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 .
Introduction
The following is a non-final Office action in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 4/26/2025. Currently claims 1-20 are pending and claims 1 and 11 are independent. This is a continuation of application 17/973,675 (Patent 12,154,054) filed 10/26/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/6/2025 appears to be in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 7 and 17 are indefinite in that they fail to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. The claim language “additional information” is not defined by the claims or specification and is functionally indefinite resulting in an omnibus type claim. Examiner suggests clarifying or limiting “additional information” to clarify what it does and does not include. Appropriate correction required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), specifically an abstract idea, without significantly more. With respect to claims 1-20, following the guidance contained within MPEP 2106, the inquiry for patent eligibility follows two steps: Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention? Step 2A (Prong 1): Is the claim “directed to” an abstract idea? Step 2A (Prong 2): Is the claim integrated into a practical application? Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea?
In accordance with these steps, the Examiner finds the following:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims (claims 2-10) are directed to a statutory category, namely a method. Claim 11 and its dependent claims (claims 12-20) are directed to a statutory category, namely a system/machine.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Claims 1 and 11, which are substantially similar claims to one another, are directed to the abstract idea of “Mental Processes”, or more particularly, “Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (See MPEP 2106).” In this application that refers to using a computer system to evaluate and assess risk on a ship. To clarify this further, the Applicant’s disclosed invention is a conceptual system meant to perform the same function that a ship’s captain or safety engineer might perform. The abstract elements of claims 1 and 11, recite in part “Detect maritime event…Produce risk assessment score…Provide score…”. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 add to the abstract idea the following limitations which recite in part “Compare visual…Establish score…Risk relates to…Compare event…Standard is based upon…Provide additional information…Detect events…Organize risk…Display assessment…”. All of these additional limitations, however, only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 11.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Independent claims 1 and 11, which are substantially similar claims to one another, do not contain additional elements that effectively integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. These claims do include the limitation that recites in part “Processors…Camera…Interface…” which limits the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These claims also include the additional element which recites in part “maritime vessel,” however this again fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is merely linking the abstract idea to the general field of ships (See MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further Step 2A (Prong 2) analysis.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1 and 11, which are substantially similar claims to one another, include additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, which are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of these claims recite in part “Processors …camera…interface…”. These items are not significantly more because these are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea (evaluate and assess risk on a ship) on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). This is exemplified in the Applicant’s specification in [0027] – “The event server/processor 186 can comprise one or more types and/or architectures of processor(s), including, but not limited to, a central processing unit (CPU-for example one or more processing cores and associated computation units), a graphical processing unit (GPU operating on a SIMD or similar arrangement), tensor processing unit (TPU) and/or field programmable gate array (FPGA having a generalized or customized architecture).” These claims also include the additional element which recites in part “maritime vessel,” however this again is not significantly more than the abstract idea because it is merely linking the abstract idea to the general field of ships (See MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further 2B analysis.
Accordingly, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-13, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyu (KR20130137876) in view of Dividino et al. (US 20220253763 A1)
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Kyu discloses a method for assessing maritime vessel risk in response to automatically detected maritime-based visual events (Kyu ABS - A device for transmitting ship image data includes a monitoring unit for generating monitoring information having location and moving information of neighboring ships and an integrated management unit for judging whether the calculated final degree of danger for each of the neighboring ships exceeds a predetermined reference value using the monitoring information) comprising the steps of: detecting at least one maritime visual event of the plurality of maritime based visual events acquired by at least one camera aboard a vessel that provides image data of the visual event to a processor, the visual event associated with at least one of, safety, security, maintenance, crew behavior, and cargo (Kyu - Image Management Module ( 240) collects the image information generated by each camera included in the camera unit 120, and stores the image data corresponding to the acquired image information to the storage module 250. stored image management module 240, the current situation is a danger situation by determination module 270, if (for example, a pirate ship, appearance, etc.) is determined, by the control of the judging module 270 and transmits the image data stored in the module 250 to the communication module 260 via a designated control server 150); producing a risk assessment to the at least one detected visual event (Kyu - the integrated management unit 130 is provided from the monitoring unit monitors (110) information (that is, measurement information, etc.) to calculate a risk analysis of the peripheral vessels, and the corresponding risk of pirate ship).
Kyu lacks producing a risk assessment score; and providing the risk assessment score to a user in a desired format.
Dividino, from the same field of endeavor, teaches producing a risk assessment score (Dividino ¶436 -The risk score may be a determined confidence value of the vessel risk assessment, or a score related to the overall risk score determined based on the model prediction) ; and providing the risk assessment score to a user in a desired format (Dividino – Fig. 18, 19 - Dividino ¶434 - Referring next to FIG. 19, there is shown another user interface diagram 1900 in accordance with one or more embodiments. Responsive to the user's selection of the “Activate Region Scan” button 1802, risk assessments may be performed on the one or more vessels in the selected marine region. The user interface 1900 may display any vessels in the one or more vessels having significant risk classification. The user may select a vessel, and may be presented with an assessment window 1902 summarizing the reasons for the risk assessment of the vessel and corresponding risk assessment information. For example, in the assessment window 1902 as shown, a vessel name, MMSI, vessel tracking message timestamp, ship type, risk score, and risk explanation. The assessment window may show information related to the vessel tracking data, determined vessel profile information, vessel incident information, vessel information, and vessel criminal activity).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the ship danger analysis methodology/system of Kyu by including the vessel risk assessment techniques of Dividino because Dividino discloses “an improved system and method for determining abnormal events of vessels (Dividino ¶9)”. Additionally, Kyu further details that “In the integrated management unit 130 is provided from the monitoring unit monitors (110) information (that is, measurement information, etc.) to calculate a risk analysis (Kyu)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional risk assessment techniques that Dividino discloses because it would improve the risk analysis of Kyu by including analyzing and identifying abnormal events.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Kyu in view of Dividino discloses the step of producing the risk assessment score includes comparing the at least one visual event to data of complying or non-complying model visual events from a data storage, and establishing a score based upon a level of conformity between the at least one visual event and the complying or non-complying model visual events (Kyu - the determination module 270 can to determine the vessel than the reference value as the pirate ship end-risk risk and risk as compared to the last reference value of each peripheral vessels to be displayed and alarm, the storage module (250 Image data is stored on) can control the image management module 240 to be transmitted to the control server 150 via the communication network).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Kyu in view of Dividino discloses the risks relate to at least one of (a) machinery maintenance alerts, (b) cargo conditions or operations, and (c) personnel safety, security and crew behavior (Kyu - In the integrated management unit 130 is provided from the monitoring unit monitors (110) information (that is, measurement information, etc.) to calculate a risk analysis of the peripheral vessels, and the corresponding risk of pirate ship {i.e. safety and security}).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Kyu in view of Dividino discloses a method for assessing maritime vessel risk in response to automatically detected maritime-based visual events (Kyu ABS - A device for transmitting ship image data includes a monitoring unit for generating monitoring information having location and moving information of neighboring ships and an integrated management unit for judging whether the calculated final degree of danger for each of the neighboring ships exceeds a predetermined reference value using the monitoring information).
Dividino further teaches providing additional information to the user in association with the risk assessment score consistent with that provided in a vessel risk survey (Dividino – Fig. 18, 19 - Dividino ¶434 - Referring next to FIG. 19, there is shown another user interface diagram 1900 in accordance with one or more embodiments. Responsive to the user's selection of the “Activate Region Scan” button 1802, risk assessments may be performed on the one or more vessels in the selected marine region. The user interface 1900 may display any vessels in the one or more vessels having significant risk classification. The user may select a vessel, and may be presented with an assessment window 1902 summarizing the reasons for the risk assessment of the vessel and corresponding risk assessment information. For example, in the assessment window 1902 as shown, a vessel name, MMSI, vessel tracking message timestamp, ship type, risk score, and risk explanation. The assessment window may show information related to the vessel tracking data, determined vessel profile information, vessel incident information, vessel information, and vessel criminal activity).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the ship danger analysis methodology/system of Kyu by including the vessel risk assessment techniques of Dividino because Dividino discloses “an improved system and method for determining abnormal events of vessels (Dividino ¶9)”. Additionally, Kyu further details that “In the integrated management unit 130 is provided from the monitoring unit monitors (110) information (that is, measurement information, etc.) to calculate a risk analysis (Kyu)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional risk assessment techniques that Dividino discloses because it would improve the risk analysis of Kyu by including analyzing and identifying abnormal events.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Kyu in view of Dividino discloses a method for assessing maritime vessel risk in response to automatically detected maritime-based visual events (Kyu ABS - A device for transmitting ship image data includes a monitoring unit for generating monitoring information having location and moving information of neighboring ships and an integrated management unit for judging whether the calculated final degree of danger for each of the neighboring ships exceeds a predetermined reference value using the monitoring information).
Dividino further teaches detecting a plurality of maritime-based visual events acquired by cameras aboard each of a plurality vessels in a fleet that each provides image data of the plurality of visual events, the plurality of visual events being associated with at least one of, safety, security, maintenance, crew behavior, and cargo, producing risk assessment scores in response to the detected visual events, and correlating the risk assessment scores into an overall risk assessment of the fleet (Dividino ¶330 - At 612, vessel abnormal behavior clustering/aggregation is performed. This may involve clustering different types of anomaly events for a given vessel based on the anomaly history and the anomaly detection by the vessel data processor. The clustering may group the different vessel given their detected anomalies in order to identify similar behavior patterns in the different vessels. Clustering may identify vessels with similar vessel anomalies and may group them).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the ship danger analysis methodology/system of Kyu by including the vessel risk assessment techniques of Dividino because Dividino discloses “an improved system and method for determining abnormal events of vessels (Dividino ¶9)”. Additionally, Kyu further details that “In the integrated management unit 130 is provided from the monitoring unit monitors (110) information (that is, measurement information, etc.) to calculate a risk analysis (Kyu)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional risk assessment techniques that Dividino discloses because it would improve the risk analysis of Kyu by including analyzing and identifying abnormal events.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Kyu in view of Dividino discloses a method for assessing maritime vessel risk in response to automatically detected maritime-based visual events (Kyu ABS - A device for transmitting ship image data includes a monitoring unit for generating monitoring information having location and moving information of neighboring ships and an integrated management unit for judging whether the calculated final degree of danger for each of the neighboring ships exceeds a predetermined reference value using the monitoring information).
Dividino further teaches the risk assessment is organized into at least one of safety, security, maintenance, crew behavior, and cargo and is displayed on a user interface (Dividino – Fig. 18, 19 - Dividino ¶434 - Referring next to FIG. 19, there is shown another user interface diagram 1900 in accordance with one or more embodiments. Responsive to the user's selection of the “Activate Region Scan” button 1802, risk assessments may be performed on the one or more vessels in the selected marine region. The user interface 1900 may display any vessels in the one or more vessels having significant risk classification. The user may select a vessel, and may be presented with an assessment window 1902 summarizing the reasons for the risk assessment of the vessel and corresponding risk assessment information. For example, in the assessment window 1902 as shown, a vessel name, MMSI, vessel tracking message timestamp, ship type, risk score, and risk explanation. The assessment window may show information related to the vessel tracking data, determined vessel profile information, vessel incident information, vessel information, and vessel criminal activity).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the ship danger analysis methodology/system of Kyu by including the vessel risk assessment techniques of Dividino because Dividino discloses “an improved system and method for determining abnormal events of vessels (Dividino ¶9)”. Additionally, Kyu further details that “In the integrated management unit 130 is provided from the monitoring unit monitors (110) information (that is, measurement information, etc.) to calculate a risk analysis (Kyu)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional risk assessment techniques that Dividino discloses because it would improve the risk analysis of Kyu by including analyzing and identifying abnormal events.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Kyu in view of Dividino discloses a method for assessing maritime vessel risk in response to automatically detected maritime-based visual events (Kyu ABS - A device for transmitting ship image data includes a monitoring unit for generating monitoring information having location and moving information of neighboring ships and an integrated management unit for judging whether the calculated final degree of danger for each of the neighboring ships exceeds a predetermined reference value using the monitoring information).
Dividino further teaches a profile of the risk assessment for an individual vessel in the fleet is displayed on the user interface based upon a user selection thereof (Dividino – Fig. 18, 19 - Dividino ¶434 - Referring next to FIG. 19, there is shown another user interface diagram 1900 in accordance with one or more embodiments. Responsive to the user's selection of the “Activate Region Scan” button 1802, risk assessments may be performed on the one or more vessels in the selected marine region. The user interface 1900 may display any vessels in the one or more vessels having significant risk classification. The user may select a vessel, and may be presented with an assessment window 1902 summarizing the reasons for the risk assessment of the vessel and corresponding risk assessment information. For example, in the assessment window 1902 as shown, a vessel name, MMSI, vessel tracking message timestamp, ship type, risk score, and risk explanation. The assessment window may show information related to the vessel tracking data, determined vessel profile information, vessel incident information, vessel information, and vessel criminal activity).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the ship danger analysis methodology/system of Kyu by including the vessel risk assessment techniques of Dividino because Dividino discloses “an improved system and method for determining abnormal events of vessels (Dividino ¶9)”. Additionally, Kyu further details that “In the integrated management unit 130 is provided from the monitoring unit monitors (110) information (that is, measurement information, etc.) to calculate a risk analysis (Kyu)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional risk assessment techniques that Dividino discloses because it would improve the risk analysis of Kyu by including analyzing and identifying abnormal events.
Claims 4-6, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyu (KR20130137876) in view of Dividino et al. (US 20220253763 A1) further in view of Kelly (GB 2609530 A)
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Kyu in view of Dividino discloses a method for assessing maritime vessel risk in response to automatically detected maritime-based visual events (Kyu ABS - A device for transmitting ship image data includes a monitoring unit for generating monitoring information having location and moving information of neighboring ships and an integrated management unit for judging whether the calculated final degree of danger for each of the neighboring ships exceeds a predetermined reference value using the monitoring information).
Kyu in view of Dividino lacks the step of producing the risk assessment score includes comparing the at least one visual event to a minimum standard that is associated with at least one of (a) a type of vessel or fleet of vessels, (b) cargo 4 handling standards, and (c) safety standards.
Kelly, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the step of producing the risk assessment score includes comparing the at least one visual event to a minimum standard that is associated with at least one of (a) a type of vessel or fleet of vessels, (b) cargo 4 handling standards, and (c) safety standards ( Kelly - one or more mathematical relationships between the two, in the form of a baseline {i.e. safety standard}; when an emergency occurs, the system can them compare the sensory data on carbon dioxide levels and number of persons in a given location, and compare them to the historical (i.e., "normal") data to see if there is a higher level of carbon dioxide present than would be expected from the number of detected thermal images; if such is the case, this indicates respiratory activity of one or more persons whose thermal image is not detected (i.e., a hidden occupant)).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the ship danger analysis methodology/system of Kyu by including the vessel safety techniques of Kelly because Kelly discloses “determining safety information relating to a hidden or vulnerable occupant of a structure, such as a building or a crewed vessel (Kelly ABS)”. Additionally, Kyu further details that “In the integrated management unit 130 is provided from the monitoring unit monitors (110) information (that is, measurement information, etc.) to calculate a risk analysis (Kyu)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional safety techniques that Kelly discloses because it would improve the risk analysis of Kyu by including analyzing and identifying the safety of a vessel’s crew.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Kyu in view of Dividino discloses a method for assessing maritime vessel risk in response to automatically detected maritime-based visual events (Kyu ABS - A device for transmitting ship image data includes a monitoring unit for generating monitoring information having location and moving information of neighboring ships and an integrated management unit for judging whether the calculated final degree of danger for each of the neighboring ships exceeds a predetermined reference value using the monitoring information).
Kyu in view of Dividino lacks the step of producing the risk assessment score includes comparing the at least one visual event to a relative standard that is associated with at least one of (a) a type of vessel or fleet of vessels, (b) cargo handling standards, and (c) safety standards.
Kelly, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the step of producing the risk assessment score includes comparing the at least one visual event to a relative standard that is associated with at least one of (a) a type of vessel or fleet of vessels, (b) cargo handling standards, and (c) safety standards ( Kelly - one or more mathematical relationships between the two, in the form of a baseline {i.e. safety standard}; when an emergency occurs, the system can them compare the sensory data on carbon dioxide levels and number of persons in a given location, and compare them to the historical (i.e., "normal") data to see if there is a higher level of carbon dioxide present than would be expected from the number of detected thermal images; if such is the case, this indicates respiratory activity of one or more persons whose thermal image is not detected (i.e., a hidden occupant)).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the ship danger analysis methodology/system of Kyu by including the vessel safety techniques of Kelly because Kelly discloses “determining safety information relating to a hidden or vulnerable occupant of a structure, such as a building or a crewed vessel (Kelly ABS)”. Additionally, Kyu further details that “In the integrated management unit 130 is provided from the monitoring unit monitors (110) information (that is, measurement information, etc.) to calculate a risk analysis (Kyu)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional safety techniques that Kelly discloses because it would improve the risk analysis of Kyu by including analyzing and identifying the safety of a vessel’s crew.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Kyu in view of Dividino further in view of Kelly discloses a method for assessing maritime vessel risk in response to automatically detected maritime-based visual events (Kyu ABS - A device for transmitting ship image data includes a monitoring unit for generating monitoring information having location and moving information of neighboring ships and an integrated management unit for judging whether the calculated final degree of danger for each of the neighboring ships exceeds a predetermined reference value using the monitoring information).
Kelly further teaches the relative standard is based upon a predetermined number of standard deviation(s) from a mean value (Kelly - when the values of Y at a given moment in time exceed the average by a certain threshold (typically some multiple of standard deviations of the time-averaged Y, say 2 standard deviations purely as an example), we can infer an "Occupant Anomaly", i.e., the indication that there is a higher level of carbon dioxide in the vicinity of the sensor than ought to be detected by reference to the known number of persons (i.e., thermal images counted by the processor)).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the ship danger analysis methodology/system of Kyu by including the vessel safety techniques of Kelly because Kelly discloses “determining safety information relating to a hidden or vulnerable occupant of a structure, such as a building or a crewed vessel (Kelly ABS)”. Additionally, Kyu further details that “In the integrated management unit 130 is provided from the monitoring unit monitors (110) information (that is, measurement information, etc.) to calculate a risk analysis (Kyu)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional safety techniques that Kelly discloses because it would improve the risk analysis of Kyu by including analyzing and identifying the safety of a vessel’s crew.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Han et al. (KR 20210019862 A)
Tam et al. (US 20220261483 A1)
Leong et al. (US 20210174952 A1)
and
Bloomfield, Nathaniel J., et al. "Automating the assessment of biofouling in images using expert agreement as a gold standard." Scientific Reports 11.1 (2021): 2739 [online], [retrieved on 2023-05-18]. Retrieved from the Internet <https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.09289.pdf>
All of these pieces of prior art are pertinent because they deal with analyzing risk on a vessel. Some also analyze risk through visual measurements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Koester whose telephone number is (313)446-4837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:00AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MICHAEL R KOESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights