – [0244] “The requested simulated torque value (TorqueFinal) is calculated by interpolating, preferably linearly, between a zero value and the torque value relative to the simulated gear inserted (TorqueGearOut) as a function of the clutch signal 2a. With the released clutch signal, the requested simulated torque value (TorqueFinal) coincides with the torque value relative to the simulated gear inserted (TorqueGearOut); with the clutch signal fully activated, the requested simulated torque value (TorqueFinal) is zero. In an electric propulsion vehicle configured with emulator 1 with direct control on the motorcycle/vehicle controller/controller (and not in accelerator bypass), the requested simulated torque value (TorqueFinal) is the value sent to the controller for the torque request.” [0253] “Memory 8 contains a real torque map in which, following a function input of the engine revolutions value (RpmExt) of the electric motor 104 and the requested simulated torque value (TorqueFinal), an accelerator control value is associated, in particular a percentage command (AccPercentageOut). Control unit 4 accesses memory 8 and selects the real torque map to receive the acceleration command value (AccPercentageOut) and determine an accelerator control signal (OutputThrottle) to be sent to the electric propulsion vehicle control unit 100 to control it.”)
Regarding claim 11,
The combination of Duo’ and Kittaka teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Duo’ further teaches:
wherein the one or more sensors including one or more of a group consisting of a potentiometer and a Hall effect sensor.
(Duo’ – [0185] “Control unit 4 receives the voltage signal emitted by the potentiometer and is configured to convert the analogue signal into a percentage clutch signal by means of a specific conversion curve 20, which can be optionally calibrated (see FIG. 4).”)
Regarding claim 12,
Claim 12 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13,
Claim 13 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 3 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20,
Claim 20 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 10 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2, 4, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duo’ et al. (US 20220063494 A1) in view of Kittaka et al. (US 20250214453 A1) and in further view of Trerice (US 20030159869 A1).
Regarding claim 2,
The combination of Duo’ and Kittaka teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Duo’ and Kittaka does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Trerice teaches:
wherein the clutch input mechanism is integrated into a brake input mechanism.
(Trerice – [0028] “Instead of a separate lever for the clutch 10, a second connection could be made to one of the hand brake levers 15. In this case, the clutch 10 would become disengaged exactly when the lever 15 is pulled and the brakes are activated. When the brake lever 15 is released, the brakes would also be released and the clutch 10 would become engaged, in a gradual fashion.”)
Trerice is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of controlling a bicycle with an electric motor. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination Duo’ and Kittaka with Trerice to include a clutch input mechanism that is integrated into a brake input mechanism in order to provide an affordable mode of transportation with a simple addition of a motor to the existing structure of a bicycle without a reconstruction of the frame or other extensive alterations of the bicycle (Trerice, para. [0013]).
Regarding claim 4,
The combination of Duo’ and Kittaka teaches the limitations of claim 3.
The combination of Duo’ and Kittaka does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Trerice teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to determine whether the clutch input mechanism is in the engaged state by determining whether the clutch input mechanism is positioned within a predetermined range of a brake input mechanism.
(Trerice – [0028] “Instead of a separate lever for the clutch 10, a second connection could be made to one of the hand brake levers 15. In this case, the clutch 10 would become disengaged exactly when the lever 15 is pulled and the brakes are activated. When the brake lever 15 is released, the brakes would also be released and the clutch 10 would become engaged, in a gradual fashion. A second control for the clutch 10 would also be required, so that the clutch 10 can be disengaged when the motor 1 is not in use, while the lever 15 is still used to control the brakes. This second control could be a simple switch located on the motor unit 1 itself, and when the motor 1 is intended to be used, the clutch 10 could be switched on and engaged, after which time the hand lever 15 could be used to control the clutch 10 as described above. The amount of fuel or electrical power supplied to the engine 1 could be controlled by the rotation of one of the hand grips 16, in the same manner that is used in motorcycles.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination Duo’ and Kittaka with Trerice to include a clutch input mechanism that is integrated into a brake input mechanism in order to provide an affordable mode of transportation with a simple addition of a motor to the existing structure of a bicycle without a reconstruction of the frame or other extensive alterations of the bicycle (Trerice, para. [0013]).
Regarding claim 14,
Claim 14 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 4 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duo’ et al. (US 20220063494 A1) in view of Kittaka et al. (US 20250214453 A1) and in further view of Biffard (US 20240059368 A1).
Regarding claim 5,
The combination of Duo’ and Kittaka teaches the limitations of claim 3.
The combination of Duo’ and Kittaka does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Biffard teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to control power to the motor to reduce the output of the motor by reducing a position of a throttle input mechanism based on the position of the clutch input mechanism.
(Biffard – [0046] “For example, the controller 116 may apply regenerative braking based on and/or as a function of a combination of signals from the throttle 118 and the left-hand control lever 122. In this regard, the controller 116 may reduce torque demand, which is based on the rotational position of throttle 118, in accordance with the rotational position of the left-hand control lever 122. Doing so would, for example, replicate the feel of a mechanical rear brake, by reducing torque output at the rear wheel 108. In response to brake demand, based on the rotational position of the left-hand control lever 122, exceeding torque demand, based on the rotational position of the throttle 118, the controller 116 may command the motor 110 to brake the vehicle 100 regeneratively.”)
Biffard is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of controlling a motor of an electric vehicle. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Duo’ and Kittaka with Biffard in order to reduce the torque output to the motor in a manner that replicates the feel of a clutch and provides additional control over the vehicle and more robust or more finely tuned control (Biffard, para. [0052]).
Regarding claim 15,
Claim 15 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 5 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 6-9 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duo’ et al. (US 20220063494 A1) in view of Kittaka et al. (US 20250214453 A1) and in further view of Ohashi et al. (US 20160221641 A1).
Regarding claim 6,
The combination of Duo’ and Kittaka teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Duo’ further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to determine the clutch multiplier based on the position of the clutch input mechanism when in the engaged state
(Duo’ – [0185] “Control unit 4 receives the voltage signal emitted by the potentiometer and is configured to convert the analogue signal into a percentage clutch signal by means of a specific conversion curve 20, which can be optionally calibrated (see FIG. 4). In other words, control unit 4 receives the clutch potentiometer voltage signal as input. A software loaded on the control unit 4 converts the values from Volt to percentage values by means of the aforementioned calibratable curve 20, generating a clutch signal in percentage (ClutchPercentage), which is the percentage actuation value of the clutch. When the clutch is released the clutch signal in percentage (ClutchPercentage) is 0%, when the clutch is fully actuated the clutch signal in percentage (ClutchPercentage) is 100%. In fact, clutch signal 2a varies between a released clutch signal, e.g. 0% percentage value, and a fully actuated clutch value, e.g. 100% value.”)
The combination of Duo’ and Kittaka does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Ohashi teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to determine the clutch multiplier based on the position of the clutch input mechanism when in the engaged state and how long the clutch input mechanism was in the engaged state before being released.
(Ohashi – [0094] “Firstly, the clutch controller can be configured to determine whether a predetermined period of time has elapsed from an output to the actuator for setting the clutch-position angle to (ΘC1), as shown in S1. If the predetermined period of time has not elapsed yet, an initial clutch-position angle in the creep control can be set to (ΘC=ΘC1) (e.g., at S9) and if the predetermined period of time has elapsed, a feedback control for the creep control (e.g., a feedback control for keeping the idle rotation and feedback control for keeping the torque capacity) can be initiated”)
Ohashi is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of controlling the clutch of a motorcycle. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Duo’ and Kittaka with Ohashi to include measuring a time period of the clutch position in order to control a creep control operation without operation from the accelerator, making a delicate accelerator operation unnecessary (Ohashi, para. [0037]).
Regarding claim 7,
The combination of Duo’ and Kittaka teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Duo’ and Kittaka does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Ohashi teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to determine the clutch multiplier by multiplying a maximum position of the clutch input mechanism when in the engaged state and a time value representing how long the clutch input mechanism was in the engaged state before being released, wherein the longer the clutch input mechanism was in the engaged state before being released, the lower the time value.
(Ohashi – [0099] “If the clutch differential rotation is within the predetermined value (e.g., as determined at S2), it is judged that the steady travel (e.g., travel without gear shift and start) is performed and the clutch-position angle (ΘC) can be set to 0 (e.g., clutch K is set ON) (e.g., as shown at S8). If the clutch differential rotation is not within the predetermined value, a judgment is made as to whether a predetermined period of time has elapsed from the time of output to the actuator for setting to the clutch-position angle (ΘC2) (e.g., S3). If a determination is made that the predetermined period of time has not elapsed yet (e.g., as determined at S3), the start control can be performed and the initial clutch-position angle in the start control can be set (ΘC=ΘC2) (e.g., at S5). If a determination is made that the predetermined period of time has elapsed, a feedback control for a control during travel can be started.”)
Ohashi is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of controlling the clutch of a motorcycle. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Duo’ and Kittaka with Ohashi to include measuring a time period of the clutch position in order to control a creep control operation without operation from the accelerator, making a delicate accelerator operation unnecessary (Ohashi, para. [0037]).
Regarding claim 8,
The combination of Duo’ and Kittaka teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Kittaka further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to determine the clutch delivery time based on the position of the clutch input mechanism when in the engaged state
(Kittaka – [0029] “FIG. 7 is a flowchart showing torque map switching control at the time of a shift to normal traveling. The ECU 5 obtains the engagement state of the clutch 25 detected by the disengagement detecting means 40 using the detected information obtaining means 24 (step SC1). The ECU 5 determines whether the clutch 25 is in an engagement completed state using the determination means 27 (step SC2). The clutch engagement completed state at this time may be either a state in which the clutch 25 is fully engaged or a state in which there is no clutch rotation difference. When it is determined that the clutch 25 is in the engagement completed state (step SC2: YES), the output controlling means 33 switches the torque map to a normal traveling map (step SC3: a second switching step).”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Duo’ with Kittaka to include controlling the vehicle at a time when the clutch is engaged in order to enable a rider to start driving without a sense of discomfort when operating a clutch to perform a start operation (Kittaka, para. [0004]).
The combination of Duo’ and Kittaka does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Ohashi teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to determine the clutch delivery time based on the position of the clutch input mechanism when in the engaged state and how long the clutch input mechanism was in the engaged state before being released.
(Ohashi – [0094] “Firstly, the clutch controller can be configured to determine whether a predetermined period of time has elapsed from an output to the actuator for setting the clutch-position angle to (ΘC1), as shown in S1. If the predetermined period of time has not elapsed yet, an initial clutch-position angle in the creep control can be set to (ΘC=ΘC1) (e.g., at S9) and if the predetermined period of time has elapsed, a feedback control for the creep control (e.g., a feedback control for keeping the idle rotation and feedback control for keeping the torque capacity) can be initiated.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Duo’ and Kittaka with Ohashi to include measuring a time period of the clutch position in order to control a creep control operation without operation from the accelerator, making a delicate accelerator operation unnecessary (Ohashi, para. [0037]).
Regarding claim 9,
The combination of Duo’ and Kittaka teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Duo’ and Kittaka does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Ohashi teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to determine the clutch delivery time by multiplying the clutch multiplier and a time value representing how long the clutch input mechanism was in the engaged state before being released, wherein the longer the clutch input mechanism was in the engaged state before being released, the lower the time value.
(Ohashi – [0099] “If the clutch differential rotation is within the predetermined value (e.g., as determined at S2), it is judged that the steady travel (e.g., travel without gear shift and start) is performed and the clutch-position angle (ΘC) can be set to 0 (e.g., clutch K is set ON) (e.g., as shown at S8). If the clutch differential rotation is not within the predetermined value, a judgment is made as to whether a predetermined period of time has elapsed from the time of output to the actuator for setting to the clutch-position angle (ΘC2) (e.g., S3). If a determination is made that the predetermined period of time has not elapsed yet (e.g., as determined at S3), the start control can be performed and the initial clutch-position angle in the start control can be set (ΘC=ΘC2) (e.g., at S5). If a determination is made that the predetermined period of time has elapsed, a feedback control for a control during travel can be started.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Duo’ and Kittaka with Ohashi to include measuring a time period of the clutch position in order to control a creep control operation without operation from the accelerator, making a delicate accelerator operation unnecessary (Ohashi, para. [0037]).
Regarding claim 16,
Claim 16 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 6 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17,
Claim 17 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 7 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18,
Claim 18 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 8 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19,
Claim 19 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 9 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Sone (US 20220203955 A1) discloses a control circuit that is configured to control the driving force of the drive motor in accordance with the instruction value from the calculation circuit. The calculation circuit is configured to form a virtual clutch configured to change a power transmission ratio between the drive motor and the wheel according to the amount of the change operation, and to calculate the instruction value corresponding to coasting traveling according to the motor rotation speed when the virtual clutch is disengaged.
Wismann et al. (US 20110048832 A1) discloses a control apparatus, which adjusts the throttle signal, includes a rider input mechanism and a control device. The rider input mechanism can be manipulated by the rider to provide a given input. The control device is coupled to the rider input mechanism and to the output of the throttle input device. The control device adjusts the throttle signal based on the given input provided by the rider input mechanism.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE HUBER whose telephone number is (703)756-1765. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMES LEE can be reached at (571)-270-5965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights