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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action in response to preliminary amendments filed on 12/2/25.
Claims 1-10 have been amended.
Claims 11-20 have been added
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are now pending and have been addressed below.
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 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts. The abstract filed on 12/2/25 is 231 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 1-10 be found allowable, claims 11-20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claims 11, 17 recite same limitation as claims 3 & 8 which depends from claim 1 & 6 respectively. Claims 11, 17 depend from claims 7 & 2 respectively. Claims 12-13, 18-19 recite same limitation as claims 4 &9 respectively. Claims 12-13, 18-19 depends from claims 7, 8, 2 and 3 respectively. Claims 14-16, 20 recite same limitation as claims 5 & 10 which depend from claims 1 and 6 respectively. Claims 14-16, 20 depends from claims 7-9, 2 respectively.
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 (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
In the instant case, claims 1-5, 17-20 are directed to a method, and claims 6-16 are directed to a system. Thus, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 1 Identifying a Judicial Exception
Under Step 2A, prong 1, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 6 recite methods for utility pole task management that includes calculating a total cost of a task to be improved, by using at least a number of utility poles located in a data collection target area and a cost required for confirming sites of the utility poles, these items of data being acquired from a customer who manages utility poles; multiplying the total cost by a predetermined contribution rate, calculating an improvement amount achieved by automation of a site image collection task, and presenting the improvement amount to the customer; after formation of an agreement with the customer, implementing collection of site images; based on a utility pole image included in the site images and utility pole information of the customer, identifying a utility pole relevant to the utility pole image; and adding the utility pole image to data of the utility pole of the customer, and providing the obtained utility pole data to the customer.
These limitations as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (including commercial interactions such as business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) including interaction between person and computer) and mathematical calculations (calculating a total cost; multiplying the total cost by contribution rate; calculating an improvement amount), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the structural elements (such as Claims 1, 6 a utility pole management ledger, by a moving object on which a camera is mounted, a utility pole management database Claim 6 a memory, a processor), the claims are directed to providing automation for utility pole data/image collection. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving data, analyzing it, and providing automation for data collection. In particular, the claims only recites the additional element – Claims 1, 6 a utility pole management ledger, by a moving object on which a camera is mounted, a utility pole management database Claim 6 a memory, a processor. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, limitation of “an improvement amount achieved by automation of a site image collection task” is also merely an indication that it is to be using a computer, which does not meaningfully limit the claims. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b), effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c), or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering Additional Elements
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims describe how to generally “apply” to; provide an improvement amount achieved by automation of a site image collection task”. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims are not significantly more because they are part of the identified judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims are not patent eligible. With respect to Claims 1, 6 a utility pole management ledger, by a moving object on which a camera is mounted, a utility pole management database Claim 6 a memory, a processor, these limitations are described in Applicant’s own specification as generic and conventional elements. See Applicants specification, Paragraph [0050] details “ CPU 901, memory RAM 903, [0054]general purpose processor, [0012] The utility pole management ledger is a ledger in which a type, a position, and the like of a utility pole are registered for each utility pole identified by a utility pole number or utility pole identification information. A database or the like in which a type, a position, and the like of a utility pole are registered for each utility pole for the purpose of, for example, managing utility poles can also be used as the utility pole management ledger. [0014] the image collection unit 13 implements collection of site images by a moving object on which a camera is mounted. A vehicle, an unmanned aerial vehicle (drone), or the like is assumed as the moving object on which the camera is mounted. As a camera mounted on these moving bodies, a dashboard camera, a built-in camera of a smartphone.” These are basic computer elements applied merely to carry out data processing such as, discussed above, receiving, analyzing, transmitting and displaying data, which fall under well-understood, routine and conventional functions of generic computers. Furthermore, the use of such generic computers to receive or transmit data over a network has been identified as a well understood, routine and conventional activity by the courts. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AVAuto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); Also see MPEP 2106.05(d) discussing elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine and conventional activities in particular fields. Lastly, the additional elements provides only a result-oriented solution which lacks details as to how the computer performs the claimed abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, these steps/components are not explicitly recited and therefore must be construed at the highest level of generality and amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Therefore, the claimed invention does not demonstrate a technologically rooted solution to a computer-centric problem or recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the function of any computer itself, applying the 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 a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment such as computing. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Taking the additional claimed elements individually and in combination, the computer components at each step of the process perform purely generic computer functions. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-20, add additional limitations, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as Independent claims.
Claims 2, 7 recites wherein position information is associated with the utility pole in the utility pole management ledger, and the identifying includes identifying the utility pole in the utility pole management ledger relevant to the utility pole image by checking the position information against position information on the moving object. These limitations further limit the abstract idea of independent claims by merely adds the words apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception , or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 3, 8, 11, 17 recites adjusting a value of the contribution rate according to a size of the data collection target area or a regional characteristic. These limitations further limit the abstract idea of independent claims by merely adds the words apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception , or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 4, 9, 12-13, 18-19 recites wherein the implementing includes causing the moving object to patrol at a first time interval and continuing the collection of the site images, the utility pole management task assistance method further comprising extracting a utility pole that needs to be inspected, at a second time interval, by using the collected site images, and notifying the customer of the extracted utility pole. These limitations further limit the abstract idea of independent claims by merely adds the words apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception , or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 5, 10, 14-16, 20 recites adding a plurality of images around the utility poles captured by the moving object to the utility pole management database, as the site images. These limitations further limit the abstract idea of independent claims by merely adds the words apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception , or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
These limitations merely adds the words apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception , or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims do not integrate into a practical application. As such, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application, but rather, the recitation of any additional element amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment. These limitations do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05d. Thus, the claims do not add significantly more to an abstract idea. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See (Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.).
Subject Matter distinguished from prior art
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, Butera (US 2021/0350337A1) discloses the utility pole management task assistance method ([0002] managing populations of utility pole plants, and more particularly, for predicting the future condition of utility poles based on their attributes.) comprising:
Butera teaches collection of site images by a moving object on which a camera is mounted ([0033] a probe interface 113 is provided that acts as a communication interface and provides functions for obtaining data from a probe. In certain implementations, a camera interface 114 is provided that acts as a communication interface and provides functions for capturing digital images from a camera. A random access memory (RAM) 118 is provided, where computer instructions and data may be stored in a volatile memory device for processing by the CPU 102.); based on a utility pole image included in the site images and utility pole information recorded in the utility pole management ledger of the customer ([0033] a random access memory (RAM) 118 is provided, where computer instructions and data may be stored in a volatile memory device for processing by the CPU 102., identifying a utility pole in the utility pole management ledger relevant to the utility pole image ([0055] the methods disclosed herein can identify which particular utility poles of a given subpopulation are most likely to meet a rejection condition and thus, inspectors can focus their attention on those particular poles. ); and configuring a utility pole management database obtained by adding the utility pole image captured by the moving object to data of the utility pole management ledger of the customer ([0033] a camera interface 114 is provided that acts as a communication interface and provides functions for capturing digital images from a camera. A random access memory (RAM) 118 is provided, where computer instructions and data may be stored in a volatile memory device for processing by the CPU 102, [0061])
However, Butera does not specially teach calculating a total cost of a task to be improved, by using at least a number of utility poles located in a data collection target area and a cost required for confirming sites of the utility poles, these items of data being acquired from a customer who manages utility poles by using a utility pole management ledger; multiplying the total cost by a predetermined contribution rate, calculating an improvement amount achieved by automation of a site image collection task and providing the obtained utility pole management database to the customer.
Baesler (US 2014/0278150) discloses the utility pole sensor system 100 can significantly decrease the labor and cost (cost saving) involved in assessing utility pole fatigue in a plurality of utility poles. For example, manual inspections performed when the sensor is installed could also be used to identify the type of soil in which the utility pole is installed, such as sand or clay. This would provide additional information that could be used by the algorithm to help evaluate and predict rates of decay and help set the vibration thresholds.
Kim (US12,468,562 B1) discloses task automation score including the first metric includes at least one of: an estimated cost of developing a software robot to automate the task, an estimated amount of developer hours to create the software robot to automate the task, a number of applications that are employed to perform the task, a number of keystrokes performed in the task, and a ratio between keystrokes and screen clicks performed in the task. Generate a second metric associated with the task indicative of a cost savings of automating the task. Scout Service may determine an estimated cost savings of automating the process by determining the amount of time spent performing the task and the value of an employee's time to perform the task. In this example, the determined estimated cost savings may be compared with an estimated cost of automating the process to identify tasks that are likely to yield the most economic value by automating with a software robot.
JP2007141087A discloses a first time calculated by dividing the distance of a section to be inspected determined by data indicating a power outage section with a power pole number and data indicating a distance between power poles by an average inspection speed is calculated. , Calculating the second time required by multiplying the number of utility poles to be investigated by the investigation time per utility pole, and accepting the third time, which is the traveling time of the patrol worker, Based on the first time, the second time, and the third time, a time required for patrol is obtained
JP2019-32684 discloses an information terminal 3 specifies a utility pole number of a utility pole to be passed through during patrol by using an image from a 360-degree camera 35 and a GPS function, automatically determines an inspection target arrangement installed on the utility pole from the image, and determines the presence/absence of abnormality on the basis of a result of detection from an abnormality detection sensor 36
CN113705708 A1 discloses intelligent identification naming on the pictures of the transmission equipment components in the patrol pictures; the invention can automatically classify and name the unmanned aerial vehicle tour pictures, thereby saving time and labor cost. A method for intelligently classifying and naming Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) patrol pictures of a power transmission line comprises an intelligent classification method and an intelligent naming method, wherein the UAV stores longitude and latitude coordinates of shooting points in picture attribute information when shooting the patrol pictures, the intelligent classification method classifies the UAV patrol pictures by constructing an operation and maintenance line basic information base, the operation and maintenance line basic information base stores pole numbers, pole tower datum point longitude and latitude and a pole tower attribution line, when classifying the imported UAV patrol pictures, the distance between the shooting points and the pole tower is calculated according to the pole tower datum point longitude and latitude and the shooting point longitude and latitude coordinate information in the patrol pictures, and the patrol pictures are classified according to the pole tower attribution line and the pole numbers according to the distance far and near threshold range of the calculation result;
CN112256060 discloses collecting the pictures of the power transmission line and the tower pole according to the route marking points in the routing inspection process, and storing the collected pictures of the power transmission line and the tower pole; and when the memory change is detected, automatically naming the collected power transmission line and tower pole pictures in real time according to the power transmission line and tower pole part name table.
KR2022-0034559A1 discusses The pole monitoring system and/or pole monitoring method of the present invention is a two-way between an electronic pole number plate and a drone given to each pole in the drone inspection method that was previously performed by a person directly inspecting, remote control with a drone, or setting a route on GPS It has the advantage of enabling the establishment of a management database through RFID input/output and enabling the setting of the drone's route with information obtained through the built-in data of the number plate.
CN110794873 discloses a power transmission line automatic inspection system and method, in order to solve the process efficiency by unmanned aerial vehicle manual observation inspection to develop power transmission line polling in existing technology is low, the development personnel of inspection with high quality requirement, and the invention reduces the manpower cost greatly and improve the efficiency of unmanned aerial vehicle inspecting electric power transmission line, compare with the existing technology. The traditional technical solution using a helicopter carrying the unmanned aerial vehicle for inspection, in addition to helicopter and large unmanned aerial vehicle needs to operate the helicopter and the unmanned aerial vehicle to operate manual participation inspection, manpower and material resources cost is high. at the same time, the invention uses miniature unmanned aerial automatic polling way to realize unmanned inspection, compared with using large unmanned aerial vehicle may also save the inspection cost.
NPL, Benefits of automating manual data capture process, 2021 discloses lower overall costs due to automation of manual tasks (#4 page 2). Much of this savings comes from accelerated processing speeds and the reduction of human error. To understand how this plays out over time, consider the “1-10-100 rule” frequently referenced in the quality management field. This model provides a simplified idea of how much it will cost to manage errors or other problems in business processes. It will cost $1 to take steps to prevent an error before it occurs. It will cost $10 to correct an error that has already occurred. It will cost $100 to deal with the failures resulting from the error. Another way of looking at this model is in terms of cost savings. Spending $1 now to prevent errors will ultimately save $110because there will be no errors to remediate and those errors will not be able to harm the business in other ways
NPL, Geolocation of utility assets using photographic imagery, 2016 discusses Using data obtained by capturing images from public roads to recognize items of interest has recently been attempted successfully [7], [8], [9], for example to recognize street signs using machine learning. For these applications, images were obtained using dedicated image acquisition hardware. Recognizing the limitations and costs of dedicated image collection, others resorted to the use of images available in the public domain [10].
However, the prior art fails to teach or suggest at least “calculating a total cost of a task to be improved, by using at least a number of utility poles located in a data collection target area and a cost required for confirming sites of the utility poles, these items of data being acquired from a customer who manages utility poles by using a utility pole management ledger; multiplying the total cost by a predetermined contribution rate, calculating an improvement amount achieved by automation of a site image collection task”. The prior art teachings as recited above fail to set forth any sufficient rationale for combining or otherwise modifying any of the relevant prior art to arrive at the claimed invention, as a whole. To arrive at the claimed invention with the precise combination of claimed features would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art without relying on improper hindsight to substantially reconstruct Applicant's claimed invention.
Thus, the aforementioned combination of features claimed, as a whole, are not anticipated nor rendered obvious for any sufficient rationale by any of the prior art teachings. Furthermore, the prior art of record does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination of limitations for the dependent claims due to their respective dependencies to the independent claims 1 and 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP5518826B2 & JP2013122683A discloses a utility pole site ledger management system that manages utility pole site ledger information of a utility pole site that is a land where the utility pole is installed for each utility pole. Regarding the installation of utility poles, it is necessary to obtain the consent of the owner and landowner of the utility pole site, which is the installed land, and the electric power company establishes a utility pole site for each owner and owner of the land. In the storage unit, the utility pole site ledger storage means 32 is a utility pole site such as the site area of the utility pole site, the site owner, the owner of the site owner, the site fee, etc., for each utility pole. The ledger information is stored as the utility pole site ledger database 32a. As shown in FIG. 3, the utility pole site ledger database 32a stores a utility pole site ID 322, a site area 323, a site owner 324, a utility pole site fee 325, and others 326 for each utility pole ID 321 for identifying a utility pole.
Tal (US 2023/0421732) discloses provide enhanced asset data collection functions, asset analysis, and/or asset alerts. The system assists in updating existing asset records, adding new assets to asset inventories, identifying maintenance issues, and/or identifying assets which are no longer present. The system is composed of a data collection device(s) which can collect images and location sensor data, server(s), and client interface(s) for interacting with the collected and/or processed data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGEETA BAHL whose telephone number is (571)270-7779. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 4PM.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/SANGEETA BAHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights