DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 19/046,002 filed on July 24, 2026 in which claims 2-5, 8, 11-14, 17, and 20 were amended.
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
Claims 1-20 are pending, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 12 recites a method claim including the limitation “determining a first derated value in response to the measured discharge power exceeding a first threshold.” (Emphasis added). The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require determining a first derated values because the claims do not require that the measured discharge power exceeds a first threshold. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Ex parte Circlaeys (PTAB 2026) (App. S.N. 17/878,742) at 6 (“the phrase ‘in response to’ is conditional and therefore synonymous with the term ‘if.’”); Ex parte Heil (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/512,669), at 6; Ex parte Frost (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/785,052) at 7; Ex parte Dawson (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/103,472) at 6; and Ex parte Candelore (PTAB 2017) (App. S.N. 14/281,158) at 5 (supporting the interpretation that “in response to” limitations are conditional).
Claim 13 recites a method claim including the limitation “increasing the derated command in response to the measured discharge power falling below the first threshold.” (Emphasis added). The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the derated command to be gradually increased because it does not require that the measured discharge power falls below the first threshold.” See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Ex parte Circlaeys (PTAB 2026) (App. S.N. 17/878,742) at 6 (“the phrase ‘in response to’ is conditional and therefore synonymous with the term ‘if.’”); Ex parte Heil (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/512,669), at 6; Ex parte Frost (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/785,052) at 7; Ex parte Dawson (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/103,472) at 6; and Ex parte Candelore (PTAB 2017) (App. S.N. 14/281,158) at 5 (supporting the interpretation that “in response to” limitations are conditional).
Claim 14 recites a method claim including the limitations “determining a first derated value in response to the measured discharge power exceeding a first threshold, the first threshold being set based on the available discharge power and being less than the available discharge power” and “determining a second derated value in response to the measured discharge power exceeding a second threshold, the second threshold being set based on the first power and being less than the first power, and the determining the derated command determines the derated command further based on the first derated value and the second derated value.” (Emphasis added). The broadest reasonable interpretation does not require determining the first or second derated value because the claim does not require the measured discharge power to exceed either threshold. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Ex parte Circlaeys (PTAB 2026) (App. S.N. 17/878,742) at 6 (“the phrase ‘in response to’ is conditional and therefore synonymous with the term ‘if.’”); Ex parte Heil (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/512,669), at 6; Ex parte Frost (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/785,052) at 7; Ex parte Dawson (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/103,472) at 6; and Ex parte Candelore (PTAB 2017) (App. S.N. 14/281,158) at 5 (supporting the interpretation that “in response to” limitations are conditional).
Claim 17 recites a method claim including the limitation “decoupling the motor from mower blades of the electric turf vehicle by disengaging a power take-off (PTO) in response to applying occurring for a threshold period of time.” (Emphasis added). The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the disengaging a power take-off to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Ex parte Circlaeys (PTAB 2026) (App. S.N. 17/878,742) at 6 (“the phrase ‘in response to’ is conditional and therefore synonymous with the term ‘if.’”); Ex parte Heil (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/512,669), at 6; Ex parte Frost (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/785,052) at 7; Ex parte Dawson (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/103,472) at 6; and Ex parte Candelore (PTAB 2017) (App. S.N. 14/281,158) at 5 (supporting the interpretation that “in response to” limitations are conditional).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
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. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Duppong et al., US Publication 2017/0009881 (hereinafter Duppong) in view of Zhang, CN 117799499 A (hereinafter Zhang).1
Regarding claim 1, Duppong discloses an electric turf vehicle (Duppong ¶ 19) comprising “a motor.” (Duppong ¶ 21). Additionally, Duppong discloses “an electric power source; and a controller.” (Duppong ¶ 20). Further, Duppong discloses that the controller is “configured to cause the vehicle to, obtain an available discharge power of the electric power source” (Duppong ¶ ¶ 28) by determining an the amount of engine flywheel power allowed at a particular transmission gear. Moreover, Duppong discloses “obtain a measured discharge power of the electric power source” (Duppong ¶ 29) by receiving the total amount of consumed electrical power. Likewise, Duppong discloses “determine a derated command based on the a calculated reduction in flywheel power and the measured discharge power” (Duppong ¶¶ 28-29) by comparing the electrical power consumption to the reduction in flywheel power, which is determined from the current gear of the tractor. Finally, Duppong discloses “control a voltage to the motor based on the derated command” (Duppong ¶ 31) by reducing the flywheel power based on the calculated RFP, which Duppong ¶ 28 defines as a derate command.
Although Duppong discloses that the derate command is based on comparing the measured discharge power to the calculated reduction in flywheel power, which is based on the available discharge power as discussed above, it does not disclose that the comparison is with the available discharge power. Therefore, Duppong does not appear to explicitly disclose “determine a derated command based on the available discharge power and the measured discharge power.”
However, Zhang discloses a system for derating an automobile battery, including the step of “obtain an available discharge power of the electric power source” (Zhang 11) where the “available peak power” must necessarily be obtained to be used in the calculations. Additionally, Zhang discloses “obtain a measured discharge power of the electric power source” (Zhang 11) by “calculating the residual available power margin,” which the measured amount of remaining discharge power. Finally, Zhang discloses “determine a derated command based on the available discharge power and the measured discharge power” (Zhang 11) by “derating integral processing on the available peak power of the battery by judging the residual available power margin of the actual battery.”
Duppong and Zhang are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of systems and methods for derating vehicle batteries.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Duppong and Zhang before him or her to modify the use of the calculated reduction in flywheel power of Duppong to be replaced by the derating calculation of Zhang.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of simple substitution. See KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Duppong differs from the claimed invention by including the use of a calculated reducing in flywheel power in place of available power. Further, Zhang teaches that determining a derate command based on comparing an available discharge power to a measured discharge power was well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted the available discharge power of Zhang for calculated reduction in flywheel power of Duppong because the calculated reduction in flywheel power is calculated from the available power at each gear ratio.
Regarding claim 10, it merely recites a method performed by the vehicle of claim 1. The method comprises performing the various functions. The combination of Duppong and Zhang performing the same functions. Thus, claim 10 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, it merely recites a non-transitory computer readable medium for embodying the method of claim 10. The medium comprises computer software modules for performing the various functions. The combination of Duppong and Zhang comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 19 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 10.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20, the combination of Duppong and Zhang discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1, 10 and 19 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Duppong and Zhang discloses “wherein the controller is configured to cause the vehicle to, obtain a measured discharge voltage of the electric power source” (Duppong ¶ 29) by receiving the amount of electric power consumption from the engine. Further, the combination of Duppong and Zhang discloses “determine a first power, the first power being based on the measured discharge voltage and an electrical current limit of the electric power source” (Duppong ¶ 31) where the “actual reducing in engine flywheel power” is based on subtracting the amount of electrical power consumption from the engine (i.e., the measured discharge voltage) from the reduction in flywheel power (i.e., the current limit of the electrical power source) at step 414. Finally, the combination of Duppong and Zhang discloses “determine the derated command based on the measured discharge power and the first power” (Duppong ¶ 31) by determining the reduction in flywheel power based on the calculation at step 414.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Duppong and Zhang discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Duppong and Zhang discloses “mower blades” (Duppong ¶ 21) by providing a variety of example vehicles known to include mower blades. Further, the combination of Duppong and Zhang discloses “a power take-off (PTO) configured to couple the motor to the mower blades.” (Duppong ¶ 21)
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Duppong and Zhang discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 10 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Duppong and Zhang discloses “controlling mower blades of the electric turf vehicle; and controlling a power take-off (PTO) of the electric turf vehicle configured to couple the motor to the mower blades” (Duppong ¶ 21) where the PTO controls power to a variety of implements known to include mower blades.
Claims 3-6, 9, 12-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Duppong in view of Zhang, as applied to claim 1, 2, 10, and 11 above, and in further view of Kuras et al., US Publication 2021/0135605 (hereinafter Kuras).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the combination of Duppong and Zhang discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 2 and 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Duppong and Zhang discloses “wherein the controller is configured to cause the vehicle to, determine a first derated value in response to the measured discharge power exceeding a first threshold, the first threshold being set based on the available discharge power …” (Duppong ¶ 29) where at step 410, the threshold is the reduction in flywheel power, which is based on the available discharge power as discussed above. Finally, the combination of Duppong and Zhang discloses “determine the derated command based on the first derated value” (Duppong ¶ 31) by reducing the flywheel power based on the comparison at step 410.
The combination of Duppong and Zhang does not appear to explicitly that the threshold is also less than the available discharge power and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “determine a first derated value in response to the measured discharge power exceeding a first threshold, the first threshold being set based on the available discharge power and being less than the available discharge power.”
However, Kuras discloses a turf vehicle configured to derate the turf vehicle’s battery “wherein the controller is configured to cause the vehicle to, determine a first derated value in response to the measured discharge power exceeding a first threshold, the first threshold being set based on the available discharge power and being less than the available discharge power” (Kuras ¶ 26 and Figs. 3A-3B) where several limit ratios are set to be below the available discharge power, such as “0.602” percent of the power. Kuras defines the limit ratios to be the thresholds used to determine deration. (Kuras ¶ 23, first sentence). Further, Kuras discloses “determine the derated command based on the first derated value” (Kuras ¶ 23) where the torque is adjusted based on the threshold.
Duppong, Zhang, and Kuras are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of systems and methods for derating vehicle batteries.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Duppong, Zhang, and Kuras before him or her to modify the threshold of Duppong and Zhang also be lower than the available power, as taught by Kuras.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). The combination of Duppong and Zhang teaches the “base device” for derating a vehicle engine based on comparing a measured value to a threshold. Further, Kuras teaches the “known technique” of derating a vehicle engine based on comparing a measured value to a threshold based on the available power and lower than the available power that is applicable to the base device of Duppong and Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because such a modification would have merely involved replacing the table used to determine the calculated RFP with that of Kuras.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, the combination of Duppong, Zhang, and Kuras discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 3 and 12 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Duppong, Zhang, and Kuras at least teaches and/or suggests “wherein the controller is configured to cause the vehicle to, increase the derated command over a period of time in response to the measured discharge power falling below the first threshold” (Zhang 11, Duppong ¶ 31) by gradually derating of performance (i.e., gradually increasing the derated command) when error represents excessive battery drain according to Zhang, which is determined based on the threshold of Duppong.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, the combination of Duppong and Zhang discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 2 and 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Duppong and Zhang discloses “wherein the controller is configured to cause the vehicle to, determine a first derated value in response to the measured discharge power exceeding a first threshold, the first threshold being set based on the available discharge power …” (Duppong ¶ 29) where at step 410, the threshold is the reduction in flywheel power, which is based on the available discharge power as discussed above. Further, the combination of Duppong and Zhang discloses “determine a second derated value in response to the measured discharge power exceeding a second threshold, the second threshold being set based on the first power …” (Duppong ¶ 29) where each gear has its own threshold value. Finally, the combination of Duppong and Zhang discloses “determine the derated command based on the first derated value and the second derated value” (Duppong ¶ 31) by reducing the flywheel power based on the comparison at step 410.
The combination of Duppong and Zhang does not appear to explicitly that the first threshold is also less than the available discharge power or that the second threshold is less than the first power and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “determine a first derated value in response to the measured discharge power exceeding a first threshold, the first threshold being set based on the available discharge power and being less than the available discharge power” or “determine a second derated value in response to the measured discharge power exceeding a second threshold, the second threshold being set based on the first power and being less than the first power.”
However, Kuras discloses a turf vehicle configured to derate the turf vehicle’s battery “wherein the controller is configured to cause the vehicle to, determine a first derated value in response to the measured discharge power exceeding a first threshold, the first threshold being set based on the available discharge power and being less than the available discharge power” (Kuras ¶ 26 and Figs. 3A-3B) where several limit ratios are set to be below the available discharge power, such as “0.602” percent of the power. Kuras defines the limit ratios to be the thresholds used to determine deration. (Kuras ¶ 23, first sentence). Further, Kuras discloses “determine a first power, the first power being based on the measured discharge voltage and a current limit of the electric power source” (Kuras ¶ 26 and Figs. 3A-3B) where the control system determines respective power demands (i.e., measured discharge voltage) and a generator power limit (i.e., a current limit of the electric power source), which is used to determine each of the limit ratios, such as the limit ratio shown as row 304 of Fig. 3A. Moreover, Kuras discloses “determine a second derated value in response to the measured discharge power exceeding a second threshold, the second threshold being set based on the first power and being less than the first power” (Kuras ¶ 26 and Figs. 3A-3B) where a second threshold is based on the limit ratios and giving examples of some limit ratios being less than others. Finally, Kuras discloses “determine the derated command based on the first derated value and the second derated value” (Kuras ¶ 23) where the torque is adjusted based on the thresholds.
Duppong, Zhang, and Kuras are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of systems and methods for derating vehicle batteries.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Duppong, Zhang, and Kuras before him or her to modify the thresholds of Duppong and Zhang also be lower than the available power and the first power, respectively, as taught by Kuras.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). The combination of Duppong and Zhang teaches the “base device” for derating a vehicle engine based on comparing a measured value to thresholds. Further, Kuras teaches the “known technique” of derating a vehicle engine based on comparing a measured value to a first threshold based on the available power and lower than the available power and comparing a measured value to a second threshold based on the first power and less than the first power, that is applicable to the base device of Duppong and Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because such a modification would have merely involved replacing the table used to determine the calculated RFP with that of Kuras.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the combination of Duppong, Zhang, and Kuras discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 5 and 14 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Duppong, Zhang, and Kuras at least teaches and/or suggests “wherein the derated command is the greater of the first derated value and the second derated value” (Kuras Fig. 3A) because such a modification would be obvious to try. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(E). At the time of invention, there was a recognized problem or need in the art, namely derating batteries based on multiple thresholds. Further, there were only four identified, predictable potential solutions: (1) where the derated command is the greater of the first derated value and the second derated value; (2) where the derated command is the lesser of the first derated value and the second derated value; (3) where the derated command is the first derated value; and (4) where the derated command is the second derated value. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success because each of these options would normally be tested to determine when choice provides the best results.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the combination of Duppong and Zhang discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 10 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Duppong and Zhang does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the derated command is a command to derate a traction speed of the motor.”
However, Kuras discloses a system for derating a vehicle battery “wherein the derated command is a command to derate a traction speed of the motor.” (Kuras ¶ 22).
Duppong, Zhang, and Kuras are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of derating vehicle batteries.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Duppong, Zhang, and Kuras before him or her to modify the derated function of Duppong and Zhang to include the deration of the traction speed of the motor of Kuras.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). The combination of Duppong and Zhang teaches the “base device” derating a vehicle’s battery to control various motor functions. Further, Kuras teaches the “known technique” of derating a vehicle’s battery to control the traction speed of the motor that is applicable to the base device of Duppong and Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Duppong in view of Zhang, as applied to claims 7 and 16 above, and in further view of See et al., US Publication 2015/0088362 (hereinafter See).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the combination of Duppong and Zhang discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 7 and 16 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Duppong and Zhang discloses “wherein the controller is configured to cause the vehicle to, apply the derated command to the control of the motor” (Duppong 31) by reducing the flywheel power based on the calculated RFP, which Duppong ¶ 28 defines as a derate command.
The combination of Duppong and Zhang does not appear to explicitly disclose “decouple the motor from the mower blades by disengaging the PTO in response to the controller applying the derated command for a threshold period of time.”
However, See discloses “decouple the motor from the mower blades by disengaging the PTO in response to the controller applying the derated command for a threshold period of time” (See ¶ 29) by disengaging the PTO as part of the derating process.
Duppong, Zhang, and See are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of derating vehicle batteries.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Duppong, Zhang, and See before him or her to modify the derating of Duppong and Zhang to include the disengagement of the PTO of See.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). The combination of Duppong and Zhang teaches the “base device” for derating a vehicle’s battery. Further, See teaches the “known technique” of derating a vehicle’s battery by disengaging the PTO that is applicable to the base device of Duppong and Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 24, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 2-6, 11-15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Remarks 9) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 2-6, 11-15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed July 24, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Remarks 10-13) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Duppong and Zhang.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed July 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the “Office Action does not provide an art rejection of claims 9 or 18” and are “therefore assume[d]” to be allowable. (Remarks 9). The examiner disagrees.
A rejection of claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 was provided at pages 18-19 in the Non-Final Rejection dated May 12, 2026. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Cha et al., US Publication 2019/0178951, System and metho for derating batteries.
Hu et al., US Patent 11,780,348, System and metho for derating batteries.
Luo et al., CN 118346641 A, System and metho for derating batteries.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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 on 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
1 As evidenced by the included English translation. All references shall be made to the page number of the attached document.
Prosecution Insights