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 .
Application status
This office action is in response to application filed on 06/17/2025 and Preliminary Amendment filed on 06/17/2025. Claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 1-8 are rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in the parent Application No. JP2022-210154 filed on 12/27/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/17/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 traveling body configured to travel by power of a drive source” in claim 1
“a wet-type multi-plate disc structure configured to brake the traveling body” in claim 1
“a control valve configured to control an operation of the brake circuit” in claim 1
“a work implement lock switch configured to invalidate an operation signal of a work implement” in claim 2
“a sensor configured to measure a hydraulic pressure” in claim 4
“an object sensor configured to detect an object around the traveling body” in claim 5
The instant specification provides corresponding structure for ““a traveling body configured to travel by power of a drive source” in paragraph [0012], “a wet-type multi-plate disc structure configured to brake the traveling body” in paragraph [0004], “a control valve configured to control an operation of the brake circuit” in paragraph [0007], “a work implement lock switch configured to invalidate an operation signal of a work implement” in paragraph [0062], “a sensor configured to measure a hydraulic pressure” in paragraph [0070], “an object sensor configured to detect an object around the traveling body” in paragraph [0067].
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.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has mentioned “current value” in claim 4 and paragraph [0130]. However, Applicant fails to provide any additional information what type of value is recognized as “current value”. For example, it is confusing that “current value” refers to a current (up-to-date) value of command current or a current pressure value of the hydraulic pressure of the sensor.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
The term “current value” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “current value” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear that the “current value” refers to a current (up-to-date) value of command current or a current pressure value of the hydraulic pressure of the sensor.
Claim Objections
Claim 8, line 1; “A control method for a work machine, comprising” should read as “A control method for a work machine comprising:”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ENOMOTO (US 20200299923 A1).
Regarding claim 8, ENOMOTO teaches A control method for a work machine (ENOMOTO, at least one para. 0024; “FIG. 1 is an external view of a wheel loader 1 according to an embodiment.”), comprising determining whether the work machine is in a vehicle resting state (ENOMOTO, at least one para. 0046; “Parking brake 43 is disposed between transmission 4 and service brake 40. Parking brake 43 is attached to the output shaft. Parking brake 43 is a negative brake that mainly parks the wheel loader. Parking brake 43 is a wet multiplate brake that can switch between a braking state and a non-braking state. The engagement pressure of parking brake 43 can be adjusted by an operation amount of a parking brake lever disposed in the driver's seat.”, wherein it is obvious and well known within the art that the engagement of the parking brake is detected by the controller);
increasing a command current output to a control valve configured to control an operation of a brake circuit (ENOMOTO, at least one para. 0047; “A brake control valve 48 adjusts brake hydraulic pressure supplied to service brake 40 according to a brake hydraulic pressure instruction signal transmitted from controller 30 to brake control valve 48, thereby controlling the engagement pressure (that is, braking force) of service brake 40.”) having a wet-type multi-plate disc structure configured to brake a traveling body when the work machine is in the vehicle resting state (ENOMOTO, at least one para. 0047; “Service brake 40 is disposed between parking brake 43 and wheel 104b. Service brake 40 is attached to an axle coupled to wheel 104b. Service brake 40 is a brake that is mainly used to decelerate or stop during traveling. Service brake 40 is a so-called positive brake of a wet multiplate type that can switch between the braking state and the non-braking state.”) and (ENOMOTO, at least one para. 0042; “Transmission 4 selectively engages and disengages respective clutches 51 to 56 according to the traveling direction of the wheel loader, the necessary driving force, and necessary traveling speed Vt.”, wherein the transmission also functions as a brake circuit to slow the vehicle in addition to the service brake 40);
acquiring a pressure of a hydraulic oil supplied to the brake circuit (ENOMOTO, at least one para. 0056; “Controller 30 is connected to a pressure sensor 7 that detects pressure of the hydraulic oil of service brake 40.”);
determining whether the pressure of the hydraulic oil reaches a predetermined value based on an acquisition result (ENOMOTO, at least one para. 0092; “As illustrated in FIG. 5, controller 30 stores a data table T4 and setting value Fs. A correspondence relationship between the hydraulic pressure of forward clutch 55 and a current value of the clutch hydraulic pressure instruction signal is defined in data table T4.”, wherein it is also inherent that the sensor has a predetermined operational value so that the sensor is not compromised during operation); and
storing the command current when the pressure of the hydraulic oil reaches a predetermined value (ENOMOTO, at least one para. 0092; “As illustrated in FIG. 5, controller 30 stores a data table T4 and setting value Fs. A correspondence relationship between the hydraulic pressure of forward clutch 55 and a current value of the clutch hydraulic pressure instruction signal is defined in data table T4.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ENOMOTO (US 20200299923 A1), and further in view of LEIBER (US 20250282228 A1).
Regarding claim 1, ENOMOTO teaches A work machine (ENOMOTO, at least one para. 0024; “FIG. 1 is an external view of a wheel loader 1 according to an embodiment.”) comprising:
a traveling body configured to travel by power of a drive source (ENOMOTO, at least one para. 0002; “The traveling apparatus and the work implement are driven by driving force from an engine.”);
a brake circuit having a wet-type multi-plate disc structure configured to brake the traveling body (ENOMOTO, at least one para. 0047; “Service brake 40 is disposed between parking brake 43 and wheel 104b. Service brake 40 is attached to an axle coupled to wheel 104b. Service brake 40 is a brake that is mainly used to decelerate or stop during traveling. Service brake 40 is a so-called positive brake of a wet multiplate type that can switch between the braking state and the non-braking state.”) and (ENOMOTO, at least one para. 0042; “Transmission 4 selectively engages and disengages respective clutches 51 to 56 according to the traveling direction of the wheel loader, the necessary driving force, and necessary traveling speed Vt.”, wherein the transmission also functions as a brake circuit to slow the vehicle in addition to the service brake 40);
a control valve configured to control an operation of the brake circuit (ENOMOTO, at least one para. 0047; “A brake control valve 48 adjusts brake hydraulic pressure supplied to service brake 40 according to a brake hydraulic pressure instruction signal transmitted from controller 30 to brake control valve 48, thereby controlling the engagement pressure (that is, braking force) of service brake 40.”); and
a controller configured to output a command current for operating the control valve, wherein the controller has a calibration mode for outputting the command current and calibrating the command current (ENOMOTO, at least one para. 0054; “Controller 30 transmits the brake hydraulic pressure instruction signal to brake control valve 48 according to the pressing operation amount of brake pedal 75. Brake control valve 48 determines the brake hydraulic pressure instruction signal, and controls the engagement pressure of service brake 40 by adjusting the brake hydraulic pressure supplied to service brake 40.”, wherein determining pressure instruction signal is related to the calibrating the command current, and controlling the engagement pressure of the service brake relates to the outputting the command current), and
the controller is configured to determine whether the work machine is in a vehicle resting state and (ENOMOTO, at least one para. 0046; “Parking brake 43 is disposed between transmission 4 and service brake 40. Parking brake 43 is attached to the output shaft. Parking brake 43 is a negative brake that mainly parks the wheel loader. Parking brake 43 is a wet multiplate brake that can switch between a braking state and a non-braking state. The engagement pressure of parking brake 43 can be adjusted by an operation amount of a parking brake lever disposed in the driver's seat.”, wherein it is obvious and well known within the art that the engagement of the parking brake is detected by the controller).
ENOMOTO does not explicitly teach the controller is configured to execute the calibration mode when the work machine is in the vehicle resting state.
LEIBER, in the same field of endeavor (LEIBER, at least one para. 0001; “The present invention relates to a driving dynamics system (DDS) with one or more electric traction motor(s) and a powerful central processor, electric traction motor(s) and brake modules (EMB, EHB) being controlled synchronously via the central processor in such a way that the traction motor(s) and brake module(s) (EMB, EHB) are controlled together in the basic brake and control mode function.”) teaches the controller is configured to execute the calibration mode when the work machine is in the vehicle resting state (LEIBER, at least one para. 0079; “In particular, the adjustment is carried out when the vehicle is in a safe state, in particular when the vehicle is parked. A characteristic map is determined particularly on the basis of the acquired sensor data, which, for example, maps a pressure-volume characteristic curve, a relationship between motor current and braking pressure, and/or a relationship between braking pressure and/or deceleration when the wheel brake heats up.”).
ENOMOTO and LEIBER are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as controlling work vehicle as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the controller of the ENOMOTO with teaching of LEIBER. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Furthermore, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the calibration mode does not interfere with the operation of the work vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, ENOMOTO teaches The work machine according to claim 1, wherein the controller has a manual calibration mode in which an operation instruction is received, the command current is output, and the command current is calibrated (ENOMOTO, at least one para. 0095; “When receiving the operator's operation to change setting value Fs, monitor 81 transmits a setting value switching operation signal to controller 30. When receiving the setting value switching operation signal, controller 30 changes setting value Fs such that setting value Fs becomes a value corresponding to the setting value switching operation signal.”).
Regarding claim 4, ENOMOTO teaches The work machine according to claim 1, further comprising a sensor configured to measure a hydraulic pressure when a hydraulic oil is supplied to the brake circuit (ENOMOTO, at least one para. 0056; “Controller 30 is connected to a pressure sensor 7 that detects pressure of the hydraulic oil of service brake 40.”), wherein the controller increases a value of the command current (ENOMOTO, at least one para. 0047; “A brake control valve 48 adjusts brake hydraulic pressure supplied to service brake 40 according to a brake hydraulic pressure instruction signal transmitted from controller 30 to brake control valve 48, thereby controlling the engagement pressure (that is, braking force) of service brake 40.”) and stores a current value when the hydraulic pressure of the sensor reaches a predetermined value (ENOMOTO, at least one para. 0092; “As illustrated in FIG. 5, controller 30 stores a data table T4 and setting value Fs. A correspondence relationship between the hydraulic pressure of forward clutch 55 and a current value of the clutch hydraulic pressure instruction signal is defined in data table T4.”, wherein it is also inherent that the sensor has a predetermined operational value so that the sensor is not compromised during operation).
Regarding claim 5, ENOMOTO teaches The work machine according to claim 1, further comprising an object sensor configured to detect an object around the traveling body (ENOMOTO, at least one para. 0129; “Distance measuring sensor 149 is a sensor that measures the distance between wheel loader 1A and the object ahead. Distance measuring sensor 149 measures the distance to dump truck 900 during the dump approach.”), wherein the controller outputs the command current based on a detection result of the object sensor in a case other than the calibration mode (ENOMOTO, at least one para. 0154; “even if the distance between the wheel loader and the approaching object such as the dump truck is insufficient, the necessity of the brake operation is eliminated except for the brake operation immediately before the approaching object.”, wherein brake force is applied to stop the wheel loader right before approaching object to avoid collision as the brake force is a direct output of the controller, Furthermore, wheel loader is not in the calibration mode).
Regarding claim 6, LEIBER teaches The work machine according to claim 1, wherein the controller determines whether the work machine is in the vehicle resting state based on a calibration work command issued from the controller or a calibration work command input by an operator (LEIBER, at least one para. 0079; “In particular, the adjustment is carried out when the vehicle is in a safe state, in particular when the vehicle is parked. A characteristic map is determined particularly on the basis of the acquired sensor data, which, for example, maps a pressure-volume characteristic curve, a relationship between motor current and braking pressure, and/or a relationship between braking pressure and/or deceleration when the wheel brake heats up.”, wherein the calibration work command is issued by the controller).
Regarding claim 7, LEIBER teaches The work machine according to claim 6, wherein the controller issues the calibration work command based on a determination result of whether a frequency of use in the work machine is high or low (LEIBER, at least one para. 0079; “In another embodiment, the central control unit is designed to acquire sensor data during vehicle operation, in particular in a state after the vehicle has been put into operation for the first time, for example during driving or when stationary before or after driving, and to adapt the control of the braking function on the basis of the acquired sensor data by means of an artificial intelligence method, in particular machine learning or neural networks. In particular, the artificial intelligence process can be carried out by means of a processor in the central control unit. ”).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ENOMOTO (US 20200299923 A1) and LEIBER (US 20250282228 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of IMAI (DE 112016000010 T5).
Regarding claim 2, ENOMOTO teaches The work machine according to claim 1, comprising:
a parking brake (ENOMOTO, at least one para. 0000; “The”); and
a work implement lock switch configured to invalidate an operation signal of a work implement, (ENOMOTO, at least one para. 0046; “Parking brake 43 is disposed between transmission 4 and service brake 40. Parking brake 43 is attached to the output shaft. Parking brake 43 is a negative brake that mainly parks the wheel loader. Parking brake 43 is a wet multiplate brake that can switch between a braking state and a non-braking state. The engagement pressure of parking brake 43 can be adjusted by an operation amount of a parking brake lever disposed in the driver's seat.”, wherein it is obvious that the engagement of the parking brake is detected by the controller, and the vehicle's drive source is not engaged during the engagement of the parking brake).
The combination of ENOMOTO and LEIBER does not explicitly teach wherein the controller determines whether the work machine is in the vehicle resting state based on an operation state of the drive source, a state of the parking brake,
IMAI, in the same field of endeavor (IMAI, area; “The present invention relates to a technical method for controlling a motor which is included in a work machine and serves as a power source.”) teaches wherein the controller determines whether the work machine is in the vehicle resting state based on an operation state of the drive source, a state of the parking brake, (IMAI, Overall configuration of the working machine; “A swing lock switch 37 is with the hybrid control 23 connected. The swing lock switch 37 is a switch for operating a swivel brake. The swivel brake is a mechanical brake for locking the upper swivel body 5 , so that the upper swivel body 5 do not pan. When the swing lock switch 37 ON, the hybrid controller indicates 23 an operation of the swivel brake. When the swing brake is operated, the swing brake sets the upper swing body 5 firmly. When the swing lock switch 37 OFF, the hybrid controller indicates 23 the interruption of the Swing brake on, and the swing brake interrupts the detection of the upper swivel body 5”).
The combination of ENOMOTO, LEIBER, and IMAI are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field as controlling work vehicle as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the work machine of the ENOMOTO with teaching of IMAI. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Furthermore, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the stability and operational conditions of the work vehicle can be improved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UPUL P CHANDRASIRI whose telephone number is (703)756-5823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30 am to 5pm.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/U.P.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights