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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/15/2025 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 § 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, 10, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US 20190193713, disclosed in IDS submitted on 08/15/2025) in view of Cho (US 20080039261, disclosed in IDS submitted on 08/15/2025) and Birdsall (20210171334).
For claim 1, Son teaches: A control device for a hybrid electric vehicle (abstract,
disclosing apparatus for controlling ending of hybrid vehicle), comprising:
an engine (abstract, disclosing an engine of hybrid vehicle);
a drive motor configured to drive the vehicle (abstract, disclosing a hybrid electric vehicle, thus it necessarily has a drive motor to provide propulsion for vehicle)
a battery configured to provide energy to the drive motor (abstract, disclosing a hybrid vehicle. Hybrid vehicle necessarily has a battery to provide energy to drive motor);
and a processor configured (abstract, disclosing a controller (i.e., a processor)) to:
determine whether there is an attempt to fuel the vehicle, enter a refueling mode to maintain a state in which the engine is turned off, based on determination that there is the attempt to fuel the vehicle (abstract, disclosing a controller (i.e., a processor) for stopping engine by sensing whether the vehicle enters into a refueling state. Stopping the engine and blocking it from restarting in its refueling mode), and
release the refueling mode based on determination that refueling is completed to turn on the engine according to an engine starting condition (abstract, disclosing start the engine to release blocking of the engine start in accordance with a switchover to a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) mode by sensing whether the refueling state has been released),
Although Modified Son teaches of a Hybrid Electric Vehicle, Son does not disclose drive motor to assist the engine in driving the vehicle or a battery configured to provide energy to the drive motor.
Cho teaches of a drive motor that assists engine in driving the vehicle ([0006], disclosing a motor to assist the engine in propelling the vehicle, and advantages of parallel type hybrid. [0039-0040], disclosing motor assisting engine the engine to propel the vehicle using different modes motor, hybrid and engine modes).
Cho also teaches a battery configured to provide energy to the drive motor ([0006], disclosing the battery is used to store energy to drive the motor/generator, see also [0026] and [0040]).
Cho and Son are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., hybrid vehicles. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify art of Son to use parallel hybrid strategy to have a drive motor and battery to assist the engine as taught by Cho to have good energy efficiency. See Cho [0006], [0008].
Son does not teach: wherein the processor is configured to use Artificial Neural Network (ANN) for determining refueling attempt or refueling completion.
Birdsall teaches Artificial Neural Network equipped module to determine fueling state of vehicle (Abstract, disclosing System, methods, and other embodiments described herein relate to controlling a fuel dispenser. In one embodiment, a method of controlling a fuel dispenser includes broadcasting a pairing signal to a vehicle, receiving, from the vehicle, a confirmation signal confirming completion of a pairing process between the fuel dispenser and the vehicle. [0022], disclosing fuel dispenser control system 100 includes a memory 120 that stores a communications module 130 and a control module. [0070], disclosing one or more of the modules described herein can include artificial or computational intelligence elements, e.g., neural network, fuzzy logic or other machine learning algorithms. [0002], disclosing hybrid vehicle).
Son and Birdsall are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., fueling hybrid vehicle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to further modify art of Son to wherein the processor is configured to use Artificial Neural Network (ANN) for determining refueling attempt or refueling completion as taught by Birdsall to improve computing capability of vehicle control system.
Method of claim 11 recites limitations similar in scope to claim 1, hence is similarly rejected.
For claim 10, modified Son teaches: The control device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to confirm a driver's requested output
EXAMINER’S NOTE: State of charge being an engine starting condition is an optional limitation and not required under BRI.
Method of claim 20 recites limitations similar in scope to claim 10, hence is similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US 20190193713, disclosed in IDS submitted on 08/15/2025) in view of Cho (US 20080039261, disclosed in IDS submitted on 08/15/2025) Birdsall and Lee (US 20230168095).
For claim 2, modified Son teaches: The control device of claim 1,
Son does not teach: wherein the processor is configured to use at least one of a change in amount of refueling, a vehicle gear, whether or not a fuel intake is opened, location information, time information, and weather information as input data for the ANN.
Lee teaches use at least one of a change in amount of refueling, a vehicle gear, whether or not a fuel intake is opened, location information, time information, and weather information as input data for the ANN ([0628, disclosing s an input value of the artificial neural network, information related to traveling of a vehicle, which includes road characteristics, traffic information, current time, weather, information related to another vehicle, a behavior pattern of a vehicle (e.g., the number of deviations from an optimal route), destination information, etc.. [0061], disclosing vehicle may be a hybrid vehicle. [0276], disclosing the vehicle 100 (or the route providing device 800) may receive slope information, traffic light information, and the like related to a forward road from eHorizon, to control the vehicle so as to get efficient engine output, thereby enhancing fuel efficiency)
Son and Lee are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., vehicle control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to further modify art of Son to use at least one of a change in amount of refueling, a vehicle gear, whether or not a fuel intake is opened, location information, time information, and weather information as input data for the ANN as taught by Lee to efficiently plan a navigation path and enhance fuel efficiency.
NOTE: Under BRI, the claim does not require the input data to be used to determine fueling attempt.
Claim 12 recites limitations similar in scope to claim 2, hence is similarly rejected.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Cho, Birdsall and Veenstra (20050193989).
For claim 3, modified Son teaches: The control device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine whether there is the attempt to fuel the vehicle based on
Son does not teach: wherein the processor is configured to determine whether there is the attempt to fuel the vehicle based on a gear of the vehicle being in a "P" position
Veenstra teaches whether there is the attempt to fuel the vehicle based on a gear of the vehicle being in a "P" position ([0011], disclosing preventing filling of the fuel system unless transmission range sensor indicated transmission to be in Park range. [0032], disclosing controller prevents unintended vehicle motion and other extraneous activities during refueling of tank when transmission is not in park. Furthermore, [0033], disclosing preventing starting of engine when vehicle is being refueled)
Son and Veenstra are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., preventing engine from starting during vehicle refueling. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify art of Son to determine whether there is the attempt to fuel the vehicle based on a gear of the vehicle being in a "P" position as additional condition as taught by Veenstra to ensure prevention of unintended vehicle motion and other extraneous activities during refueling. See Veenstra [0032].
Method of claim 13 recites limitations similar in scope to claim 3, hence is similarly rejected.
Claims 4, 8, 9 and 14, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Cho, Birdsall, Veenstra and Jun (US 20200190889, Disclosed in IDS submitted on 09/01/2023).
For claim 4, modified Son teaches: The control device of claim 3,
Son does not teach: wherein the processor is configured to determine whether there is the attempt to fuel the vehicle based on determination that location information of the vehicle matches a gas station.
([0030], disclosing a position receiver to receive vehicle position and controller may determine whether a current position is a gas station or a charging station on the basis of the current position information. And determining user intends to replenish energy source in response to determining that the current position corresponds to the gas station.
Son and Jun are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., determining user’s intention for refueling. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to further modify art of Son to wherein the processor is configured to determine whether there is the attempt to fuel the vehicle based on determination that location information of the vehicle matches a gas station as taught by Jun to assist the user in automatically opening and closing replenishing port for replenishing an energy source. See Jun abstract.
Method of claim 14 recites limitations similar in scope to claim 4, hence is similarly rejected.
For claim 8, modified Son teaches: The control device of claim 1,
Son does not teach: wherein the processor is configured to determine whether refueling is completed based on a change in amount of refueling
Jun teaches: wherein the processor is configured to determine whether refueling is completed based on a change in amount of refueling ([0229], disclosing vehicle may identify the amount of fuel in a fuel tank and may determine whether the refueling is completed on the basis of a change in the identified amount of fuel)
Son and Jun are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., fueling vehicles. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to further modify art of Son to wherein the processor is configured to determine whether refueling is completed based on a change in amount of refueling as taught by Jun as a mean to determine enter/exit fueling mode.
Method of claim 18 recites limitations similar in scope to claim 8, hence is similarly rejected.
For claim 9, modified Son teaches: The control device of claim 8,
Son does not teach: wherein the processor is configured to determine whether a fuel intake is closed or a gear of the vehicle is released from the "P" position to determine whether refueling is completed.
Veenstra teaches whether there is the attempt to fuel the vehicle based on a gear of the vehicle being in a "P" position ([0011], disclosing preventing filling of the fuel system unless transmission range sensor indicated transmission to be in Park range. [0032], disclosing controller prevents unintended vehicle motion and other extraneous activities during refueling of tank when transmission is not in park. Furthermore, [0033], disclosing preventing starting of engine when vehicle is being refueled)
Son and Veenstra are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., preventing engine from starting during vehicle refueling. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify art of Son to determine whether there is the attempt to fuel the vehicle based on a gear of the vehicle being in a "P" position as additional condition as taught by Veenstra to ensure prevention of unintended vehicle motion and other extraneous activities during refueling. See Veenstra [0032].
Method of claim 19 recites limitations similar in scope to claim 9, hence is similarly rejected.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Cho, Birdsall and Melatti (US 10272909).
For claim 6, modified Son teaches: The control device of claim 1,
Son does not teach: wherein the processor is configured to enter the refueling mode based on determination that a state of charge of the battery is greater than or equal to a preset threshold in a state where there is the attempt to fuel the vehicle.
Melatti teaches enabling engine stop based on determination that a state of charge of the battery is greater than or equal to a preset threshold in a state (column 10 lines 39-65, disclosing preventing engine shut down when state of charge of hybrid vehicle battery is below a threshold to prevent excessive starts and stops of the engine while may lead to decreased fuel economy).
Melatti and Son are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., controlling engine start/stop for hybrid vehicle. As hybrid vehicle requires engine to charge the battery. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify art of Son to wherein the processor is configured to enter the refueling mode based on determination that a state of charge of the battery is greater than or equal to a preset threshold in a state where there is the attempt to fuel the vehicle as taught by Melatti to prevent excessive starts and stops (after refueling) to maintain high fuel economy. (column 10 lines 39-65).
Method of claim 16 recites limitations similar in scope to claim 6, hence is similarly rejected.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Cho, Birdsall, and Yurgil (US 9840977).
For claim 7, modified Son teaches: The control device of claim 1,
Son does not teach: wherein the processor is configured to control operation of an accessory device in the vehicle to reduce power consumption of the accessory device in the refueling mode.
Son does not teach: wherein the processor is configured to control operation of an accessory device in the vehicle to reduce power consumption of the accessory device in the refueling mode.
Yurgil teaches wherein the processor is configured to control operation of an accessory device in the vehicle to reduce power consumption of the accessory device in engine stop mode (column 8 lines 44-65, disclosing engine auto stop mode i.e., automatic shutdown of engine. And prior to shutting the engine down, reducing alternator and AC load i.e., reducing power consumption of accessory devices (alternator and AC))
Son and Yurgil are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., automatically stopping and starting engine of vehicle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify art of Son to wherein the processor is configured to control operation of an accessory device in the vehicle to reduce power consumption of the accessory device in the refueling mode as taught by Yurgil as a known method for engine load estimation. Thereby preventing stalls. See Yurgil column 8 lines 44-65.
Method of claim 17 recites limitations similar in scope to claim 7, hence is similarly rejected.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12409831. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim of Instant Application
Claim of US Patent 12409831
1. A control device for a hybrid electric vehicle,
comprising:
an engine;
a drive motor configured to drive the vehicle by assisting the engine;
a battery configured to provide energy to the drive motor;
and a processor configured to:
determine whether there is an attempt to fuel the vehicle,
enter a refueling mode to maintain a state in which the engine is turned off, based on determination that there is the attempt to fuel the vehicle, and
release the refueling mode based on determination that refueling is completed to turn on the engine according to an engine starting condition,
wherein the processor is configured to use Artificial Neural Network (ANNf) for determining refueling attempt or
refueling completion.
1. A control device for a hybrid electric vehicle, comprising:
an engine;
a drive motor configured to drive the vehicle by assisting the engine;
a battery configured to provide energy to the drive motor; and
a processor configured to:
determine whether there is an attempt to fuel the vehicle,
enter a refueling mode to maintain a state in which the engine is turned off, based on determination that there is the attempt to fuel the vehicle,
skip or otherwise refrain from monitoring of a driver's requested output in the refueling mode, and
release the refueling mode based on determination that refueling is completed to turn on the engine according to an engine starting condition.
US Patent 12409831 does not claim: wherein the processor is configured to use Artificial Neural Network (ANN) for determining refueling attempt or refueling completion.
Birdsall teaches Artificial Neural Network equipped module to determine fueling state of vehicle (Abstract, disclosing System, methods, and other embodiments described herein relate to controlling a fuel dispenser. In one embodiment, a method of controlling a fuel dispenser includes broadcasting a pairing signal to a vehicle, receiving, from the vehicle, a confirmation signal confirming completion of a pairing process between the fuel dispenser and the vehicle. [0022], disclosing fuel dispenser control system 100 includes a memory 120 that stores a communications module 130 and a control module. [0070], disclosing one or more of the modules described herein can include artificial or computational intelligence elements, e.g., neural network, fuzzy logic or other machine learning algorithms. [0002], disclosing hybrid vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to further modify US Patent to wherein the processor is configured to use Artificial Neural Network (ANN) for determining refueling attempt or refueling completion as taught by Birdsall to improve computing capability of vehicle control system.
2. The control device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to use at least one of a change in amount of refueling, a vehicle gear, whether or not a fuel intake is
opened, location information, time information, and weather information as input data for the ANN.
US Patent 12409831 does not claim: wherein the processor is configured to use at least one of a change in amount of refueling, a vehicle gear, whether or not a fuel intake is opened, location information, time information, and weather information as input data for the ANN.
Lee teaches use at least one of a change in amount of refueling, a vehicle gear, whether or not a fuel intake is opened, location information, time information, and weather information as input data for the ANN ([0628, disclosing s an input value of the artificial neural network, information related to traveling of a vehicle, which includes road characteristics, traffic information, current time, weather, information related to another vehicle, a behavior pattern of a vehicle (e.g., the number of deviations from an optimal route), destination information, etc.. [0061], disclosing vehicle may be a hybrid vehicle. [0276], disclosing the vehicle 100 (or the route providing device 800) may receive slope information, traffic light information, and the like related to a forward road from eHorizon, to control the vehicle so as to get efficient engine output, thereby enhancing fuel efficiency)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to further modify US Patent to use at least one of a change in amount of refueling, a vehicle gear, whether or not a fuel intake is opened, location information, time information, and weather information as input data for the ANN as taught by Lee to efficiently plan a navigation path and enhance fuel efficiency.
3. The control device of claim 1, wherein the processor
is configured to determine whether there is the attempt to fuel the vehicle based on a gear of the vehicle being in a "P" position and a fuel intake being opened.
2. The control device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine whether there is the attempt to fuel the vehicle based on a gear of the vehicle being in a "P" position and a fuel intake being opened.
4. The control device of claim 3, wherein the processor
is configured to determine whether there is the attempt to fuel the vehicle based on determination that location information of the vehicle matches a gas station.
3. The control device of claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to determine whether there is the attempt to fuel the vehicle based on determination that location information of the vehicle matches a gas station.
5. The control device of claim 4, wherein the processor
is configured to request a user to determine whether the vehicle enters the refueling mode based on determination that the location information does not match the gas station.
4. The control device of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to request a user to determine whether the vehicle enters the refueling mode based on determination that the location information does not match the gas station.
6. The control device of claim 1, wherein the processor
is configured to enter the refueling mode based on determination that a state of charge of the battery is greater than or equal to a preset threshold in a state where there is the attempt to fuel the vehicle.
5. The control device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to enter the refueling mode based on determination that a state of charge of the battery is greater than or equal to a preset threshold in a state where there is the attempt to fuel the vehicle.
7. The control device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to control operation of an accessory device in the vehicle to reduce power consumption of the accessory device in the refueling mode.
6. The control device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to control operation of an accessory device in the vehicle to reduce power consumption of the accessory device in the refueling mode.
8. The control device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine whether refueling is completed based on a change in amount of refueling.
8. The control device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine whether refueling is completed based on a change in amount of refueling.
9. The control device of claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to determine whether a fuel intake is closed or a gear of the vehicle is released from the "P" position to determine whether refueling is completed.
9. The control device of claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to determine whether a fuel intake is closed or gear of the vehicle is released from a "P" position to determine whether refueling is completed.
10. The control device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to confirm a driver's requested output or a State of Charge of the battery as the engine starting condition.
10. The control device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to confirm [[a]]the driver's requested output or a State of Charge of the battery as the engine starting condition.
Claims 11-20 recite limitations similar in scope to claims 1-10, hence are similarly rejected.
State of Prior Art
Son Alone, or in combination with Cho Birdsall and Lee does not teach “request a user to determine whether the vehicle enters the refueling mode based on determination that the location information does not match the gas station”. Therefore, claims 5 and 15 are deemed novel. However, the claims are in not in condition for allowance due to rejected independent claims and Double Patenting Rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choi (US 20090062062) teaches of stopping engine when vehicle is stationary. See [0016]
Cho (US 20080039261) teaches of a vehicle with motor and engine. See [0006].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARSLAN AZHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 - 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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/ARSLAN AZHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights