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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communications filed 08/13/2025 (claimed priority date 02/15/2023):
Claims 1-18 and 21-22 have been examined.
Claims 19-20 have been canceled by Applicant.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
Ln = line, e.g., ln25 = line 25; ln25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
1.1 Claims 1-18 and 21-22 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.
1.1.1 Claims 1 and 9 recite the limitation/feature “an enhanced quantity [of the collectible]” that is not described, explained or supported in the specification. The specification merely repeats the claim language in several paragraphs, BUT, HOWEVER does not provide any description, explanation, or support for what the claimed/specified “enhanced quantity” is, or would be. While the specification provides, for example, a support for “enhanced solution/route,” the specification, HOWEVER is silent about what the claimed/specified “enhanced quantity [of the collectible]” is, or would be.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the limitation/feature “an enhanced quantity [of the collectible]” is not given a patentable weight, and withdrawn from consideration. And hence the Examiner will interpret the corresponding limitations/features in claims 1 and 9 as the following: “… collecting a quantity of the collectible along the optimized route.”
1.1.2 Claims 2-8 and 10-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claims, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
1.1.3 Claims 7, 14 and 22 recite the limitation/feature “optimal controls” in claims 7, 14 and 22 that is not described, explained or supported in the specification. The specification merely repeats the claim language in several paragraphs, BUT, HOWEVER does not provide any description, explanation, or support for what the claimed/specified “optimal controls” are, or would be. While the specification provides, for example, a support for “optimal path,” e.g., risk-, energy-, time-optimal path, in numerous paragraphs, the specification, HOWEVER is silent about what the claimed/specified “optimal controls” are, or would be.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the limitation/feature “optimal controls” is not given a patentable weight, and withdrawn from consideration. And hence the Examiner will interpret the claims as the following:
“7. The method of claim 1, wherein guiding the vehicle using the optimized route comprises providing an optimal path to the vehicle and controlling the vehicle.”
“14. The at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 9, wherein guiding the vehicle using the optimized route comprises providing an optimal path to vehicle and controlling the vehicle.”
“22. The system of claim 16, wherein: guiding the vehicle using the optimized route comprises providing an optimal path to vehicle and controlling the vehicle; and the vehicle comprises an autonomous vehicle.”
1.1.4 Claim 16 recites the limitation/feature “to efficiently solve corresponding stochastic DO level-set equations” that is not described, explained or supported in the specification. The specification merely repeats the claim language in several paragraphs, BUT, HOWEVER does not provide any description, explanation, or support for what or how the claimed/specified “solving corresponding stochastic DO level-set equations” is, or would be efficient/deficient or would be efficiently/deficiently performed/executed, etc.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the limitation/feature “to efficiently solve” is not given a patentable weight, and withdrawn from consideration. And hence the Examiner will interpret the corresponding limitation/feature in claim 16 as the following: “…wherein the determining includes solving for stochastic collectible and time optimum paths and/or probabilistic reachability sets in a dynamically uncertain environment using dynamic stochastic order reduction including using a dynamically orthogonal (DO) decomposition of a stochastic time-optimal level set or value function to solve corresponding stochastic DO level-set equations.”
1.1.5 Claims 17-18 and 21-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claims, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
2. 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.
2.1 Claims 1-18 and 21-22 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.
2.1.1 Claims 1 and 9 recite the limitation/feature “an enhanced quantity [of the collectible]” that is unclear what it is, or why the claimed/specified “quantity of collectible” is specified/designated as “enhanced quantity,” which renders the claims indefinite. Additionally, this term is not described, explained or supported in the specification, which renders claims 1 and 9 indefinite.
Additionally, the term “enhanced quantity” in claims 1 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “enhanced” 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 up to or of what degree/level/value/percentage, etc., of enhancement or what the claimed “quantity of collectable” should be specified/collected/obtained/gathered, etc., to be considered as “enhanced quantity,” which renders the claims indefinite. Clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the limitation/feature “an enhanced quantity [of the collectible]” is not given a patentable weight, and withdrawn from consideration. And hence the Examiner will interpret the corresponding limitations/features in claims 1 and 9 as the following: “… collecting a quantity of the collectible along the optimized route.”
2.1.2 Claims 2-8 and 10-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claims, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
2.1.3 The term “optimal controls” in claims 7, 14 and 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimal” 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 up to or of what degree/level/value/percentage, etc., of optimality or what the claimed “controls” should be specified/executed/performed/established/processed/developed/presented, etc., to be considered as “optimal controls,” which renders the claims indefinite. It is also unclear what and/or how the claimed/specified “optimal controls” are referred to, whether to quality of controls, or state of being the best controls, or most effective controls, or controls with most favorable outcome possible under specific rules or limits, or what, or how, which renders the claims indefinite. Clarification is required.
Additionally, this limitation/feature is not supported in the specification, which renders the claims indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the limitation/feature “optimal controls” is not given a patentable weight, and withdrawn from consideration. And hence the Examiner will interpret the claims as the following:
“7. The method of claim 1, wherein guiding the vehicle using the optimized route comprises providing an optimal path to the vehicle and controlling the vehicle.”
“14. The at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 9, wherein guiding the vehicle using the optimized route comprises providing an optimal path to vehicle and controlling the vehicle.”
“22. The system of claim 16, wherein: guiding the vehicle using the optimized route comprises providing an optimal path to vehicle and controlling the vehicle; and the vehicle comprises an autonomous vehicle.”
2.1.4 Claim 16 recites, in the body of the claim, the limitation/feature “at least one computer hardware processor” twice, which is unclear whether the same “at least one computer hardware processor” is being claimed in the claim, or different “at least one computer hardware processor” is being claimed, which renders the claim indefinite. Clarification and/or appropriate correction is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the Examiner will interpret the same “at least one computer hardware processor” is being claimed in claim 16.
2.1.5 The term “to efficiently solve” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “efficiently” 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 up to or of what degree/level/value/percentage, etc., of efficiency/deficiency the claimed/specified “solving corresponding stochastic DO level-set equations” should be executed/performed/established/processed/developed/presented, etc., to be considered as “efficiently solving,” which renders the claims indefinite. Clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the limitation/feature “to efficiently solve” is not given a patentable weight, and withdrawn from consideration. And hence the Examiner will interpret the corresponding limitation/feature in claim 16 as the following: “…wherein the determining includes solving for stochastic collectible and time optimum paths and/or probabilistic reachability sets in a dynamically uncertain environment using dynamic stochastic order reduction including using a dynamically orthogonal (DO) decomposition of a stochastic time-optimal level set or value function to solve corresponding stochastic DO level-set equations.”
2.1.6 Claims 17-18 and 21-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claim 16, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
1.1 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.
1.1.1 Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method for use in automatically determining optimized routes for vehicles (i.e., a process). Claim 9 is directed to at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing processor executable instructions (i.e., machine, manufacture). Claim 16 is directed to a system (i.e., machine, manufacture). Therefore, claims 1, 9 and 16 are within the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
1. (Original) A method for use in automatically determining optimized routes for vehicles, the method comprising:
using at least one computer hardware processor to perform:
providing at least an initial location and at least a target final location of a vehicle, in physical space;
obtaining dynamic environmental flow field information and dynamic collectible field information;
determining, using the dynamic environmental flow field information and the dynamic collectible field information, at least one optimized route from the initial location to the target final location, comprising:
obtaining collection, usage, and time optimized reachable sets or tubes;
obtaining a Pareto front of Pareto solutions for optimum time and optimum collectible, reachable at the target final location; and
using the Pareto solutions to provide an optimized route for the vehicle;
guiding the vehicle using the optimized route; and
collecting an enhanced quantity of the collectible along the optimized route.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining;” “obtaining/using solution” in the context of this claim encompass a person (driver/operator/user/human, etc.) looking at data collected/gathered (from third parties, data storage, data bank) and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
The claim limitation of "guiding the vehicle" is a mental process because it encompasses, at the very least, a decision (re: output) that is made based on collected/gathered/state data. The claim limitation is recited at such a high level of generality, that it encompasses a simple look up table or decision tree that would be capable of being practicably performed mentally. The claim limitation also comprises an additional element in that it can comprise merely outputting the result of the above mentioned mental step.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
1. (Original) A method for use in automatically determining optimized routes for vehicles, the method comprising:
using at least one computer hardware processor to perform:
providing at least an initial location and at least a target final location of a vehicle, in physical space;
obtaining dynamic environmental flow field information and dynamic collectible field information;
determining, using the dynamic environmental flow field information and the dynamic collectible field information, at least one optimized route from the initial location to the target final location, comprising:
obtaining collection, usage, and time optimized reachable sets or tubes;
obtaining a Pareto front of Pareto solutions for optimum time and optimum collectible, reachable at the target final location; and
using the Pareto solutions to provide an optimized route for the vehicle;
guiding the vehicle using the optimized route; and
collecting an enhanced quantity of the collectible along the optimized route.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “using at least one computer hardware processor;” ”providing initial location in physical;” “providing target final location in physical space;” “obtaining dynamic environmental flow field information;” “obtaining dynamic collectible field information;” “obtaining collection, usage, and time optimized reachable sets or tubes;” “collecting an enhanced quantity of the collectible along the optimized route,” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (computer hardware processor) to perform the process. In particular, the providing initial location, target final location in physical space; obtaining dynamic environmental flow field information, dynamic collectible field information, collection, usage, and time optimized reachable sets or tubes; collecting an enhanced quantity of the collectible along the optimized route steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of collecting/gathering data and informing/presenting about collected/gathered data, difference in data from determining step(s), for decision (re: output) making step(s)), and amount to mere pre solution collecting/gathering and mere post solution informing/presenting, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activities. Lastly, the “computer hardware processor” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The claimed system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining, decision (re: output) making steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware processor to perform the determining, decision (re: output) making amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “providing initial location, target final location in physical space; obtaining dynamic environmental flow field information, dynamic collectible field information, collection, usage, and time optimized reachable sets or tubes; collecting an enhanced quantity of the collectible along the optimized route,” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “providing initial location, target final location in physical space; obtaining dynamic environmental flow field information, dynamic collectible field information, collection, usage, and time optimized reachable sets or tubes; collecting an enhanced quantity of the collectible along the optimized route” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background and the specification do not provide any indication that the computer hardware processor is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle environment. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-18 and 21 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-18 and 21 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, 9 and 16. It is unclear what the claimed limitations/features, in both independent and dependent claims, are directed to in order to, or what or how they contribute/improve/influence/affect/innovate vehicle control, or operation, or use, or handling, or navigation, etc.
Therefore, claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-18 and 21 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
1.1.2 Dependent claims 7, 14 and 22, however, if properly introduced, appear to recite further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. The Examiner finds that the limitations of dependent claims that are directed toward to “providing optimal controls to vehicle” appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 7, 14 and 22 appear to be patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claims 1, 9 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
2. Claims 2-8, 10-15, 17-18 and 21-22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
3. Claims 2-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-18 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
4. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In performing initial search, the Examiner was able to find the closest prior art of record, which is Lermusiaux (US11435199) taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of DUYM (US20210239476), Zukerman (US20200083679) and WANG (US20240104447), who describe techniques for use in connection with determining an optimized route for a vehicle include obtaining a target state, a fixed initial position of the vehicle, and dynamic flow information, and determining an optimized route from the fixed initial position to the target state using the dynamic flow information.
In regards to claims 1-18 and 21-22, Lermusiaux (US11435199) taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fail to teach or render obvious the following feature(s) / limitation(s):
determining, using the dynamic environmental flow field information and the dynamic collectible field information, at least one optimized route from the initial location to the target final location, comprising: obtaining collection, usage, and time optimized reachable sets or tubes; obtaining a Pareto front of Pareto solutions for optimum time and optimum collectible, reachable at the target final location; using the Pareto solutions to provide an optimized route for the vehicle; and
determining an optimized route from the fixed initial position to the target state using the uncertain dynamic environmental flow information and the uncertain dynamic collectible field information; wherein the determining includes solving for stochastic collectible and time optimum paths and/or probabilistic reachability sets in a dynamically uncertain environment using dynamic stochastic order reduction including using a dynamically orthogonal (DO) decomposition of a stochastic time-optimal level set or value function to efficiently solve corresponding stochastic DO level-set equations.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found, by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
Lehoux-Lebacque (US20200378772) – (see entire Lehoux-Lebacque document, particularly abstract – teaching a method for preprocessing a set of feasible transfers within a multimodal transportation network of predetermined stations, comprising, for each trip in the multimodal transportation network hereafter called origin trip: (a) for each station of the origin trip, computing at this station an earliest arrival/change time associated with all transportation modes of the multimodal transportation network; (b) for at least one transfer of the set of feasible transfers from a station on the origin trip to a reachable station on a target trip, computing, at each station of the target trip after the reachable station, a value of the earliest arrival/change time specifically associated with the transportation mode of the multimodal transportation network used by the target trip; (c) removing the transfer only if determining that each computed value of the earliest arrival/change time is not improved by the transfer; (d) outputting the set of feasible transfers for computing at least one itinerary in the multimodal transportation network; and (e) performing a routing optimization algorithm so as to build, among the itineraries having a main part from an initial trip belonging to the set of possible initial trips to a final trip belonging to the set of possible final trips, at least one optimal itinerary according to the earliest arrival time and the number of transfers or the latest departure time and the number of transfers, when considering only trips from the set of possible trips using the selected transportation modes, and only transfers from the subset of feasible transfers between considered trips).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose phone number is 571- 270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by phone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on 571-270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YURI KAN, P.E./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights