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 .
Priority
Application 19/209,442 was filed on May 15, 2025 and claims priority to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2024-0138366, filed on October 11, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 8, 2026 was filed before the mailing date of this non-final action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 7 and 17 are 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.
Claims 7 and 17 recite, “wherein the first processing unit assigns the pool ID according to a virtual power plant (VPP), a demand response (DR), a vehicle-to-home (V2H), and a vehicle-to-building (V2B)” (emphasis added). This limitation is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear how a single pool ID can be assigned based on separate and potentially conflicting participating market types. In light of paragraph [0087] of Applicant’s specification, the claims are interpreted to read, “wherein the first processing unit assigns the pool ID according to a virtual power plant (VPP), a demand response (DR), a vehicle-to-home (V2H), or a vehicle-to-building (V2B)” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is 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., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite, classify a plurality of electric vehicles into a plurality of pools according to a participating market;
calculate a spare time index until a target energy completion point in time for each electric vehicle;
group the plurality of electric vehicles according to the spare time index; and
distribute a successful bid amount received from a demand management business operator to each group using the spare time index.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, distributing successful bid amounts to customers is establishing business relationships and performing sales activities (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Examiner notes paragraph [0005] describing an “electricity market”, paragraph [0051] describing “profits”, and paragraphs [0057-0058] describing “customers”, which helps to illustrate the sales and business aspects of the claims.
Additionally, the limitations include mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims to classify electric vehicles, calculate a spare time index, group electrical vehicles by spare time index, and distribute a successful bid amount can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 17, as a whole, amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”.
Independent claims 1 and 17 recite the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: one or more processors (claims 1 and 17), a memory storing one or more programs executed by the one or more processors (claims 1 and 17), a first processing unit (claim 1), a second processing unit (claim 1), a third processing unit (claim 1), a fourth processing unit (claim 1), and a demand management business operator server (claims 1 and 17). These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. As such, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner notes that, in light of Fig. 2, the various processing units are interpreted to be logical/functional subblocks of a processor.
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claims 1 and 17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-8 and 12-20, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without reciting any additional elements. They are therefore, ineligible for the reasons as discussed above with respect to independent claims 1 and 17. Examiner notes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the “K-means clustering algorithm”, as recited in claims 6 and 16, merely recites a mathematical concept and therefore only narrows the abstract idea. The additional elements in claims 9 and 10 are discussed below.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
Dependent claims 9 and 10, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claims 9 and 10 also recite the additional element of a fifth processing unit. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
With respect to claims 9 and 10, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., applying the exception using a generic computer component, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a fifth processing unit, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 9 and 10 are also ineligible.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 8-11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0069568 to Vemuri et al. (Vemuri) in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,312,260 to Noh (Noh).
As to claim 1, Vemuri teaches one or more processors; and a memory storing one or more programs executed by the one or more processors (“Referring to FIG. 1, the system 10 includes a command unit 18 having an integrated controller C with at least one processor P and at least one memory M (or non-transitory, tangible computer readable medium) on which instructions may be recorded for selectively executing one or more modules 50 that provide an optimal charging schedule for the fleet 12 …” and “The command unit 18 of FIG. 1 includes a computer-readable medium (also referred to as a processor-readable medium), including a non-transitory (e.g., tangible) medium that participates in providing data (e.g., instructions) that may be read by a computer (e.g., by a processor of a computer) …” [0021-0023 and 0056]),
wherein each of the processors includes: a first processing unit configured to classify a plurality of electric vehicles into a plurality of pools according to a participating market (“… The command unit is adapted to define a plurality of discharge categories, including a transportation category, a transfer category [i.e., a plurality of pools according to a participating market] and a reserve energy category …” and “… The transfer category (via bi-directional charging) covers several types of usage, such as V2G (vehicle to grid), V2L (vehicle to load) and V2H (vehicle to home) …” [0002-0003 and 0033-0035]);
a third processing unit configured to group the plurality of electric vehicles according to the spare time index (“… If so (block 306=YES), the Module 300 proceeds to block 308 where a list [i.e., group] of the electric vehicles 14 having an idle status [i.e., the spare time index] (or near-idle status) is compiled …” [0040-0042]);
and a fourth processing unit configured to distribute a successful bid amount received from a demand management business operator server to each group using the spare time index (“In a non-limiting example, the battery power may be proportioned [i.e., distributed] as 45%, 35% and 20%, respectively, between the transportation, transfer and reserve categories …” and “… If not (block 310=NO), Module 300 proceeds to block 314, where the command unit 18 reproportions electric vehicles 14 that have an idle status in adjacent ones of the virtual box 100 based on the amount of power needed, for example, to facilitate V2V energy transfer from those electric vehicles 14 …” [0036-0037 and 0040-0046]).
Vemuri does not teach, a second processing unit configured to calculate a spare time index until a target energy completion point in time for each electric vehicle. However, Noh teaches, a second processing unit configured to calculate a spare time index until a target energy completion point in time for each electric vehicle (“… For example, if the spare time of the k-th electric vehicle is 50 minutes, since the remaining charging time is 30 minutes, it may be determined that remaining spare time [i.e., spare time index] is 20 minutes …” [col. 7, lines 30-63),
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, a second processing unit configured to calculate a spare time index until a target energy completion point in time for each electric vehicle, as taught by Noh with the charge and discharge scheduling of Vemuri. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Noh that doing so would efficiently use limited charging capacity and effectively manage the electric vehicle charging stations as well as the electric vehicle charging terminals [col. 1, lines 28-35].
Regarding claim 11, this claim is essentially coextensive with claim 1 other than it recites a method instead of an apparatus. Because Vemuri teaches a method as well as an apparatus (see at least Vemuri [0007]), claim 11 can be rejected with the same rationale as claim 1, relying on the same combination of Vemuri and Noh to render the claim obvious. Similar dependent claims below will be treated together for the sake of brevity.
As to claims 8 and 18, Vemuri in view of Noh teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Vemuri further teaches, wherein the fourth processing unit calculates a sum of the spare time indexes for each group and distributes the successful bid amount according to a ratio of the sum (“… As described below, the system 10 enables pre-emptive scheduling of electric vehicles 14 (for charging) when there are changes in the proportion of battery power being used for a particular discharge category …” and “… In this example, the transfer category it may be further proportioned between V2V, V2H and V2G, e.g., as 15%, 5% and 15%, respectively” [0020-0022 and 0032-0036]).
As to claims 9 and 19, Vemuri in view of Noh teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Vemuri further teaches, further comprising a fifth processing unit configured to generate a charging and discharging schedule for the electric vehicle using the successful bid amount distributed to each group (“… As described below, the system 10 enables pre-emptive scheduling of electric vehicles 14 (for charging) when there are changes in the proportion of battery power being used for a particular discharge category …” and “… The fleet 12 is directed to charge when a discharge category goes below its respective percent allocation …” [0020-0021 and 0054]).
As to claims 10 and 20, Vemuri in view of Noh teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Vemuri further teaches, wherein the fifth processing unit generates the charging and discharging schedule so that a profit of the electric vehicle belonging to the group is maximized according to the successful bid amount for each group (“… This allows the electric vehicles 14 to be charged at cheaper off-peak times and discharged at high demand or expensive peak times …” [0035]).
Claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0069568 to Vemuri et al. (Vemuri) in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,312,260 to Noh (Noh), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of NPL “How To Estimate Your EV’s Charging Time” to Chargie (Chargie).
As to claims 2 and 12, Vemuri in view of Noh teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Vemuri does not teach, wherein the second processing unit calculates the spare time index using an entry duration, a target energy value, and a charging energy per hour value of the electric vehicle. However, Noh teaches, wherein the second processing unit calculates the spare time index using an entry duration, (“… For example, suppose that the k-th electric vehicle is connected to the k-th charging connector having the initially set charging capacity of 20 kWh and is about to be charged [i.e., a target energy value]. If it takes 30 minutes for the k-th electric vehicle to be charged, the remaining charging time information is set to 30 minutes. In addition, the spare time of the k-th electric vehicle may also be referred to. For example, if the spare time [i.e., an entry duration] of the k-th electric vehicle is 50 minutes, since the remaining charging time is 30 minutes, it may be determined that remaining spare time is 20 minutes …” [col. 7, line 37 – col. 8, line 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the second processing unit calculates the spare time index using an entry duration, a target energy value, limited charging capacity and effectively manage the electric vehicle charging stations as well as the electric vehicle charging terminals [col. 1, lines 28-35].
Vemuri in view of Noh does not teach, wherein the second processing unit calculates the spare time index using a target energy value, and a charging energy per hour value of the electric vehicle. However, Chargie teaches, wherein the second processing unit calculates the spare time index using a target energy value, and a charging energy per hour value of the electric vehicle (see “Calculation for EV Charging Time” on p. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the second processing unit calculates the spare time index using a charging energy per hour value of the electric vehicle, as taught by Chargie with the charge and discharge scheduling of Vemuri in view of Noh. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Chargie that doing so would help estimate your charge time [p. 2].
As to claims 3 and 13, Vemuri in view of Noh in view of Chargie teaches all of the limitations of claims 2 and 12 as discussed above. Vemuri does not teach, wherein the second processing unit calculates the spare time index according to:
L
A
X
i
=
d
i
-
e
i
r
i
wherein LAXi is the spare time index, di is the entry duration [h], ei is the target energy [kWh], and ri is the charging energy per hour [kW]. However, Noh teaches, wherein the second processing unit calculates the spare time index according to:
L
A
X
i
=
d
i
-
[
c
h
a
r
g
e
t
i
m
e
]
wherein LAXi is the spare time index, di is the entry duration [h], (“… For example, if the spare time of the k-th electric vehicle is 50 minutes [i.e., entry duration] , since the remaining charging time is 30 minutes [i.e., charge time], it may be determined that remaining spare time [i.e., LAXi] is 20 minutes …” [col. 7, lines 30-63).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the second processing unit calculates the spare time index according to:
L
A
X
i
=
d
i
-
[
c
h
a
r
g
e
t
i
m
e
]
wherein LAXi is the spare time index, di is the entry duration [h],
Vemuri in view of Noh does not teach, the charge time =
e
i
r
i
wherein ei is the target energy [kWh], and ri is the charging energy per hour [kW]. However, Chargie teaches, the charge time =
e
i
r
i
wherein ei is the target energy [kWh], and ri is the charging energy per hour [kW] (see “Calculation for EV Charging Time” on p. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, the charge time =
e
i
r
i
wherein ei is the target energy [kWh], and ri is the charging energy per hour [kW], as taught by Chargie with the charge and discharge scheduling of Vemuri in view of Noh. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Chargie that doing so would help estimate your charge time [p. 2].
Claims 4, 5, 7, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0069568 to Vemuri et al. (Vemuri) in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,312,260 to Noh (Noh), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0286523 to Saeki et al. (Saeki).
As to claims 4 and 14, Vemuri in view of Noh teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Vemuri further teaches, wherein the first processing unit assigns a pool (“… The command unit is adapted to define a plurality of discharge categories, including a transportation category, a transfer category [i.e., a plurality of pools according to a participating market] and a reserve energy category …” and “… The transfer category (via bi-directional charging) covers several types of usage, such as V2G (vehicle to grid), V2L (vehicle to load) and V2H (vehicle to home) …” [0002-0003 and 0033-0035]).
While Vemuri teaches assign a pool, Vemuri does not teach assign a pool ID. However, Saeki teaches, assign a pool ID (“… In some implementations, in considering EV groups, G indicates the number of groups of EVs and g indicates identifiers [i.e., pool IDs] of respective groups (e.g., g=1,2,3, . . . , G) …” [0036-0037]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the pool ID of Saeki for the pool of Vemuri. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Saeki that doing so would optimize efficiency in power grids that include vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology [0003].
As to claims 5 and 15, Vemuri in view of Noh in view of Saeki teaches all of the limitations of claims 4 and 14 as discussed above. Vemuri further teaches, wherein the third processing unit groups the plurality of electric vehicles according to the pool (“Per block 202 of FIG. 4, the command unit 18 is programmed to assess the energy requirements of the electric vehicles 14, either individually or collectively …” and “… If so (block 306=YES), the Module 300 proceeds to block 308 where a list of the electric vehicles 14 having an idle status (or near-idle status) is compiled …” [0033-0035 and 0040-0042]).
While Vemuri teaches assign a pool, Vemuri does not teach assign a pool ID. However, Saeki teaches, assign a pool ID (“… In some implementations, in considering EV groups, G indicates the number of groups of EVs and g indicates identifiers [i.e., pool IDs] of respective groups (e.g., g=1,2,3, . . . , G) …” [0036-0037]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the pool ID of Saeki for the pool of Vemuri. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Saeki that doing so would optimize efficiency in power grids that include vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology [0003].
As to claims 7 and 17, Vemuri in view of Noh in view of Saeki teaches all of the limitations of claims 5 and 15 as discussed above. Vemuri further teaches, wherein the first processing unit assigns the pool (“… The transfer category may include vehicle-to-home (V2H) energy transfers” and “… The transfer category (via bi-directional charging) covers several types of usage, such as V2G (vehicle to grid), V2L (vehicle to load) and V2H (vehicle to home) …” [0003 and 0034-0035]).
While Vemuri teaches assign a pool, Vemuri does not teach assign a pool ID. However, Saeki teaches, assign a pool ID (“… In some implementations, in considering EV groups, G indicates the number of groups of EVs and g indicates identifiers [i.e., pool IDs] of respective groups (e.g., g=1,2,3, . . . , G) …” [0036-0037]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the pool ID of Saeki for the pool of Vemuri. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Saeki that doing so would optimize efficiency in power grids that include vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology [0003].
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0069568 to Vemuri et al. (Vemuri) in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,312,260 to Noh (Noh) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0286523 to Saeki et al. (Saeki), as applied to claims 5 and 15 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0222971 to Wolfe et al. (Wolfe).
As to claims 6 and 16, Vemuri in view of Noh in view of Saeki teaches all of the limitations of claims 5 and 15 as discussed above. Vemuri in view of Noh does not teach, wherein the third processing unit groups the plurality of electric vehicles according to a K-means clustering algorithm based on a preset number of electric vehicles for each group. However, Saeki teaches, wherein the third processing unit groups the plurality of electric vehicles according to a (“In some examples, grouping of EVs can be achieved by clustering (e.g., hierarchical clustering) based on order of proximity … Here, if the number of EVs is also less than the threshold number of EVs, only one EV per group is needed …” [0041),
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the third processing unit groups the plurality of electric vehicles according to a
While Saeki teaches a clustering algorithm, Saeki does not teach a K-means clustering algorithm. However, Wolfe teaches, a K-means clustering algorithm (“… Unsupervised machine learning algorithms may include clustering algorithms (e.g., K-means clustering) …” [0047]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the K-means clustering algorithm of Wolfe for the clustering algorithm of Saeki. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Wolfe that doing so would provide EV charging sites that are more efficient and less expensive than existing electric vehicle (“EV”) charging solutions [0003].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2026/0001441 to Barbato (Barbato)
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104789 to Inui et al. (Inui)
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0086647 to Kiessling et al. (Kiessling)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights