DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications filed on May 25, 2025. Claims 1-13 are pending.
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 Interpretation 112 (f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a estimation processing unit configured to estimate… ", "a recommended timing determination unit configured to determine…", "an output processing unit configured to output…” in claim 1, “a correction processing unit configured to increase…” in claim 8, “an operating rate acquisition unit configured to acquire…” and “timing change processing unit configured to acquire…” in claim 9 (and those that depend therefrom).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Paragraph 0046 in the specification describes the structure “the control unit 11 functions as the various processing units by the CPU executing various arithmetic processes according to the control programs. The control unit 11 or the CPU is an example of a computer or a processor that executes the control programs.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a process (method) which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Regarding claim 1
A tire replacement management system comprising: an estimation processing unit configured to estimate a busy timing of tire replacement work performed by a service provider that provides a tire replacement service for a vehicle, on the basis of meteorological prediction information;
a recommended timing determination unit configured to determine a recommended timing in which a first tire mounted to the vehicle to be subjected to the tire replacement service is replaced with a second tire different from the first tire, to be a timing separated, by a set period specified in advance, from the busy timing; and
an output processing unit configured to output the recommended timing determined by the recommended timing determination unit, to a terminal device used by a manager of the vehicle.
The method in claim 1 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of estimating when a tire replacement service provider will be in high demand based on the weather. Notably, the claim does not positively recite any limitations regarding the use of the data in controlling the vehicle in a specific manner.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Regarding claim 1
A tire replacement management system comprising: an estimation processing unit configured to estimate a busy timing of tire replacement work performed by a service provider that provides a tire replacement service for a vehicle, on the basis of meteorological prediction information;
a recommended timing determination unit configured to determine a recommended timing in which a first tire mounted to the vehicle to be subjected to the tire replacement service is replaced with a second tire different from the first tire, to be a timing separated, by a set period specified in advance, from the busy timing; and
an output processing unit configured to output the recommended timing determined by the recommended timing determination unit, to a terminal device used by a manager of the vehicle.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the steps of estimating, determining and outputting are performed by a computer. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Estimating and determining data are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by computers.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 10 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamota (US 12,038,348) in view of Jang (US 20220327868).
Regarding Claim 1, Okamoto teaches a tire replacement management system comprising: an estimation processing unit configured to estimate a busy timing of tire replacement work performed by a service provider that provides a tire replacement service for a vehicle, on the basis of meteorological prediction information (vehicle 202 can receive meteorological data including weather forecast and historical weather trend. In some examples, vehicle 202 can determine, based on the condition, the meteorlogical data, and/or a current data, changing a flat tire, a worn tire, and/or swapping types of tires such as switching tires 204 from summer tire to winter tire or winter tire to summer tire. In some examples, vehicle 202 can determine, based on the condition, changing one or more vehicle components… component monitoring station 306, 60 sensor 308, surface 310, sensor 312, proximity sensor 314, and rollers 316 may be parts of a vehicle maintenance facility, and vehicle 302 is monitored by sensors 308 and 312 as a part of regularly scheduled maintenance or on demand maintenance);
Okamoto fails to teach a recommended timing determination unit configured to determine a recommended timing in which a first tire mounted to the vehicle to be subjected to the tire replacement service is replaced with a second tire different from the first tire, to be a timing separated, by a set period specified in advance, from the busy timing; and an output processing unit configured to output the recommended timing determined by the recommended timing determination unit, to a terminal device used by a manager of the vehicle.
However, Jang teaches a recommended timing determination unit configured to determine a recommended timing in which a first tire mounted to the vehicle to be subjected to the tire replacement service is replaced with a second tire different from the first tire, to be a timing separated, by a set period specified in advance, from the busy timing (Para. [0041]… The server processor 220 may be configured to transmit the appropriate tire pressure and the tire replacement time to the vehicle 100 based on the weather information
according to the position of the vehicle and the driving information of the vehicle) ; and an output processing unit configured to output the recommended timing determined by the recommended timing determination unit, to a terminal device used by a manager of the vehicle (Jang, Para. [0046]..the vehicle controller 130 provides the appropriate air pressure of the tire transmitted from the server 200 and the replacement time of the tire to the driver through the cluster.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle component monitoring as taught by Okamoto with server as taught by Jang to improve operability and fuel efficiency of a vehicle (Jang, Para. [0003-0005].
Regarding Claim 5, Okamoto in view of Jang teach the tire replacement management system according to claim 1, wherein the recommended timing determination unit judges whether or not a provision place of the tire replacement service is in a cold region specified in advance, and determines the recommended timing to be a timing that is before, by the set period, the busy timing, when the provision place is in the cold region (Jang, Para. [0040]… The server processor 220 may be configured to transmit the appropriate tire pressure and the tire replacement time to the vehicle 100 based on the weather information
according to the position of the vehicle and the driving information of the vehicle (SS0). The server processor 220 may be configured to transmit the appropriate tire air pressure and the tire replacement time to the vehicle 100 based on the driving road information and the driving
distance transmitted from the vehicle 100, and the external temperature information of the vehicle transmitted from the weather server 300. In particular, when the vehicle 100 drives more or further than a set driving distance on a set driving road, the server 200 may be configured to transmit a tire replacement request to the vehicle 100.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle component monitoring as taught by Okamoto with server as taught by Jang to improve operability and fuel efficiency of a vehicle (Jang, Para. [0003-0005].
Regarding Claim 6, Okamoto in view of Jang teach the tire replacement management system according to claim 1, wherein the recommended timing determination unit acquires vehicle information including a planned travel range of the vehicle, judges whether or not the planned travel range includes a cold region specified in advance or a high-altitude region specified in advance, and determines the recommended timing to be a timing that is before, by the set period, the busy timing when the planned travel range includes the cold region or the high-altitude region (Jang, Para. [0040])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle component monitoring as taught by Okamoto with server as taught by Jang to improve operability and fuel efficiency of a vehicle (Jang, Para. [0003-0005].
Regarding Claim 7, Okamoto in view of Jang teach the tire replacement management system according to claim 1, wherein the recommended timing determination unit acquires vehicle information including a planned travel distance of the vehicle, judges whether or not the planned travel distance is equal to or larger than a reference distance specified in advance, and determines the recommended timing to be a timing that is before, by the set period, the busy timing when the planned travel distance is equal to or larger than the reference distance (Jang, Para. [0042]… when the vehicle travel distance on an unpaved road is relatively long ( e.g., greater than a predetermined distance), the server processor 220 may be configured to determine the tire replacement time to be less than a standard replacement time. On the other hand, when the distance that the vehicle travels on a general road (for example, a national road or a highway) is relatively long, the server processor 220 may be configured to determine the tie replacement time as the standard replacement time.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle component monitoring as taught by Okamoto with server as taught by Jang to improve operability and fuel efficiency of a vehicle (Jang, Para. [0003-0005].
Regarding Claim 8, Okamoto in view of Jang teach the tire replacement management system according to claim 7, further comprising a correction processing unit configured to increase the set period when the planned travel distance is equal to or larger than a predetermined set distance that is longer than the reference distance (Jang, Para. [0042]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle component monitoring as taught by Okamoto with server as taught by Jang to improve operability and fuel efficiency of a vehicle (Jang, Para. [0003-0005].
Regarding Claim 12-13, please refer to the rejection of claim 1, which is commensurate in scope.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamota (US 12,038,348) in view of Jang (US 20220327868) in further view of Starns (US 2019/0204097).
Regarding Claim 2, Okamoto in view of Jang teach the tire replacement management system according to claim 1, Starns further teaches wherein the output processing unit outputs, to the terminal device, a first work waiting time when the tire is replaced in the busy timing, and a second work waiting time when the tire is replaced in the recommended timing, together with the recommended timing (Starns, Para. [0094-0097]… At step 315, it may be determined if a first data attribute is comparable with a second data attribute. In one example, a first data attribute may be or include a predicted wait time for a service work instance, and a second data attribute may be or include an actual wait time for the service work instance. In another example, a first data attribute may be or include a predicted amount of time for a service work instance, and a second data attribute may be or include an actual amount of time for the service work instance. If a first data attribute is comparable with a second data attribute, the first data attribute may be compared with the second data attribute, at step 320. In one example, comparing the first data attribute the second data attribute may include taking a difference between the first data attribute and the second data attribute. In another example, comparing the first data attribute the second data attribute may include determining a ratio from the first data attribute and the second data attribute)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Okamota in view of Lang with the efficient matching of service providers as taught by Starns to decrease wait time for service (Starns, Para. [0017]).
Regarding Claim 3, Okamoto in view of Jang teach the tire replacement management system according to claim 1, Starns teaches wherein the output processing unit outputs, to the terminal device, a shortened time obtained by subtracting a second work waiting time when the tire is replaced in the recommended timing from a first work waiting time when the tire is replaced in the busy timing, together with the recommended timing (Starns, [0094-0097]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Okamota in view of Lang with the efficient matching of service providers as taught by Starns to decrease wait time for service (Starns, Para. [0017]).
Claim(s) 4 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 12038348 ) in view of Jang (US 20220327868) in further view of Shimomura et al. (US 20210166503).
Regarding Claim 4, Okamoto in view of Jang teach the tire replacement management system according to claim 1, Shimomura further teaches wherein the output processing unit outputs, to the terminal device, benefit information including a benefit of performing tire replacement in the recommended timing, together with the recommended timing (Shimomura, Para. [0055]… The notification information further includes maintenance
advantage information indicating an advantage in a case where the maintenance is performed now. The maintenance advantage information includes, for example, a degree of improvement in fuel consumption, braking distance, tire life, tire failure rate, and vehicle operating rate due to the tire change or tire rotation. The maintenance advantage information includes information regarding various advantages enjoyed by the user of the vehicle by the tire maintenance.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Okamota in view of Lang with tire maintenance management system as taught by Shimomura to decrease manufacturing and operating cost of tire monitoring (Shimomura, Para. [0005]).
Regarding Claim 9, Okamoto in view of Jang teach the tire replacement management system according to claim 1, Shimomura further comprising: an operating rate acquisition unit configured to acquire an operating rate of the vehicle (Shimomura, Para. [0056]… The operation management device 4 is an information processing device such as a PC used for managing an operation of a user's own vehicle. The operation management device 4 makes and manages an operation plan such as a daily destination and a return schedule to a garage of the user's own vehicle. Based on the notification information received from the tire maintenance management device 3, the operation management device 4 takes in information regarding the maintenance of the user's own vehicle, reflects the same in the operation plan, and corrects the operation plan.) ; and a timing change processing unit configured to change the recommended timing when the operating rate of the vehicle in the recommended timing is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold (Shimomura, Para. [0057]... In a case where the maintenance such as the tire change and tire rotation of a certain vehicle is required at a certain time point in the future, the operation management device 4 provides the time point at which the tire maintenance is required to the user in design of the operation plan of this vehicle.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Okamota in view of Lang with tire maintenance management system as taught by Shimomura to decrease manufacturing and operating cost of tire monitoring (Shimomura, Para. [0005]).
Regarding Claim 10, Okamoto in view of Jang and Shimomura teach the tire replacement management system according to claim 9, wherein the timing change processing unit specifies a first candidate timing that is before the recommended timing, when the operating rate is equal to or larger than the threshold, and changes the recommended timing to the first candidate timing, when a first operating rate of the vehicle in the first candidate timing is less than the threshold (Shimomura, Para. [0057]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Okamota in view of Lang with tire maintenance management system as taught by Shimomura to decrease manufacturing and operating cost of tire monitoring (Shimomura, Para. [0005]).
Regarding Claim 11, Okamoto in view of Jang and Shimomura teach the tire replacement management system according to claim 10, wherein the timing change processing unit specifies a second candidate timing that is after the recommended timing, when the first operating rate is equal to or larger than the threshold, and changes the recommended timing to the second candidate timing, when a second operating rate of the vehicle in the second candidate timing is less than the threshold (Shimomura, Para. [0056-0058]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Okamota in view of Lang with tire maintenance management system as taught by Shimomura to decrease manufacturing and operating cost of tire monitoring (Shimomura, Para. [0005]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JODI M JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-0107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JODI JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights