Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Application
This non-final office action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 09/04/2025. Claim 1 has been cancelled. Claims 2-21 have been added. Claims 2-21 are currently pending and have been examined below. This is the first action on the merits.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11625745 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12299707. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claims 1, 10 and, 16 of US. Patent No. 11625745 and independent claims 1, 8, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12299707 recite all of the limitations of independent claims 2, 9, and 16 of the present claims, in addition to reciting additional imitations that further limit the patented claims. Therefore claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11625745 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12299707 are in essence “species” of the generic invention of claims 2-21 of the present application. It has been held that a generic invention is "anticipated" by a "species" within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2-21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 20120109692 (“Collins”) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20070027583 (“Tamir”).
Claims 2, 9, and 16
As per claims 1, 9, and 16 Collins teaches a computing system, a method, and comprising
a processor ([0151] “Monitoring unit further comprises a processor.”);
a memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing system to ([0113] “memory unit.” And, [0152] “Memory unit is optionally used for other tasks, such as storing software run by processor.”).
receive, from a user associated with a vehicle telematics unit, a list comprising one or more custom driving events, wherein a first custom driving event is associated with a geographical location and comprises a user-selected combination comprising (i) one or more driving behavior characteristics and (ii) a user-provided value corresponding to the one or more driving behavior characteristics ([0117] “sensor device coupled to a vehicle and the subset of the plurality of telemetric parameters may comprise one or more of: (i) a vehicle speed parameter.” And, [0050] “a customer . . . may select the data items that are monitored by the telematics device . . . and/or how such data items are to be monitored.” And, [0062] “the monitoring parameters may comprise various driver, environmental, and/or vehicle data items such as, . . . speed, acceleration, location” and “a customer may define and/or select one or more . . . monitoring frequencies, geographic locations . . . that govern and/or trigger data item monitoring.” And, [0071] “rules associated with the parameters to be monitored may be defined, selected, and/or stored (e.g., by the customer). Vehicle speed may be monitored . . . only during certain time windows . . . Similarly, parameters (such as speed) may only be monitored if certain conditions are met, such as . . . certain geographic conditions (e.g., a driver and/or vehicle is located in a particular area, zone, road, structure, or garage);
assign, using a model and based on the user-selected combination, a [value] to the first custom driving event ([0044] “customer data may be fed by the processor through one or more mathematical and/or statistical equations and/or model.” And, [0073] “assigning different weights to different parameters and/or preferences . . . the weighting of the parameters and/or preferences may be based on how predictive of risk the parameters and/or preference.” And, [0065] “rewards and/or penalties may be based on (e.g., looked-up and/or calculated utilizing) information regarding which parameters the customer desires to have monitored and/or based on what preferences the customer establishes regarding how parameters should be monitored (and/or otherwise utilized).” And, [0127] “combinations of preferences . . . that are less risky and/or otherwise more favorable to an insurer, for example, may result . . . rewards, while more risky (or potentially more risky or involving less oversight) selections may result in . . . penalties.”);
monitor a sensor associated with the vehicle telematics unit and record sensor data from an output of the sensor to generate a record of the first custom driving event ([0117] “ the telemetric monitoring device may comprise a sensor device coupled to a vehicle and the subset of the plurality of telemetric parameters may comprise one or more of: (i) a vehicle speed parameter . . . (xiii) a monitoring time-window, (xiv) a monitoring geographic and/or location rule.” And, [0115] “monitoring the determined subset of the plurality of telemetric parameter . . . storing, by the remotely programmable memory, information descriptive of the monitored subset of the plurality of telemetric parameters.” And, [0071] “Vehicle speed may be monitored . . . if certain conditions are met, such as, but not limited to, certain geographic conditions (e.g., a driver and/or vehicle is located in a particular area, zone, road, structure, or garage).”);
pause the monitoring of the sensor in response to a determination that a value of the one or more driving behavior characteristics of the first custom driving event prevents the recording of the sensor data to the record of the first custom driving event ([0117] “the telemetric monitoring device may comprise a sensor device. And, [0071] “parameters (such as speed) may only be monitored if certain conditions are met, such as, but not limited to, certain geographic conditions (e.g., a driver and/or vehicle is located in a particular area, zone, road, structure, or garage).” And, [0115] “a telematics device may be customized based on customer preferences . . customer selected and/or defined constraints, rules, and/or triggers . . . Various time-windows, geographic constraints, and/or environmental triggers may be set, for example, that cause the telematics device to adjust operations (e.g., on/off, monitor/don't monitor) based on the customer-defined preferences.” And, [0126] “permit a customer. . . to select and/or define . . . various preferences relating to telematic monitoring . . . preferences may comprise . . . risk zones/geo-‘fencing’ preferences . . . data capture frequency preferences . . . ‘time window(s)’ may be activated for various selected parameters such as “acceleration monitoring” and/or “location monitoring”. Such activation and/or relation may . . . indicate that acceleration monitoring and location monitoring are to be conducted in accordance with one or more “time window(s)” rules . . . rulesmay be defined by the customer . . . and may, for example, define time conditions during which acceleration and/or location should, or should not, be monitored and/or analyzed . . . geo-‘fencing’ rules may comprise rules defining geographic boundaries within which and/or outside of which location monitoring is to take place, is not to take place, and/or is to take place in a certain manner (e.g., within or outside of certain zones, such as ‘privacy’ or ‘personal’ zones, location monitoring may be disabled.”);
Collins discloses assign, using a model and based on the user-selected combination, [value] to the first custom driving event but does not explicitly teach the following feature taught by Tamir:
[assign, using a model and based on the user-selected combination], a score [to the first custom driving event], wherein the model is based on aggregated driving behavior of a plurality of drivers at the geographical location ([0016] “collecting driving information from a plurality of vehicles and evaluating the driving behavior of a first vehicle based on information from at least one other vehicle or to a statistical analysis of multiple other vehicles.” And, [0017] “collecting from at least 10, 50 or even 100 vehicles.” And, [0018] “comparison to other vehicles is used in determining whether a specific driver behavior is dangerous. Optionally, a behavior performed by a significant percentage (e.g., 30%, 50%, 80%) of the drivers passing at a specific road segment is not considered dangerous. For example, instead of comparing the speed of the vehicle to the speed limit, the vehicle's speed is compared to the speed of other vehicles under same conditions, e.g., road, time, light and/or weather conditions.” And, [0023] “the comparison includes comparing to the same vehicle or to other vehicles in the same location.” And, [[0046] “the collected information includes information on road points at which a relatively large number of vehicles undergo abnormal behavior, such as emergency braking or skidding.” And, [0085] “comparing the determined values of the first vehicle and the plurality of second vehicles comprises comparing the values of the first vehicle to a statistical analysis of values of the plurality of second vehicles.” And, [0102] “assigning a score to a deceleration event comprises determining the location of the deceleration and determining a probability of deceleration at the location.” And, [0183] “filters out acceleration values that occur in the same location for nearly all vehicles, when the reason for the acceleration is assumed to be due to road bumpiness.” And, [0185] “each mapped curve, intersection or other safety related point is associated with a severity rating which is used in adjusting the threshold . . . the severity rating is assigned according to a driver or vehicle profile based on data collected from vehicles.” And, [0292] “The number of such braking occasions is counted and accordingly a distance keeping score is assigned. Optionally, the severity of the counted braking occasions is taken into account in assigning the distance keeping score.”).
Collins teaches a driver providing the custom driving events and assigning rewards/penalties to the events but does not explicitly teach the following feature taught by Tamir:
calculate and assign scores for the one or more custom driving events, wherein an updated score is assigned to the first custom driving event based on the model and the record of the first custom driving event ([0101] “assigning each of the deceleration events a score.” And, [0102] “assigning a score to a deceleration event comprises determining the location of the deceleration and determining a probability of deceleration at the location. Optionally, assigning a score to a deceleration event comprises determining a severity of the deceleration.” And, [0292] “The number of such braking occasions is counted and accordingly a distance keeping score is assigned. Optionally, the severity of the counted braking occasions is taken into account in assigning the distance keeping score.” And, [0040] “the score is generated as a sum or average of the scores of the brakings.” And, [0107] “providing a driving behavior score, comprising installing a monitoring unit in a vehicle, without connecting data reception ports of the monitoring unit to mechanisms of the vehicle, collecting dynamic vehicle parameters of the vehicle by the monitoring unit, analyzing the vehicle driving behavior of the vehicle responsive to the collected dynamic parameters from the monitoring unit; and assigning a score responsive to the analyzing.” And, [0185] “each mapped curve, intersection or other safety related point is associated with a severity rating which is used in adjusting the threshold . . . the severity rating is assigned according to a driver or vehicle profile based on data collected from vehicles.” And, [0292] “The number of such braking occasions is counted and accordingly a distance keeping score is assigned. Optionally, the severity of the counted braking occasions is taken into account in assigning the distance keeping score.” And, [0208] “A score for the vehicle is generated or updated based on the collected statistical data and/or the determined events.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify Collins to include [assign, using a model and based on the user-selected combination], a score [to the first custom driving event], wherein the model is based on aggregated driving behavior of a plurality of drivers at the geographical location and calculate and assign scores for the one or more custom driving events, wherein an updated score is assigned to the first custom driving event based on the model and the record of the first custom driving event as taught by Tamir because “[t]he comparison to the behavior of other vehicles and/or to the behavior of the vehicle in previous cases allows better filtering of the warnings, so as to minimize the number of warnings while providing the important warnings” and “the comparison allows better estimation of the safety of drivers” (Tamir [0026]).
Claims 3, 10, and 17
As per claims 3, 10, and 17, Collins further teaches:
wherein the one or more driving behavior characteristics of the first custom driving event comprise at least one of a time characteristic or a zip code characteristic, and the determination that the sensor data is prevented from being recorded to the record of the first custom driving event is based on a value of the time characteristic or the zip code characteristic ([0071] “rules associated with the parameters to be monitored may be defined, selected, and/or stored (e.g., by the customer). Vehicle speed may be monitored . . . only during certain time windows . . . Similarly, parameters (such as speed) may only be monitored if certain conditions are met, such as . . . certain geographic conditions (e.g., a driver and/or vehicle is located in a particular area, zone, road, structure, or garage.” And, [0115] “a telematics device may be customized based on customer preferences . . customer selected and/or defined constraints, rules, and/or triggers . . . Various time-windows, geographic constraints, and/or environmental triggers may be set, for example, that cause the telematics device to adjust operations (e.g., on/off, monitor/don't monitor) based on the customer-defined preferences.” And, [0126] “permit a customer. . . to select and/or define . . . various preferences relating to telematic monitoring . . . preferences may comprise . . . risk zones/geo-‘fencing’ preferences . . . data capture frequency preferences . . . ‘time window(s)’ may be activated for various selected parameters such as “acceleration monitoring” and/or “location monitoring”. Such activation and/or relation may . . . indicate that acceleration monitoring and location monitoring are to be conducted in accordance with one or more “time window(s)” rules . . . rulesmay be defined by the customer . . . and may, for example, define time conditions during which acceleration and/or location should, or should not, be monitored and/or analyzed . . . geo-‘fencing’ rules may comprise rules defining geographic boundaries within which and/or outside of which location monitoring is to take place, is not to take place, and/or is to take place in a certain manner (e.g., within or outside of certain zones, such as ‘privacy’ or ‘personal’ zones, location monitoring may be disabled.”).
Claims 4 and 11
As per claims 4 and 11 Collins further teaches:
wherein the one or more driving behavior characteristics of the first custom driving event comprise at least a speed characteristic and a braking characteristic ([0050] “a customer . . . may select the data items that are monitored by the telematics device . . . and/or how such data items are to be monitored.” And, [0062] “the monitoring parameters may comprise various driver, environmental, and/or vehicle data items such as, . . . speed, acceleration, location” and “a customer may define and/or select one or more . . . monitoring frequencies, geographic locations . . . that govern and/or trigger data item monitoring [0057] “monitoring purposes, such as location, speed, time of day monitoring purposes, such as location, speed, time of day.” And, [0058] “customer approved monitoring of speed.” And, [0070] “customer may be able to monitor either or both of speed and acceleration.” And, [0071] “Vehicle speed may be monitored (e.g., as a required parameter or as selected by a customer), for example, only during certain time windows such as certain days of the week (e.g., workdays or weekends), certain times of the day (e.g., during work and/or commuting hours, during daylight hours, and/or during nighttime hours), and/or during certain seasons (e.g., winter driving). Similarly, parameters (such as speed) may only be monitored if certain conditions are met, such as, but not limited to, certain geographic conditions.” And, [0057] “accelerometer may be used to monitor both braking and swerving.”).
Claims 5, 12, and 18
As per claims 5, 12, and 18 Collins further teaches:
transmit, to the vehicle telematics unit, the list ([0050] “a customer . . . may select the data items that are monitored by the telematics device . . . and/or how such data items are to be monitored.” And, [0062] “the monitoring parameters may comprise various driver, environmental, and/or vehicle data items such as, . . . speed, acceleration, location” and “a customer may define and/or select one or more . . . monitoring frequencies, geographic locations . . . that govern and/or trigger data item monitoring.” And, [0071] “rules associated with the parameters to be monitored may be defined, selected, and/or stored (e.g., by the customer). Vehicle speed may be monitored . . . only during certain time windows . . . Similarly, parameters (such as speed) may only be monitored if certain conditions are met, such as . . . certain geographic conditions (e.g., a driver and/or vehicle is located in a particular area, zone, road, structure, or garage);
Collins does not explicitly teach but Tamir teaches:
receive, from the vehicle telematics unit, data indicating scores that were assigned at respective geographical locations including the geographical location associated with the first custom driving event ([0101] “assigning each of the deceleration events a score.” And, [0102] “assigning a score to a deceleration event comprises determining the location of the deceleration and determining a probability of deceleration at the location. Optionally, assigning a score to a deceleration event comprises determining a severity of the deceleration.” And, [0292] “The number of such braking occasions is counted and accordingly a distance keeping score is assigned. Optionally, the severity of the counted braking occasions is taken into account in assigning the distance keeping score.” And, [0040] “the score is generated as a sum or average of the scores of the brakings.” And, [0107] “providing a driving behavior score, comprising installing a monitoring unit in a vehicle, without connecting data reception ports of the monitoring unit to mechanisms of the vehicle, collecting dynamic vehicle parameters of the vehicle by the monitoring unit, analyzing the vehicle driving behavior of the vehicle responsive to the collected dynamic parameters from the monitoring unit; and assigning a score responsive to the analyzing.” And, [0185] “each mapped curve, intersection or other safety related point is associated with a severity rating which is used in adjusting the threshold . . . the severity rating is assigned according to a driver or vehicle profile based on data collected from vehicles.” And, [0292] “The number of such braking occasions is counted and accordingly a distance keeping score is assigned. Optionally, the severity of the counted braking occasions is taken into account in assigning the distance keeping score.” And, [0208] “A score for the vehicle is generated or updated based on the collected statistical data and/or the determined events.” And, [0209] “determine statistics for the type of the vehicle to which the data relates and/or for road location.” And, [0280] “Severity of tailgating events (determined according to velocity, decelerations and locations).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the combination of Collins and Tamir to include receive, from the vehicle telematics unit, data indicating scores that were assigned at respective geographical locations including the geographical location associated with the first custom driving event as taught by Tamir because “[t]he comparison to the behavior of other vehicles and/or to the behavior of the vehicle in previous cases allows better filtering of the warnings, so as to minimize the number of warnings while providing the important warnings” and “the comparison allows better estimation of the safety of drivers” (Tamir [0026]).
Claims 6, 13, and 19
As per claims 6, 13, and 19, Collins further teaches:
wherein the model is generated by analyzing the aggregated driving behavior using a machine learning model, an artificial intelligence model, or a statistical model to determine the score assigned to the first custom driving event ([0044] “customer data may be fed by the processor through one or more mathematical and/or statistical equations and/or model.” And, [0073] “assigning different weights to different parameters and/or preferences . . . the weighting of the parameters and/or preferences may be based on how predictive of risk the parameters and/or preference.” And, [0065] “rewards and/or penalties may be based on (e.g., looked-up and/or calculated utilizing) information regarding which parameters the customer desires to have monitored and/or based on what preferences the customer establishes regarding how parameters should be monitored (and/or otherwise utilized).” And, [0127] “combinations of preferences . . . that are less risky and/or otherwise more favorable to an insurer, for example, may result . . . rewards, while more risky (or potentially more risky or involving less oversight) selections may result in . . . penalties.”).
Claims 7, 14, and 20
As per claims 7, 14, and 20 Collins does not explicitly teach but Tamir teaches:
wherein pausing the monitoring of the sensor comprises reducing a monitoring frequency of the sensor ([0173] “The sampling rate of accelerometers is optionally sufficiently fast to allow determination of the braking patterns of vehicle.” And, [0076] “samples are collected at a dynamically adjusted rate. The rate of sampling is optionally determined according to the location of the driving.” And, [0174] “when consecutive samples have very close values, the sampling rate is reduced.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the combination of Collins and Tamir to include receive, from the vehicle telematics unit, data indicating scores that were assigned at respective geographical locations including the geographical location associated with the first custom driving event as taught by Tamir because “[t]he comparison to the behavior of other vehicles and/or to the behavior of the vehicle in previous cases allows better filtering of the warnings, so as to minimize the number of warnings while providing the important warnings” and “the comparison allows better estimation of the safety of drivers” (Tamir [0026]).
Claims 8, 15, and 21
As per claims 8, 15, and 21 Collins further teaches:
wherein the determination that the sensor data is prevented from being recorded to the record of the first custom driving event further comprises determining that the output of the sensor does not indicate the one or more driving behavior characteristics in the list ([0071] “parameters (such as speed) may only be monitored if certain conditions are met, such as, but not limited to, certain geographic conditions (e.g., a driver and/or vehicle is located in a particular area, zone, road, structure, or garage).” And, [0115] “a telematics device may be customized based on customer preferences . . customer selected and/or defined constraints, rules, and/or triggers . . . Various time-windows, geographic constraints, and/or environmental triggers may be set, for example, that cause the telematics device to adjust operations (e.g., on/off, monitor/don't monitor) based on the customer-defined preferences.” And, [0126] “permit a customer. . . to select and/or define . . . various preferences relating to telematic monitoring . . . preferences may comprise . . . risk zones/geo-‘fencing’ preferences . . . data capture frequency preferences . . . ‘time window(s)’ may be activated for various selected parameters such as “acceleration monitoring” and/or “location monitoring”. Such activation and/or relation may . . . indicate that acceleration monitoring and location monitoring are to be conducted in accordance with one or more “time window(s)” rules . . . rulesmay be defined by the customer . . . and may, for example, define time conditions during which acceleration and/or location should, or should not, be monitored and/or analyzed . . . geo-‘fencing’ rules may comprise rules defining geographic boundaries within which and/or outside of which location monitoring is to take place, is not to take place, and/or is to take place in a certain manner (e.g., within or outside of certain zones, such as ‘privacy’ or ‘personal’ zones, location monitoring may be disabled.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication Number 20090210257 (“Chalfant”) teaches monitoring driving of a driver via sensors of the vehicle on-board system which track vehicle event and behavioral data related to driver's performance
US Patent Application Publication Number 20050234772 (“Haruki”) teaches a method of awarding credit-points to vehicle users for adopting methods of driving that are eco-friendly.
US Patent Application Publication Number 20130090821 (“Abboud”) teaches a method of assigning points for time increments of particular driving events.
US Patent Application Publication Number 20100106603 (“Dey”) teaches the use of aggregated models of other drivers can also be used to customize routes based on weather, accidents and traffic and other contextual factor
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II whose telephone number is (571)272-6904. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. 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.
/ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights