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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 16-18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16-18 and 20 recite “The system according to claim 2” which should read “The system according to claim 1,” as claim 2 has been cancelled.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 13-17, and 20 are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 1 recites “identification means” This limitation meets the three-prong test for 112f due to its use of “means” modified by functional language (configured to) and lack of sufficient structure in the claims or the specification. The specification states that the identification means comprises tags wearable by each animal and a tag reader or image analysis means. The term image analysis means is also being interpreted under 112f, and as discussed below, does not have further detail in the specification. Since this term is not elaborated upon in the specification, the image analysis means will be interpreted as any image analyzing element. See also 112(b) rejection below.
Claim 1 recites “tracking means” This limitation meets the three-prong test for 112f due to its use of “means” modified by functional language (configured to) and lack of sufficient structure in the claims or the specification. The specification states that the tracking means comprise at least one camera, a processor or a computer processing unit, and image analysis means. The term image analysis means is also being interpreted under 112f, and as discussed below, does not have further detail in the specification. Since this term is not elaborated upon in the specification, the image analysis means will be interpreted as any image analyzing element. See also 112(b) rejection below.
Claims 1, 13, 15 and 17 recite “attention means” This limitation meets the three-prong test for 112f due to its use of “means” modified by functional language (configured to) and lack of sufficient structure in the claims or the specification. The specification states that the attention means is an attention analysis means, however this is not further elaborated or defined. See also 112(b) rejection below.
Claims 1, 5, 16 and 20 recite “image analysis means” This limitation meets the three-prong test for 112f due to its use of “means” modified by functional language (configured to) and lack of sufficient structure in the claims or the specification. Since this term is not elaborated upon in the specification, the image analysis means will be interpreted as any image analyzing element. See also 112(b) rejection below.
Claim 3 recites “attention analysis means” This limitation meets the three-prong test for 112f due to its use of “means” modified by functional language (configured to) and lack of sufficient structure in the claims or the specification. Since this term is not elaborated upon in the specification, the attention analysis means will be interpreted as any analyzing element. See also 112(b) rejection below.
Claim 14 recites “means for automatically taking appropriate action ” This limitation meets the three-prong test for 112f due to its use of “means” modified by functional language (configured to) and lack of sufficient structure in the claims or the specification. Since this term is not elaborated upon in the specification, the “means for automatically taking appropriate action” will be interpreted as any element that can automatically cause an action, such as a controller. See also 112(b) rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “attention means" and "attention analysis means” in claims 1, 3, 13, 15, and 17 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Claims 1, 3, 13, 15, and 17 include either "attention means" or "attention analysis means." Neither of these terms are given structural details in the specification and it is unclear what Applicant intends to claim. Further, the specification discusses generating and identifying “an attention,” without specifying what “an attention” comprises. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim limitations “image analysis means” in claims 1, 5, 16 and 20 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. This term is not given structural details in the specification and it is unclear what Applicant intends to claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Further, claim 1 recites the terms “tracking means” and “identification means,” which in the specification include the term “image analysis means,” which therefore renders these terms indefinite as well. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim limitation “means for automatically taking appropriate action” in claim 14 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. This term is not given structural details in the specification and it is unclear what Applicant intends to claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 9, 13-14, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajkondawar (WO 2012125266 A1) in view of Borchersen (WO 2017001538 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rajkondawar discloses an animal husbandry system (see figure 1), wherein a group of animals can move about freely in an area (102), the system comprising:
identification means (identification means 114 device for reading tag on dairy cow 104) configured for determining the identity of each individual animal (see page 2, line 30-page 3, line 3),
tracking means (114, 122, real time location) configured for tracking a position of each individual animal (see page 6, line 6 – page 7, line 4), and
attention means (estrus detection logic 124) configured for identifying an attention animal
having a predetermined condition (see page 12, line 1-page 14, line 31),
wherein the system is configured for automatically determining a subgroup of animals that have
been in a predetermined relationship with the attention animal (see page 15, lines 25-33 and page 16, lines 3-23, and claim 1),
wherein the tracking means comprise at least one processor (processor for controller 116),
wherein the predetermined condition is a disease or an injury (health monitoring logic 126, see page 5, lines 6-25),
wherein the predetermined relationship with the attention animal is a distance below a threshold value (location and predefined distance between cows, see page 16, lines 3-23) or the use of the same cubicle or the same fodder or water trough.
Rajkondawar fails to disclose wherein the tracking means comprise at least one camera or a computer processing unit, and image analysis means.
Borchersen teaches wherein the tracking means comprise at least one camera, or a computer processing unit, and image analysis means (camera, processing unit, image analysis means, see page 3, see also 112(b) rejection above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the tracking means to include a camera and image analysis as taught by Borchersen with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for more precise tracking and data collection.
Regarding claim 4, the modified reference teaches the animal husbandry system of claim 1, and Rajkondawar further discloses wherein the identification means comprise tags wearable by each animal and a tag reader (114 device for reading tag on dairy cow 104, see page 2, line 30-page 3, line 3).
Regarding claim 5, the modified reference teaches the animal husbandry system of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the identification means comprise image analysis means.
Borchersen teaches wherein the identification means comprise image analysis means (analysis of images to determine cow health/wellness, method for 3D data, see page 7, see also 112(b) rejection above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the tracking means to include a camera and image analysis as taught by Borchersen with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for more precise tracking and data collection to ensure the animals are healthy.
Regarding claim 9, the modified reference teaches the animal husbandry system of claim 1, and Rajkondawar further discloses wherein the predetermined relationship with the attention animal is a distance below a threshold value during at least a minimum time interval (location and predefined distance between cows for a time period, see page 16, lines 3-23).
Regarding claim 13, the modified reference teaches the animal husbandry system of claim 1, and Rajkondawar further discloses wherein the attention means are configured for automatically identifying animals in the determined subgroup as attention animals (see page 2, line 30-page 3, line 3, page 15, lines 25-33 and page 16, lines 3-23, and claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, the modified reference teaches the animal husbandry system of claim 1, and Rajkondawar further discloses wherein further comprising: means for automatically taking appropriate action in dependence on the determined subgroup of animals and based on the predetermined condition and the predetermined relationship (controller 116 with instructions based on estrus detection logic, see page 5, lines 6-25, see also 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding claim 16, the modified reference teaches the system according to claim 2.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the image analysis means are configured for determining the body orientation of each individual animal.
Borchersen teaches wherein the image analysis means are configured for determining the body orientation of each individual animal (image analysis and anatomical differences between animals, see page 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the tracking means to include the image analysis determining body position as taught by Borchersen with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for increased data regarding animal positioning relative to other animals to better determine animal condition.
Regarding claim 18, the modified reference teaches the system according to claim 2, and Rajkondawar further discloses wherein the identification means comprise tags wearable by each animal and a tag reader (114 device for reading tag on dairy cow 104, see page 2, line 30-page 3, line 3).
Regarding claim 20, the modified reference teaches the system according to claim 2.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the identification means comprise image analysis means.
Borchersen teaches wherein the identification means comprise image analysis means (analysis of images to determine cow health/wellness, method for 3D data, see page 7, see also 112(b) rejection above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the tracking means to include a camera and image analysis as taught by Borchersen with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for more precise tracking and data collection to ensure the animals are healthy.
Claim(s) 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajkondawar (WO 2012125266 A1) in view of Borchersen (WO 2017001538 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van der Berg (US-7370604-B2).
Regarding claim 3, the modified reference teaches the animal husbandry system of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the attention means comprise attention analysis means in a milking robot.
Van der Berg teaches wherein the attention means comprise attention analysis means in a milking robot (milk analyzing means for milking robot, see col 45, lines 33-35, see also 112(b) rejection above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the milk analyzing means of Van der Berg with a reasonable expectation of success as this will help ensure quality product and allow for screening of disease or illness in the animals.
Regarding claim 19, the modified reference teaches the system according to claim 3, and Rajkondawar further discloses wherein the identification means comprise tags wearable by each animal and a tag reader (114 device for reading tag on dairy cow 104, see page 2, line 30-page 3, line 3).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajkondawar (WO 2012125266 A1) in view of Borchersen (WO 2017001538 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vrabete (US-10912283-B2).
Regarding claim 15, the modified reference teaches the animal husbandry system of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach further comprising: a treatment area and a selection gate for guiding an animal to the treatment area, wherein the attention means is arranged to automatically activate the selection gate in order to guide animals in the determined subgroup of animals to the treatment area.
Vrabete teaches a treatment area (treatment areas/quarantine pen 1704, see col 23, lines 58-67) and a selection gate (selection gates 1706, 1708) for guiding an animal to the treatment area, wherein the attention means is arranged to automatically activate the selection gate in order to guide animals in the determined subgroup of animals to the treatment area (livestock treatment device 120 reads tag & determines if the animal should go in the quarantine pen & if so actuates the gate 1708, see col 23, lines 58-67 and col 24, lines 1-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system treatment area and selection gate as taught by Vrabete with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure that sick animals are quarantined to prevent the spread of disease (see col 23, lines 58-67).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajkondawar (WO 2012125266 A1) in view of Borchersen (WO 2017001538 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van der Berg (US-7370604-B2).
Regarding claim 17, the modified reference teaches the system according to claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the attention means comprise attention analysis means in a milking robot.
Van der Berg teaches wherein the attention means comprise attention analysis means in a milking robot (milk analyzing means for milking robot, see col 45, lines 33-35, see also 112(b) rejection above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the milk analyzing means of Van der Berg with a reasonable expectation of success as this will help ensure quality product and allow for screening of disease or illness in the animals.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues against the 112(b) rejections and the 112(f) interpretation. The Office respectfully disagrees. In regards to the tracking means, while “at least one camera, a processor, or a computer processing unit” is provided structure, the tracking means also includes “image analysis means.” Applicant argues that there is sufficient structure for the image analysis means as it is linked to a camera or processor. The Office respectfully disagrees. The specification states “The cameras 11 are connected to a processor or a computer processing unit, and image analysis means (known as such, not shown). With the aid of the cameras 11, the processor and the image analysis means the animals 2 can be continuously tracked in the shed 1.” Therefore, while the image analysis means may be linked to the camera or processor, the specification does not provide clear structure as to what exactly the image analysis means itself is – whether it is a component of the camera, a specific software installed on the processor, or another element not described. Similarly, the tracking means, which Applicant argues is definite and given clear structure, according to the specification, “comprise at least one camera, a processor or a computer processing unit, and image analysis means” and therefore is still indefinite as the image analysis means is not specified.
Applicant argues that the “attention means” and “attention analysis means” also are clearly detailed in the specification. The Office respectfully disagrees. While various conditions and data tracking are discussed, the specification does not clearly point out the structure that is associated with the attention means and the attention analysis means.
Applicant argues that the “appropriate action” and “means for automatically taking appropriate action” also are clearly detailed in the specification. The Office respectfully disagrees. While various actions are discussed, the specification does not clearly point out the structure that is associated with the appropriate action and the means for automatically taking appropriate action. Applicant points to claim 15 as evidence of a clear structural configuration and recites in their arguments “wherein the system comprises a "treatment area and a selection gate for guiding an animal to the treatment area," where the system automatically activates the selection gate to guide the determined subgroup of animals to the treatment area.” However, claim 15 states “wherein the attention means is arranged to automatically activation the selection gate,” which while providing an action, still fails to provide clear structure as to what the structure of the means for taking appropriate action actually is – is it a robot that opens the gate when prompted, is it computer program that can remotely access and activate a latch to open the gate when necessary?
Applicant states that “the specification also discloses that an appropriate automated action includes automatically cleaning or disinfecting a cubicle, a milking robot, a milking box, a fodder trough, or a water trough occupied or visited by an animal that has been in contact with a sick animal; the specification also details automatically separating or isolating animals at risk in order to be checked or treated.” However, this still fails to clearly point out what the structure for taking the appropriate action is – is there a robot that cleans and disinfects the cubicle, robot, box or troughs?
The structure disclosed in the written description of the specification is the corresponding structure only if the written description of the specification or the prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in a means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See B. Braun Medical Inc., v. Abbott Laboratories, 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896, 1900 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The requirement that a particular structure be clearly linked with the claimed function in order to qualify as corresponding structure is the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, and is also supported by the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, that an invention must be particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed. See Medical Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1211, 68 USPQ2d 1263, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore the 112(b) rejections and 112(f) interpretations are maintained.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments over the prior art rejection, the Office respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that Rajkondawar fails to teach “any configuration where identifying an attention animal with a disease or injury triggers the system to backward-search its data, find an entirely separate group of animals that shared a predetermined relationship (such as using the same cubicle or fodder trough) with that attention animal, and automatically determine a specific subgroup of animals.” However, the claim does not require the specifics of a backward data search, merely that the system is configured for automatically determining a subgroup of animals that have been in a predetermined relationship with the attention animal. Rajkondawar includes health-monitoring logic 126, which would include determining if an animal has a disease or injury. Rajkondawar further teaches the predetermined relationship with the attention animal being a distance below a threshold value (see page 16, lines 3-23). While Rajkondawar does not teach the predetermined relationship being use of the same cubicle, food or water trough, this claim limitation is in the alternative form in claim 1, and therefore not required as Rajkondawar teaches the distance threshold limitation, and further, was previously rejected in view of Blanc.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those references cited on the attached 892 form, but not referenced in the rejection above, exhibit similarities to the present invention, particularly, Mitchell (US-11960957-B2), which teaches tracking animals such that when an animal is identified as sick, the system can determine which other animals have had close contact with the sick animal to allow for quarantine and prevent the spread of illness.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KATHERINE ANNE KLOECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-5103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00 -5:30 MST, F: 8:00 - 12:00 MST.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at (571) 270-5301. 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.
/K.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights