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 .
This is a Non-Final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2024-0136904, filed on 10/08/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding Claim 1 (similarly claim 11), the recited limitation “determining a usage plan of at least one of the first battery or the second battery for a plurality of sections of an expected driving path; changing usage plans for two consecutive sections of the plurality of sections when a battery for a previous section of the two consecutive sections is different from a battery for a next section of the two consecutive sections” is indefinite for at least the following reasons:
The relationship between the “determining…” and “changing…” limitation/step is unclear. The “determining…” step recites determining a usage plan of at least one of the first battery or the second battery for a plurality of sections of an expected driving path, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses determining a usage plan using ONLY one battery for the entirety of sections. However, the subsequent changing step is conditioned on the battery for a previous section being different from the battery for a next section, implying that different sections are assigned different batteries. Therefore, the claim does not clearly define whether the initial usage plan assigns batteries on section specific basis or for the expected path as a whole.
The phrase “a battery for a previous section… a battery for a next section” is indefinite because it is unclear whether “a battery” refers to the previously recited first battery and second battery, another battery, or a battery assignment associated with a section and the claim does not clearly identify the antecedent relationship between the compared batteries and the recited first and second batteries.
It is unclear what constitutes the “previous section” and the “next section” of the recited “two consecutive sections” because the claim does not expressly identify whether the previous section and the next section refer to the first and second section of the selected consecutive sections, respectively, or whether they refer to sections relative to a section before and after the selected two consecutive sections.
It is unclear for limitation “changing usage plans for two consecutive sections of the plurality of sections…”, what constitute as changing the usage plans, e.g., changing the battery assigned to the previous/next section such that two consecutive sections use the same battery? Changing only charging/discharging parameters of the battery at each respective segment while leaving battery assignment for the section the same?
Accordingly, the claim limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding claim 2 (similarly claim 12), the recited limitation “wherein changing the usage plans comprises changing the usage plans based on an energy efficiency condition for the next section of the two consecutive sections” is indefinite. It is unclear to the Examiner because the claim does not define what constitutes an energy efficiency condition and how such condition is determined, compared and using what parameters/threshold and further does not define when/how energy efficiency condition is satisfied or not resulting in a usage plan modification. Further, it is unclear what constitute as battery efficiency condition from lack of teachings of the specification, e.g., minimum energy consumption, maximum range, battery degradation, conversion efficiency, road and/or environmental conditions, regenerative energy opportunity/utilization or something else. Accordingly, the claim limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding claim 3 (similarly claim 13), the recited limitation "first consumed energy estimated by using the battery for the previous section in the next section and a second consumed energy estimated by using the battery for the next section in the next section" is indefinite because claim 1 recites that battery for the previous section is different from the battery for the next section when the usage plans are changed, but claim 3 does not clearly identify whether the battery for the previous section and battery for the next section refer to the same battery identified in claim 1 or define the conditions under which those batteries are evaluated. The claim does not define what is meant by using the battery for the previous section in the next section? Lastly, the claim recites that the energy efficiency condition is based on first and second consumed energies but fails to define the relationship between these two energies or how the energy efficiency condition is satisfied. Accordingly, this claim limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding claim 4 (similarly claim 14), the recited limitation "wherein the first consumed energy comprises consumed energy for the battery for the previous section to drive the vehicle in the next section" is indefinite because claim 1 recites that the battery for the previous section is different from the battery for the next section and claim 4 does not clearly identify which battery is being evaluated or whether the recited battery corresponds to the battery assigned to the previous section before or after the usage plan modification. The phrase to drive the vehicle in the next section does not define whether the claimed consumed energy represents an actual operation of using the previous section battery in the next section or an estimated energy value under the original/changed battery assignment. Further, the term "consumed energy" refers to energy that has already been used/exhausted/spent, how can the energy be used to drive the vehicle in the next section if energy already consumed when previous section is travelled? Accordingly, this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding claim 5 (similarly claim 15), the recited limitation "wherein the second consumed energy…the conditioning energy" is indefinite because the claim does not define the scope or relationship between consumed energy of the battery for the next section, conditioning energy for the next section, and coolant energy for the conditioning energy; specifically, whether conditioning energy includes coolant related energy or whether coolant energy is a separate energy component that's different and added on the conditioning energy and defined particularly how. It is unclear what constitutes as conditioning energy and/or coolant energy, and how are either energy determined/measured. Further, the term "consumed energy" refers to energy that has already been used/exhausted/spent, how can the energy be used to drive the vehicle in the next section (and conditioning) if energy already consumed when previous section is travelled? Accordingly, this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding claim 6 (similarly claim 16), the recited limitation "wherein changing the usage plans comprises …for the conditioning energy" is indefinite because the claim fails to define the comparison being performed or the condition resulting from the comparison that causes the usage plans to be changed. The claim does not define whether the recited consumed energy values represent energy already spent during completed route sections or predicted energy required for future route sections. If consumed energy is interpreted according to its ordinary meaning as energy already used/consumed, the claim does not explain/clarify how energy already consumed in a precious section or next section can be compared to determine a future change in usage plans. Alternatively, if the consumed energy values are intended to represent predicted future energy requirement, the claim fails to recite such limitation. Further, claim 1 permits the usage of at least one of the first battery and the second battery for a section, and claim 6 does not define how the recited energy values are determined when multiple batteries are used in a section or when the battery assigned to the previous section differs from the battery assigned to the next section. In particular, it is unclear whether the comparison is based on a single battery being hypothetically assigned to the next section, a combined operation of multiple batteries, or another battery usage condition. Additionally, the claim does not define whether the energy comparison is normalized or adjusted for differences between route section characteristics since the claim recites to compare energy quantities associated with different route sections but fail to establish how such energy quantities are comparable. Accordingly, this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite. Because the claim cannot be reasonable interpreted by the Examiner or those skilled in the art to define its scope or operation, the claim is too confusing to be given meaningful consideration against any prior art, and no references can be applied to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2173.06, II: Second, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Regarding claim 7 (similarly claims 8-10 and 17-20), the recited limitation "wherein changing the usage plans further comprises determining…less than the combined energy" is indefinite because it is unclear what's the relationship between "a previous section, next section and a subsequent section of the next section". Does the "subsequent section of the next section" mean the section immediately following the next section in the route, any later route section after the next section, a sub-section contained in the next section, or something else. Claim 7 requires determining whether the battery for the next section is the same as a battery for a subsequent section but claim 1 permits at least one of the first battery or the second battery, therefore, it is unclear how same battery is defined (e.g. Battery A supplies the next section and Battery B supplies the subsequent section? Both battery A & B supplies the next section, then what does battery (and same battery) for next section and subsequent section refers to? Lastly, the claim does not clarify how determining that a battery is the same for consecutive sections relates to the changing of usage plans required by claim 1 which is triggered by different batteries being used for consecutive sections. Accordingly, this claim limitation renders the claim to be indefinite. Accordingly, this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite. Because the claim cannot be reasonable interpreted by the Examiner or those skilled in the art to define its scope or operation, the claim is too confusing to be given meaningful consideration against any prior art, and no references can be applied to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2173.06, II: Second, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
The dependent claims are also rejected under 112 second paragraph by the fact that they are dependent upon the rejected independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelty et al. (US 2012/0041625 A1 hereinafter Kelty) in view of Yamaguchi (JP-2020162361A_English Translation).
Regarding Claim 11 (similarly Claim 1), Kelty teaches A vehicle (see at least Fig. 1 Abstract) comprising:
a plurality of wheels; (see at least Fig. 1 [0024]: EV 100 utilizes both a metal-air battery pack 101 and a non-metal-air battery pack 103 coupled to one or more drive motors 105 that provide propulsion to one or more wheels of the EV.)
a driving motor configured to drive at least one of the plurality of wheels (see at least Fig. 1 [0024]: EV 100 utilizes both a metal-air battery pack 101 and a non-metal-air battery pack 103 coupled to one or more drive motors 105 that provide propulsion to one or more wheels of the EV.); and
a controller configured to control a power flow between the driving motor and a first battery or a second battery, the controller comprising a memory storing computer-readable instructions and at least one processor configured to access the memory and execute the computer-readable instructions, (see at least Fig. 1-2 [0024-0026, 0035]: Battery packs 101 and 103 are coupled to one or more drive motors 104 that provides propulsion to one or more wheels of EV. A controller 107 optimizes the vehicle’s dual power source, i.e., battery packs 101 and 103, in light of the current battery pack conditions (e.g., state-of-charge, temperature, etc.), preferred battery pack charge/discharge conditions, and the various operating conditions (e.g., distance, speed, acceleration; road conditions such as uphill, downhill, traffic; charging system conditions such as available power, available time for charging; and environmental conditions). The controller 107 controls the flow of energy to and from both the battery packs 101 and 103. The memory may be used to store system operating parameters as well as process instructions.)
wherein the computer-readable instructions comprise: determining a usage plan of the first battery or the second battery for each section of a plurality of sections of an expected driving path; (see at least Fig. 3-13 [0035-0061]: The intended distance for vehicle to travel is input into the system, the controller determines the optimal split of battery pack usage based on the distance to travel before recharging and on the calculated power require to reach that distance. If controller has access to specific route information, then the vehicle efficiency data input is fine tuned to take into account expected travel speeds and expected elevation changes (e.g., monitoring/estimating elevation based on travel itinerary input into the vehicle navigation system, vehicle efficiency can be adjusted). The SOC for each of the battery packs, the vehicle efficiency, the intended distance and the operational assumptions, battery pack operational parameters are input into the control for determining optimal battery pack split. The calculated optimal split between battery packs depends upon the specific chemistry, configuration, capacity of the battery packs, driving requirements and provides power to the vehicle system based on that optimal splits.)
changing usage plans for two consecutive sections when a battery for a previous section of two consecutive sections of the plurality of sections is different from a battery for a next section of the two consecutive sections; (see at least Fig. 3-13 [0035-0061]: The controller monitors the SOC of the battery packs and compares those SOC values to the SOC values predicted by controller. If the actual and the predicted SOC values are the same within a preset tolerance, the power continues to be split in accordance with the original optimization scheme. Otherwise, the data input into controller is updated and the controller recalculates the optimal split between the battery packs.) and
charging or discharging the first battery or the second battery based on the changed usage plans. (see at least Fig. 3-13 [0035-0061]: If controller determines the that extra power is required beyond the capabilities of non-metal-air battery packs, due to the system drain on the NMA battery pack being greater than expected, then the controller recalculates/updates an optimal split between the battery packs and provides the optimal split between the two battery packs.)
it may be alleged that Kelty does not explicitly teach determining a usage plan of the first battery or the second battery for each section of a plurality of sections of an expected driving path;
changing usage plans for two consecutive sections when a battery for a previous section of two consecutive sections of the plurality of sections is different from a battery for a next section of the two consecutive sections;
Yamaguchi is directed to device and system for controlling batteries mounted on a vehicle, Yamaguchi determining a usage plan of the first battery or the second battery for each section of a plurality of sections of an expected driving path; (see at least Fig. 2-4 [0028-0047]: Fig. 3 illustrates the route R indicating a change in the slope of the route within a predetermined distance specified by the slope specifying unit. The sections u1, u2 and u3 are sections with an uphill slope. The sections d1 and d2 are sections with a downward slope. The sections p1, p2, p3, and p4 are sections that are flat roads. Category a indicates a section in which the sub-battery 4 is used. Category b indicates a section in which the main battery 3 is used. Category c indicates a section for charging the sub-battery 4 with regenerative power. The section p1 is a flat road, and is a section that becomes an uphill slope when the flat road ends. The determination unit 132 determines that the section p1 is a section (section b) in which the main battery 3 is used. The section p2 is a flat road, and is a section that becomes a downward slope when the flat road ends. The determination unit 132 determines the section p2 as a section (section a) in which the sub-battery 4 is used.)
changing usage plans for two consecutive sections when a battery for a previous section of two consecutive sections of the plurality of sections is different from a battery for a next section of the two consecutive sections; (see at least Fig. 2-4 [0020-0047]: Fig. 2 provides rules for modifying or switching battery usage based on the current (main or sub-) battery’s SOC against a threshold value. Fig. 3 illustrates a route-level usage plan that describes a segment by segment assignment of battery charging/discharging operational plan. That is, the system establishes a planned battery usage sequence for upcoming route segments, and during execution changes the battery operation when SOC conditions indicated that the planned battery usage cannot continue.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kelty’s dual battery pack system and control method for an electric vehicle to incorporate the technique of incorporating segment specific battery usage plan and optimizing/changing energy usage plan over an upcoming route segment(s) based on battery state of charges as taught by Yamaguchi with reasonable expectation of success to better allocate battery resources over a route to maintain battery SOC within a desirable ranges and doing so would improve electric vehicle efficiency and driving range.
Regarding Claim 2 (similarly claim 12), the combination of Kelty in view of Yamaguchi teaches The method of claim 1 (similarly claim 11),
Kelty further teaches wherein changing the usage plans comprises changing the usage plans based on an energy efficiency condition for the next section of the two consecutive sections. (see at least Fig. 3-13 [0035-0061]: First, the operating parameters of each of the battery packs may be monitored, thus allowing the controller to adjust power source operation to further optimize battery pack usage. Exemplary battery pack parameters that may be monitored include the temperature of each of the battery packs (e.g., cell temperatures within each pack; coolant temperatures; etc.), current discharged from each battery pack, and operational parameters specific to the metal-air cells (e.g., oxygen concentration, humidity, air flow temperature, rate, etc.). Second, by monitoring ambient temperature, the controller can adjust the vehicle efficiency based on the expected cooling or heating required by the battery packs. Third, by monitoring vehicle weight, or requesting passenger/cargo information from the driver, controller 107 is able to estimate effects of vehicle weight on vehicle efficiency (e.g., more passengers and/or cargo equates to a heavier vehicle which can decrease vehicle efficiency). Fourth, by monitoring vehicle elevation or estimating elevation based on the travel itinerary input into the vehicle's navigation system, vehicle efficiency can be adjusted (e.g., driving uphill requires more energy, and is therefore less efficient, than driving downhill). Fifth, by monitoring ambient lighting controller 107 can determine whether or not driving lights are required and adjust vehicle efficiency accordingly (e.g., driving at night requires more energy, and is therefore less efficient, due to the use of driving lights). Sixth, by monitoring traffic conditions, for example using the vehicle's GPS system, controller 107 can adjust the vehicle's efficiency to take into account traffic conditions (e.g., slow traffic requires more time to reach a given destination, thus decreasing vehicle efficiency). Seventh, by determining the driver (via direct input or utilizing a driver identification system such as a keyfob that remotely identifies the user), auxiliary system use (e.g., vehicle entertainment system, lighting, etc.) for the particular user can be used to adjust the vehicle's efficiency to take into account expected auxiliary system loads. Eighth, by monitoring weather conditions, for example using the vehicle's navigation system or broadcast weather alerts, controller 107 can adjust the vehicle's efficiency to take into account changing weather conditions that may impact vehicle efficiency (e.g., heavy rains, snow, heavy winds, etc.).)
Regarding Claim 3 (similarly claim 13), the combination of Kelty in view of Yamaguchi teaches The method of claim 2 (similarly claim 12),
Kelty further teaches wherein the energy efficiency condition is based on a first consumed energy estimated by using the battery for the previous section in the next section and a second consumed energy estimated by using the battery for the next section in the next section. (see at least Fig. 3-13 [0035-0061]: Controller determines the optimal split of battery pack usage based on the distance to travel and on the calculated power required to reach that distance. The required power depends on the efficiency of the vehicle in converting battery power to propulsive power such as vehicle speed, terrain (e.g., uphill, downhill, or relatively flat), vehicle weight, wind effects (e.g., headwind, tailwind, temperature affecting battery efficiency, required power for various auxiliary system. The controller monitors the SOC of the battery packs, comparing those SOC values to the SOC values predicted by the controller (i.e. predicted use profiles for the two battery packs). If the actual and predicted SOC values are the same or within a preset tolerance, then power continues to be split in accordance with the original optimization scheme. If the actual SOC levels do not match up with the predicted levels, then the data input into controller is updated and the controller recalculates the optimal split between the battery packs.)
Regarding Claim 4 (similarly claim 14), the combination of Kelty in view of Yamaguchi teaches The method of claim 3 (similarly claim 13),
Kelty further teaches wherein the first consumed energy comprises consumed energy of the battery for the previous section to drive the vehicle in the next section. (see at least Fig. 3-13 [0035-0061]: As illustrated in Fig. 4, if during step 421 controller 107 determines that extra power is required beyond the capabilities of the non-metal-air battery pack (step 423 ), for example due to the system drain on the non-metal-air battery pack being greater than expected (e.g., because of unexpected headwinds, excess cargo weight, etc.), then the operating conditions are updated (step 425 ) and controller 107 determines an optimal split between the battery packs. Similarly, if during step 427 the actual SOC levels do not match up with the predicted levels (step 429 ), then the data input into controller 107 is updated (step 425 ) and the controller recalculates the optimal split between the battery packs.)
Claim(s) 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelty in view of Yamaguchi and Shin et al. (US 2020/0164761 A1 hereinafter Shin).
Regarding Claim 5 (similarly claim 15), the combination of Kelty in view of Yamaguchi teaches The method of claim 4 (similarly claim 14),
It may be alleged that the combination of Kelty in view of Yamaguchi does not explicitly teach wherein the second consumed energy comprises consumed energy of the battery for the next section to drive the vehicle in the next section, conditioning energy of the battery for the next section to prepare to drive the vehicle in the next section, and coolant energy for the conditioning energy.
Shin is directed to system and method for calculating distance to empty of an eco-friendly vehicle, Shin teaches wherein the second consumed energy comprises consumed energy of the battery for the next section to drive the vehicle in the next section, conditioning energy of the battery for the next section to prepare to drive the vehicle in the next section, and coolant energy for the conditioning energy. (see at least Fig. 1-3 [0040-0065]: In operation S400 of calculating the DTE, the estimated cooling power consumption may be reflected while the DTE is calculated using the travel information predicted for the travel route. In particular, the DTE may be calculated using available energy [kWh] according to the SOC of the battery, and driving power [kW] and cooling power consumption [kW] of the travel route. Specifically, operation S 300 of estimating the cooling power consumption may include operation S 310 of determining whether the battery is required to be cooled by predicting the temperature of the battery in each section of the plurality of sections into which the determined travel route is divided; and operation S 320 of estimating power consumption for cooling the battery in a section in which the battery is required to be cooled. In operation S 310 of determining whether the battery is required to be cooled, a section in which the temperature of the battery, accumulated and estimated on the basis of the outside air temperature, the amount of solar radiation, and a predicted discharge current of the battery, is a predetermined cooling temperature or higher may be determined to be a section in which the battery is required to be cooled. In operation S 200 , the travel route may be divided into N sections, and the predicted discharge current of the battery may be estimated in each section. In addition, when the travel route is divided into N sections, in operation S 330 , the temperature of the battery may be estimated based on the outside air temperature and the amount of solar radiation in an x-th section at the temperature of the battery estimated by accumulating the temperatures of the battery up to an (x−1)-th section, and the predicted discharge current of the battery in the x-th section. In operation S 340 , the temperature of the battery may be estimated by accumulating the temperatures of the battery up to an N-th section.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kelty in view of Yamaguchi to incorporate the technique of dividing a travel route into plurality of sections, estimating predicted battery discharge amount for each section, and estimating power consumption for preparing and cooling the battery for driving in the subsequent road sections as taught by Shin with reasonable expectation of success to provide a system where the distance that the vehicle can actually travel may be more accurately estimated by reflecting the cooling power consumption in calculation of the DTE, so that battery charging and traveling strategies can be set with improved reliability (Shin [0044]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA F ARTIMEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3410. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-3:30 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, Faris S. Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/DANA F ARTIMEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights