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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on March 03, 2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendments
In response to the Amendments dated March 03, 2026, the Examiner withdraws the prior art rejections under U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0225689 (hereinafter, "Mukai"; previously of record) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0193993 (hereinafter, "Rood"; previously of record) and in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0064813 (hereinafter, "Binet"; previously of record).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 03, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to ATA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0225689 (hereinafter, "Mukai"; previously of record) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0090476 (hereinafter, "Letwin"; newly of record).
Regarding claim 1, Mukai discloses a system for operating a vehicle in an autonomous driving mode (“a automated drive controller (100) that generates a automated drive action plan for the vehicle” (para 0006)), the system comprising:
one or more processors of one or more computing devices (“the plurality of second processors is configured to have capability to issue the instruction to decelerate the vehicle to the brake device in the case where the predicted behavior of the vehicle and the actual behavior of the vehicle detected by the first detection section differ from each other by more than the preset range” (para 0008)) configured to :
generate first commands for control of a vehicle control system of the vehicle in order to operate the vehicle in the autonomous driving mode along a trajectory to a destination (“a drive source controller (82) that controls the drive source, automated drive controller (100) that generates a automated drive action plan for the vehicle, that issues an instruction relating to behavior of the vehicle based on the generated action plan to the drive source controller, a drive source controller (82) that controls the drive source” (para 0006) and “The navigation device 50 identifies the position of the vehicle M using the GNSS receiver, and derives a route from this position to a destination designated by a user” (para 0049));
send the first commands to an actuator of the second system of the vehicle (Fig. 2, #80-83, #90, #92);
compare the monitored driving behavior with the first commands (“a first detection section (60) that detects actual behavior of the vehicle; and a automated drive controller (100) that generates a automated drive action plan for the vehicle, that issues an instruction relating to behavior of the vehicle based on the generated action plan to the drive source controller, that compares predicted behavior of the vehicle based on the issued instruction and actual behavior of the vehicle detected by the first detection section” (para 0006)); and
when an error with the vehicle control system is determined based on the comparison (“in cases where the predicted behavior of the vehicle M based on an instruction issued to the drive source control ECU 82 and the actual behavior of the vehicle M detected by the vehicle sensors 60 differ from each other by more than the preset range, the comparison section 121 determines there to be an abnormality in the drive source control ECU 82” (para 0089)),
generate, while the vehicle is being operated in the autonomous driving mode (“the vehicle M is driving itself under control of the travel controller 110 set to the automated drive mode” (para 0082)), second commands which do not require use of the vehicle control system for control of the vehicle (“the automated drive controller issues an instruction relating to a requested acceleration of the vehicle as the instruction relating to behavior of the vehicle, compares the requested acceleration of the vehicle and actual acceleration of the vehicle detected by the first detection section, and, in cases where the actual acceleration of the vehicle detected by the first detection section is larger than the requested acceleration by more than a preset range, issues an instruction to decelerate the vehicle to the brake device” (para 0007), “in cases where it has been determined to be necessary to perform an emergency stop of the vehicle based on abnormality information from another ECU, reconfigures the travel plan so as to stop the vehicle in accordance with control guidelines uniquely determined according to a preset emergency stopping mode and according to usable parts, these being specific parts of the vehicle other than an abnormal part of a control system” (para 0003), wherein “second commands which do not require use of the vehicle control system for control of the vehicle in the autonomous driving mode” is throughout the reference is stopping the vehicle using only usable parts, utilizing operational components (other systems) for control, excluding the system with any malfunction or abnormality), …
However, Mukai does not explicitly teach
monitor driving behavior of the vehicle based on messages passed between the vehicle control system and at least one other vehicle control system of the vehicle while the vehicle is being operated in the autonomous driving mode, wherein the messages relate to controlling autonomous driving operations of the vehicle to cause the vehicle to follow the trajectory to the destination;
… wherein the second commands are configured to cause the vehicle to come to a stop;
Letwin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
monitor driving behavior of the vehicle based on messages passed between the vehicle control system and at least one other vehicle control system of the vehicle (“The AV control sub-system 120 may use a vehicle action or state (if any) as provided by the vehicle state output to verify, for example, that the planned trajectory 153 of the vehicle 10 is safe” (para 0040) and “the auxiliary control units 230, 232 may monitor for and then detect a predefined event or condition that triggers the auxiliary control units 230, 232 to communicate vehicle response outputs 237 to one or more vehicle control interfaces 202, 204, 206” (para 0057)) while the vehicle is being operated in the autonomous driving mode (“The command input 85 can include route information 87 and one or more operational parameters 89 which specify an operational state of the vehicle (e.g., desired speed and pose, acceleration, etc.). The controller(s) 84 generate control signals 119 from the command input 85 for one or more of the vehicle interfaces 92, 94, 96, 98, so as to control propulsion, steering, braking and other vehicle behavior while the autonomous vehicle 10 follows a route” (para 0027)), wherein the messages relate to controlling autonomous driving operations of the vehicle to cause the vehicle to follow the trajectory to the destination (“The controller(s) 84 generate control signals 119 from the command input 85 for one or more of the vehicle interfaces 92, 94, 96, 98, so as to control propulsion, steering, braking and other vehicle behavior while the autonomous vehicle 10 follows a route. Thus, while the vehicle 10 may follow a route, the controller(s) 84 can continuously adjust and alter the movement of the vehicle in response to receiving the sensor data 111” (para 0027)). Wherein “the messages relate to controlling autonomous driving operations of the vehicle” these messages throughout the reference correspond to the command inputs sent from the AV control subsystem to the vehicle controllers, which control propulsion, steering, and braking.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mukai with the teachings of Letwin in order to control propulsion, steering, braking and other vehicle behavior while the autonomous vehicle follows a route; see Letwin at least at [0027].
… wherein the second commands are configured to cause the vehicle to come to a stop (“one or more auxiliary control unit may be configured to provide an avoidance or mitigation vehicle response to one or more predefined conditions or events” (para 0015) and “the auxiliary control unit 130, 132, 134 may generate the vehicle response output 137 of braking until the vehicle either comes to a complete stop” (para 0035)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mukai with the teachings of Letwin in order to avoid or mitigate vehicle response to one or more predefined conditions or event; see Letwin at least at [0015].
Regarding claim 2, Mukai discloses and Letwin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Mukai discloses wherein one of the one or more computing devices is a monitor computing device configured to perform the monitoring and the determining (Fig. 2, #120), and another of the one or more computing devices is a control computing device configured to perform the controlling the vehicle in the autonomous driving mode by generating the first commands and the controlling the vehicle in the autonomous driving mode by generating the second commands (Fig. 2, #100).
Regarding claim 3, Mukai discloses and Letwin teaches all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Mukai discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
use the comparison to generate a signal indicating the error (“ in cases where the predicted behavior of the vehicle M based on an instruction issued to the drive source control ECU 82 and the actual behavior of the vehicle M detected by the vehicle sensors 60 differ from each other by more than the preset range, the comparison section 121 determines there to be an abnormality in the drive source control ECU 82” (para 0089)), and
send the signal to the control computing device (“the abnormality occurrence notification section 122 of the present embodiment issues an instruction to the first notification section 111 to stop instruction relating to the requested acceleration of the vehicle M issued to the drive source control ECU 82” (para 0092)).
Regarding claim 4, Mukai discloses and Letwin teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Mukai discloses wherein the signal indicates that there is more than a predefined amount of acceleration (“compares the requested acceleration of the vehicle and actual acceleration of the vehicle detected by the first detection section, and, in cases where the actual acceleration of the vehicle detected by the first detection section is larger than the requested acceleration by more than a preset range, issues an instruction to decelerate the vehicle to the brake device.” (para 0007) and “in cases where the predicted behavior of the vehicle M based on an instruction issued to the drive source control ECU 82 and the actual behavior of the vehicle M detected by the vehicle sensors 60 differ by more than a preset threshold value (in cases of a sudden increase in speed, for example), this additional deceleration control may be implemented without determining whether or not the desired deceleration of the vehicle M is being performed” (para 0106)).
Regarding claim 7, Mukai discloses and Letwin teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Mukai discloses wherein the signal indicates that there is less than a predefined amount of acceleration (“compares the requested acceleration of the vehicle and actual acceleration of the vehicle detected by the first detection section (para 0007) and “in cases where the predicted behavior of the vehicle M based on an instruction issued to the drive source control ECU 82 and the actual behavior of the vehicle M detected by the vehicle sensors 60 differ by more than a preset threshold value (in cases of a sudden increase in speed, for example), this additional deceleration control may be implemented without determining whether or not the desired deceleration of the vehicle M is being performed” (para 0106)).
Regarding claim 8, Mukai discloses and Letwin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Mukai discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
determine a first trajectory for maneuvering the vehicle by a planning system of the vehicle (“The navigation device 50 identifies the position of the vehicle M using the GNSS receiver, and derives a route from this position to a destination designated by a user” (para 0049)), wherein generating the first commands is based on the first trajectory (“The action plan generation section 106 generates a automated drive action plan for specific sections. Specific sections refers to, for example, sections that pass through toll roads such as expressways in the route derived by the navigation device 50” (para 0069)), and
when the error is detected, change a planning behavior of the planning system (“An autonomous travel ECU is hitherto known that, together with setting a travel plan according to conditions around a vehicle, in cases where it has been determined to be necessary to perform an emergency stop of the vehicle based on abnormality information from another ECU, reconfigures the travel plan so as to stop the vehicle in accordance with control guidelines uniquely determined according to a preset emergency stopping mode and according to usable parts” (para 0003)).
Regarding claim 9, Mukai discloses and Letwin teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Additionally, Mukai discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
after changing the planning behavior of the planning system, determine a second trajectory for maneuvering the vehicle according to the changed planning behavior, and wherein the second commands are generated based on the second trajectory (“The travel mode determination section 107 determines the travel mode to be decelerating travel in cases where deceleration of a vehicle in front mA has been recognized by the environment recognition section 102 or when implementing an event such as stopping or parking. The travel mode determination section 107 determines the travel mode to be curve travel in cases where the environment recognition section 102 or the vehicle position recognition section 104 has recognized that the vehicle M is approaching a curved road. The travel mode determination section 107 determines the travel mode to be obstacle avoiding travel in cases where an obstacle in front of the vehicle M has been recognized by the environment recognition section 102.” (para 0072)).
Regarding claim 13, Mukai discloses and Letwin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Mukai discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
send the second commands to a third system (“The travel controller 110 sets the control mode to either the automated drive mode or the manual driving mode using control from the control switching section 115, and controls a control target (for example, the traveling drive force output device 80, the brake device 90, and the steering device 92) in accordance with the set control mode” (para 0078)).
Regarding claim 14, Mukai discloses and Letwin teaches all of the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Mukai discloses wherein the third system is an acceleration system, a deceleration system, a gearing system, or a steering system (“The travel controller 110 sets the control mode to either the automated drive mode or the manual driving mode using control from the control switching section 115, and controls a control target (for example, the traveling drive force output device 80, the brake device 90, and the steering device 92) in accordance with the set control mode.” (para 0078)).
Regarding claim 15, Mukai discloses and Letwin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Mukai discloses wherein monitoring the driving behavior of the vehicle while the vehicle is being operated in the autonomous driving mode includes at least one of:
monitor messages sent from a perception system of the vehicle to a planning system of the vehicle; monitor messages sent from the planning system to an acceleration system of the vehicle (“the comparison section 121 of the present embodiment described above may determine an abnormality in the drive source control ECU 82 by comparing the requested acceleration of the vehicle M and the actual acceleration of the vehicle M detected by the vehicle sensors 60” (para 0122));
monitor messages sent from the planning system to a deceleration system of the vehicle (“monitoring of the drive source control ECU 82 and deceleration control of the vehicle” (para 0114));
monitor messages sent from the planning system to a steering system of the vehicle (“the traveling drive force output device 80 is monitored for abnormalities by the automated drive ECU 100 that meets the level D (ASIL D) standard” (para 0111)).
Regarding claim 16, Mukai discloses and Letwin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Mukai discloses wherein the first commands are deceleration commands, and the actuator is a deceleration actuator (“a second notification section (112) that issues an instruction to decelerate the vehicle to a brake device of the vehicle in cases where the predicted behavior of the vehicle and the actual behavior of the vehicle compared by the comparison section differ by more than a preset range” (para 0017)).
Regarding claim 17, Mukai discloses and Letwin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Mukai discloses wherein the first commands are acceleration commands, and the actuator is an acceleration actuators (“ the first detection section detects an actual acceleration of the vehicle; and the automated drive controller issues an instruction relating to a requested acceleration of the vehicle as the instruction relating to behavior of the vehicle” (para 0007)).
Regarding claim 18, Mukai discloses and Letwin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Mukai discloses wherein the first commands are steering commands, and the actuator is a steering actuator (“The first notification section 111 also issues an instruction relating to a requested steering angle or the like of the vehicle M to the steering device 92” (para 0079)).
Regarding claim 19, Mukai discloses and Letwin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Mukai discloses wherein comparing the monitored driving behavior with the first commands includes determining whether there is a mismatch (“in cases where the predicted behavior of the vehicle based on the issued instruction and the actual behavior of the vehicle detected by the first detection section differ by more than a preset range, issues an instruction to decelerate the vehicle to the brake device” (para 0006)).
Regarding claim 20, Mukai discloses and Letwin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Mukai discloses further comprising the vehicle (Fig. 1, #M).
Claims 5-6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0225689 (hereinafter, "Mukai"; previously of record), in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0090476 (hereinafter, "Letwin"; newly of record) as applied to claims 3 and 8 above, and in further view of U.S. Pat. No. 9,523,984 (hereinafter, "Herbach"; previously of record).
Regarding claim 5, Mukai discloses and Letwin teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. However, Mukai does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive the signal; and
in response to receiving the signal, turn off an ignition of the vehicle.
Herbach, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive the signal (“receive information indicative of a request or requirement to access and execute the instructions so as to pull over and stop the autonomous vehicle” (Col. 22, lines 33-35)); and
in response to receiving the signal, turn off an ignition of the vehicle (“receive information indicative of a request or requirement to access and execute the instructions so as to pull over and stop the autonomous vehicle” (Col. 22, lines 33-35), “ The computing device 111 may be configured to receive information from and control the propulsion system 102, the sensor system 104, the control system 106, and the peripherals 108 (Col. 4, lines 55-57) , and “The propulsion system 102 may be configured to provide powered motion for the automobile 100. As shown, the propulsion system 102 includes an engine/motor 118, an energy source 120, a transmission 122, and wheels/tires 124” (Col. 4, lines 66-67 - Col. 5, lines 1-2)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mukai and the teaching of Letwin with the teachings of Herbach in order to pull over and stop the autonomous vehicle; see Herbach at least at Col. 1, lines 48-49.
Regarding claim 6, Mukai discloses and Letwin teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. However, Mukai does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
receive the signal; and
in response to receiving the signal, move a gear control to a neutral state thereby disengaging a transmission of the vehicle.
Herbach, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
receive the signal (“receive information indicative of a request or requirement to access and execute the instructions so as to pull over and stop the autonomous vehicle” (Col. 22, lines 33-35)); and
in response to receiving the signal, move a gear control to a neutral state thereby disengaging a transmission of the vehicle (“receive information indicative of a request or requirement to access and execute the instructions so as to pull over and stop the autonomous vehicle” (Col. 22, lines 33-35), “ The computing device 111 may be configured to receive information from and control the propulsion system 102, the sensor system 104, the control system 106, and the peripherals 108 (Col. 4, lines 55-57) , and “The propulsion system 102 may be configured to provide powered motion for the automobile 100. As shown, the propulsion system 102 includes an engine/motor 118, an energy source 120, a transmission 122, and wheels/tires 124” (Col. 4, lines 66-67 - Col. 5, lines 1-2)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mukai and the teaching of Letwin with the teachings of Herbach in order to pull over and stop the autonomous vehicle; see Herbach at least at Col. 1, lines 48-49.
Regarding claim 10, Mukai discloses and Letwin teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. However, Mukai does not explicitly teach wherein changing the planning behavior includes adding a rule that the vehicle cannot change lanes.
Herbach, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein changing the planning behavior includes adding a rule that the vehicle cannot change lanes (“a control strategy may comprise sets of instructions or rules associated with traffic interaction in various driving contexts. The control strategy, for example, may comprise rules that determine a speed of the autonomous vehicle, steering angle, and a lane that the autonomous vehicle may travel on while taking into account safety and traffic rules and concerns (e.g., other vehicles stopped at an intersection and windows-of-opportunity in yield situation, lane tracking, speed control, distance from other vehicles on the road, passing other vehicles, and queuing in stop-and-go traffic, and avoiding areas that may result in unsafe behavior such as oncoming-traffic lanes, etc.)” (Col. 24, lines 14-26)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mukai and the teaching of Letwin with the teachings of Herbach in order to avoid areas that may result in unsafe behavior; see Herbach at least at Col. 24, lines 24-25.
Regarding claim 11, Mukai discloses and Letwin teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. However, Mukai does not explicitly teach wherein changing the planning behavior includes adding a rule that the vehicle must avoid intersections.
Herbach, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein changing the planning behavior includes adding a rule that the vehicle must avoid intersections (“a control strategy may comprise sets of instructions or rules associated with traffic interaction in various driving contexts. The control strategy, for example, may comprise rules that determine a speed of the autonomous vehicle, steering angle, and a lane that the autonomous vehicle may travel on while taking into account safety and traffic rules and concerns (e.g., other vehicles stopped at an intersection and windows-of-opportunity in yield situation, lane tracking, speed control, distance from other vehicles on the road, passing other vehicles, and queuing in stop-and-go traffic, and avoiding areas that may result in unsafe behavior such as oncoming-traffic lanes, etc.)” (Col. 24, lines 14-26)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mukai and the teaching of Letwin with the teachings of Herbach in order to avoid areas that may result in unsafe behavior; see Herbach at least at Col. 24, lines 24-25.
Regarding claim 12, Mukai discloses and Letwin teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. However, Mukai does not explicitly teach wherein changing the planning behavior includes adding a rule that the vehicle must avoid railroad crossings.
Herbach, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein changing the planning behavior includes adding a rule that the vehicle must avoid railroad crossings (“a control strategy may comprise sets of instructions or rules associated with traffic interaction in various driving contexts. The control strategy, for example, may comprise rules that determine a speed of the autonomous vehicle, steering angle, and a lane that the autonomous vehicle may travel on while taking into account safety and traffic rules and concerns (e.g., other vehicles stopped at an intersection and windows-of-opportunity in yield situation, lane tracking, speed control, distance from other vehicles on the road, passing other vehicles, and queuing in stop-and-go traffic, and avoiding areas that may result in unsafe behavior such as oncoming-traffic lanes, etc.)” (Col. 24, lines 14-26), Wherein “railroad crossings” is throughout the reference is the areas that may result in unsafe behavior since railroad crossings are known to be dangerous spots where accidents can happen, making them places where unsafe actions or behaviors may occur).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Mukai and the teaching of Letwin with the teachings of Herbach in order to avoid areas that may result in unsafe behavior; see Herbach at least at Col. 24, lines 24-25.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ALHARBI whose telephone number is (313)446-6621. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6:30pm.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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.
/ADAM M ALHARBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights