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 submission filed on 29 August 2025. Claim(s) 11-30 are pending. Claims 1-10 are cancelled.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments dated 29 August 2025, Examiner withdraws the previous claim interpretations; withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections; and maintains the previous prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 29 August 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see Remarks, pg. 11-12, that US-20170277607-A (“Samii”) does not teach “moving execution from one node to a different node.” Specifically, amended claim 11 recites: “the reconfiguring including shifting execution of one or more of the application entities from a first computing node to a different computing node”. The application entities provide functionality via generating control signals for controlling an autonomous vehicle. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the execution of application entities (i.e., software running on hardware), that generates control signals for controlling a vehicle, that is shifted from one “computing node” (i.e., controller) to a different “computing node” (i.e., a different controller) teaches the aforementioned limitation. Samii discloses a fault-tolerant redundant system for a vehicle control system that includes a first controller operating in a primary status mode (i.e., controlling the vehicle), a second controller that operates in a hot standby status mode (i.e., executing redundant functions but not controlling the vehicle), and a plurality of backup controllers operating in cold standby status modes (not executing functions) (see Samii, para. 0006-0007). When a fault is detected in the first controller, the control system detects and automatically shifts primary control status to the second controller. Therefore, Samii discloses shifting execution of one or more application entities from a first computing node to a different computing node. For these reasons, examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections. For more details on how Samii discloses the limitations recited in the independent claims, see the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 section, below.
Applicant argues, see Remarks, pg. 12-14, that Samii does not teach nor suggest a reconfiguration that comprises “calculating a configuration that, relative to a current active configuration, minimizes a total number of shifts between computing nodes of the application entities necessary to restore…” However, Samii teaches a fault tolerant control system, that uses component/system redundancy. At the time of the instant application, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to know that the objective of redundant systems is to reduce overall system downtime due to failures/faults (see “Understanding Redundancy”, pg. 37 and pgs. 41-44). The system and method taught by Samii automatically detects a fault in a controller and reconfigures the available controllers in a manner that is “instantaneous” or “has minimal latency” (see Samii, para. 0035). To one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the application, a system that shifts application entities from one computing node to a different computing node in a manner that minimizes the total number of shifts between computing nodes would be equivalent to a system that has an equivalent reconfiguration that does so in a manner that is “instantaneous” or has “minimal latency”. For these reasons, examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections. For more details on how Samii discloses the limitations recited in the independent claims, see the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 section, below.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons. Therefore, examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 11, 18, and 25 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11: “the reconfiguring including shifting execution of one or more of the application entities” should be “the reconfiguring including shifting execution of one or more of the plurality of application entities”;
Claim 11: “minimizes a total number of shifts between computing nodes of the application entities necessary to restore” should be “minimizes a total number of shifts between computing nodes of the plurality of application entities necessary to restore”;
Claim 18: “the application entities configured to receive sensor data” should be “the plurality of application entities configured to receive sensor data”;
Claim 18: “the reconfiguring including shifting execution of one or more of the application entities” should be “the reconfiguring including shifting execution of one or more of the plurality of application entities”;
Claim 18: “minimizes a total number of shifts between computing nodes of the application entities necessary to restore” should be “minimizes a total number of shifts between computing nodes of the plurality of application entities necessary to restore”;
Claim 25: “the reconfiguring includes shifting execution of one or more of the application entities from a first computing node” should be “the reconfiguring includes shifting execution of one or more of the plurality of application entities from a first computing node”;
Claim 25: “minimizes a total number of shifts between computing nodes of the application entities necessary” should be “minimizes a total number of shifts between computing nodes of the plurality of application entities necessary”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-16, 18-23, and 25-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US-20170277607-A, hereinafter “Samii” (previously of record).
Regarding claim 18, and analogous claims 11 and part of claim 25, Samii discloses an apparatus for reconfiguring an autonomous vehicle in the event of a fault (Samii, para. 0001: “An embodiment relates to fault tolerant control systems.”; para. 0002: “Systems which provide safety functions typically utilize redundant controllers to ensure safety by shutting down functions that have experienced a fault or failure.”), comprising:
one or more processors and non-transitory memory (Samii, para. 0003: “Recall that a controller includes either two processors or two cores [i.e., one or more processors] where functions are executed independently and simultaneously on a respective controller. Alternatively, the control system may include one processor and one independent monitoring module As a result, each controller would have a same function executed by each processor or core within each controller.”; para. 0019: “When implemented in software, various elements of the systems described herein are essentially the code segments or computer-executable instructions that perform the various tasks. In certain embodiments, the program or code segments are stored in a tangible processor-readable medium, which may include any medium that can store or transfer information. Examples of a non-transitory and processor-readable medium include an electronic circuit, a microcontroller, an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a semiconductor memory device, a ROM, a flash memory, an erasable ROM (EROM), a floppy diskette, a CD-ROM, an optical disk, a hard disk, or the like [i.e., non-transitory memory].”);
a plurality of application entities, each providing a respective functionality, the plurality of application entities being distributed across a plurality of computing nodes, the application entities configured to receive sensor data and generate control signals for controlling the autonomous vehicle, based on the received sensor data (Samii, para. 0019: “When implemented in software, various elements of the systems described herein are essentially the code segments or computer-executable instructions that perform the various tasks [i.e., a plurality of application entities, each providing a respective functionality].”; para. 0025: “The first controller 12, the second controller 14, and the third controller 15 [i.e., the plurality of application entities being distributed across a plurality of computing nodes] communicate via a communication network 24…The requirement is that each of the controllers and sensors/actuators can communication with one another. The first controller 12, the second controller 14, and the third controller 16 utilize the communication network 24 to receive and transmit data between sensors 26 and actuators 28 [i.e., configured to receive sensor data].”; para. 0026: “Upon the first controller 12 receiving the input signals from the sensors 26, each core 16 and 18 of the primary controller 12 simultaneously executes a software function utilizing input data [i.e., based on the received sensor data]. The first controller 12 outputs a control signal based on the executed function to the actuators 28. The actuators 28 include devices for actuating a feature of the vehicle system. Typically, features are those that are either critical or are required by the vehicle to maintain at least some safe operation of the vehicle. Such control devices may include, but are not limited to braking controls and steering controls [i.e., generate control signals for controlling the autonomous vehicle].”);
a monitoring device implemented by the one or more processors executing instructions stored in the non-transitory memory, the monitoring device configured to detect that a fault is present in one or more of the plurality of application entities, one or more operating systems and/or hardware corresponding to the plurality of computing nodes (Samii, para. 0030: “Upon the second controller 14 [i.e., a monitoring device implemented by the one or more processors executing instructions stored in the non-transitory memory] detecting that the first controller 12 [i.e., present in one or more of the plurality of application entities, one or more operating systems and/or hardware corresponding to the plurality of computing nodes] has faulted [i.e., configured to detect that a fault is present] and is in fail-silent mode, the second controller 14 will be reconfigured as the primary controller.”; para. 0036: “The third controller 15 detects the failure of the second controller 14 [i.e., monitoring device configured to detect that a fault is present] and is reconfigured from hot standby status mode (HS) to primary status mode (P) in response to detecting the failure.”; para. 0045: “In the decentralized approach, each controller implements logic to detect failure of any other controller in the system [i.e., monitoring device configured to detect that a fault is present] and reconfigure to primary or hot standby status if necessary. In the centralized approach, a master controller detects failures of all other controllers in the system [i.e., monitoring device configured to detect that a fault is present], and determines which controller should reconfigure to primary status and which controller should reconfigure to hot standby status.”);
a switching device implemented by the one or more processors executing instructions stored in the non-transitory memory, the switching device configured to isolate the fault by switching at least one of the plurality of application entities to one or more redundant application entities distributed across the plurality of computing nodes (Samii, para. 0030: “Upon the second controller 14 [i.e., a switching device implemented by the one or more processors executing instructions stored in the non-transitory memory…configured to isolate the fault] detecting that the first controller 12 [i.e., at least one of the plurality of application entities] has faulted and is in fail-silent mode, the second controller 14 will be reconfigured as the primary controller [i.e., to one or more redundant application entities distributed across the plurality of computing nodes].”; para. 0045: “In the centralized approach, a master controller detects failures of all other controllers in the system [i.e., a switching device configured to isolate the fault], and determines which controller should reconfigure to primary status and which controller should reconfigure to hot standby status [i.e., by switching at least one of the plurality of application entities to one or more redundant application entities distributed across the plurality of computing nodes]. When this determination is made, the master controller notifies the respective controller to reconfigure and change their operating status to primary and hot standby, respectively.”);
an application placement device implemented by the one or more processors executing instructions stored in the non-transitory memory, the application placement device configured to restore predetermined redundancy conditions and/or segregation conditions for the plurality of application entities by reconfiguring a configuration, the reconfiguring including shifting execution of one or more of the application entities from a first computing node to a different computing node (Samii, para. 0045: “In the centralized approach, a master controller [i.e., an application placement device implemented by the one or more processors executing instructions stored in the non-transitory memory] detects failures of all other controllers in the system, and determines which controller should reconfigure to primary status and which controller should reconfigure to hot standby status [i.e., from a first computing node to a different computing node]. When this determination is made, the master controller notifies the respective controller to reconfigure and change their operating status to primary and hot standby, respectively [i.e., configured to restore predetermined redundancy conditions and/or segregation conditions for the plurality of application entities by reconfiguring a configuration, the reconfiguring including shifting execution of one or more of the application entities from a first computing node to a different computing node].”); and
wherein the application placement device is configured to calculate a configuration that, relative to a current active configuration, minimizes a total number of shifts between computing nodes of the application entities necessary to restore the predetermined redundancy conditions and/or segregation conditions (Samii, para. 0005: “An advantage of an embodiment is a reduction in the processing load on controllers such that processing resources can be freed up for other operations and an overall processing burden of one more controllers can be decreased. By designating one controller as a primary controller, one controller in hot standby, and another controller in cold standby, only two controllers are required to execute a function simultaneously. The control system and technique described herein maintains a controller [i.e., application placement device] in primary status mode and a controller [i.e., application placement device] in hot standby status mode such that if a primary controller fails, a controller always be present in the same or similar state as the primary controller and can resume operations of the failed primary controller instantaneously. As a result, a backup controller in cold standby status mode will never switch directly from cold standby status to primary status [i.e., relative to a current active configuration, minimizes a total number of shifts between computing nodes of the application entities necessary to restore the predetermined redundancy conditions and/or segregation conditions].”; para. 0029: “As a result, system resources are saved or re-allocated for more efficient use of the third controller 15.”; para. 0035: “In block 41, the first controller 12 fails and the first controller 12 enters a fail-silent mode. The second controller 14 detects the failure of the first controller 12 and is reconfigured to primary status mode (P) in response to detecting the failure. The reconfiguration is instantaneous or has minimal latency [i.e., minimizes a total number of shifts between computing nodes] since the second controller 14 is mirroring the first controller 12.”; Note: One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the application, would find it obvious that a redundant system that is designed to shift execution of application entities amongst computing nodes “instantaneously” or with “minimal latency” has designed a redundant system that “minimizes a total number of shifts between computing nodes” necessary to retore the predetermined redundancy and/or segregation conditions. See “Understanding Redundancy”, pg. 37: “Redundancy is a primary ingredient for achieving high service availability because it offers the opportunity to rapidly recover service onto an operational unit rather than accruing a longer service outage while failures on a standalone element are debugged, repaired, and service is restored.”; pg. 41-44: “Because any failure of a simplex system is likely to cause many minutes or hours of downtime, hardware redundancy and high-availability infrastructure is often deployed to dramatically reduce the downtime by rapidly and automatically detecting and recovering from failures. To achieve the fastest possible recovery, service is often restored onto redundant modules that are either actively providing service (e.g., sharing the traffic load) or are kept in a standby state ready to recover service rapidly…”)
Regarding claim 19, and analogous claims 12 and part of claim 25, Samii discloses the apparatus according to claim 18,
wherein the application placement device is configured to assign one or more priority classes to the plurality of application entities by configuring configurations for subsets of application entities and to calculate configurations for subsets of application entities individually (Samii, para. 0044: “It should be understood that any amount of backup controllers can be utilized [i.e., subsets of application entities] and that the desired approach is to have a single primary controller [i.e., one or more priority classes…to calculate configurations for subsets of application entities individually], a single backup controller operating in hot standby status mode (HS) [i.e., one or more priority classes…to calculate configurations for subsets of application entities individually], and one or more backup controllers operating in cold standby status mode (CS) [i.e., one or more priority classes] where those backup controllers operating in cold standby status mode (CS) are dormant or can be utilized for other processing resources until an error occurs and reconfiguration by one or more controllers.”; para. 0045: “Two alternative approaches to implement a reconfiguration are described herein. The first approach is a decentralized approach and the second approach is a centralized approach. In the decentralized approach, each controller [i.e., application placement device] implements logic to detect failure of any other controller in the system and reconfigure to primary or hot standby status if necessary. In the centralized approach, a master controller [i.e., application placement device] detects failures of all other controllers in the system, and determines which controller should reconfigure to primary status and which controller should reconfigure to hot standby status.”),
The last limitation recited in claim 25 is as follows: …assigning one or more priority classes to the plurality of application entities and calculating configurations for subsets of application entities individually. This limitation is analogous to claims 19 and 12 and is therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 20, and analogous claims 13 and 26, Samii discloses the apparatus according to claim 19,
wherein the subsets are configured such that the subsets successively include only application entities whose assigned priority classes reach a respective minimum priority class (Samii, para. 0047: “Given a software component of function A, A is allocated to a set of controllers denoted Controllers_A [i.e., subset] (the number of controllers is denoted N_Controllers_A and depends on the fault tolerance requirement of function A (i.e., N_Controllers_A−1 failures are handled) [i.e., minimum priority class]. Also a one-to-one mapping between Controllers_A and {1, ..., N_Controllers_A} is given and denoted Order_A [i.e., assigned priority classes]. For example, Order_A (Controllerx)=1 means that A is executed on Controllerx during normal, fault-free operation. In another example, Order_A (Controllerx)=3 means that A is the second backup and will be the primary only after two controller_failures.”; para. 0049-0052: “Initially, when each of the controllers (e.g., ECUs) are operating under normal operating conditions, the following initial parameters are set in each controller Controllerx: mode(A, Controllerx)=Primary if Order_A (Controllerx)=1, mode(A, Controllerx)=Hot if Order_A (Controllerx)=2, mode(A, Controllerx)=Cold if Order_A (Controllerx) >2 [i.e., include only application entities whose assigned priority classes reach a respective minimum priority class ]”; para. 0055: “Each of the controllers is assigned a predetermined priority number (given by the order Order_A) that is used to determine whether a respective controller should change their status mode.”).
Regarding claim 21, and analogous claims 14 and 27, Samii discloses the apparatus according to claim 19,
wherein configurations for the subsets are calculated at least partially parallel to one another via the application placement device (Samii, para. 0045: “Two alternative approaches to implement a reconfiguration are described herein. The first approach is a decentralized approach and the second approach is a centralized approach. In the decentralized approach, each controller implements logic to detect failure of any other controller in the system and reconfigure to primary or hot standby status if necessary. In the centralized approach, a master controller detects failures of all other controllers in the system, and determines which controller should reconfigure to primary status and which controller should reconfigure to hot standby status. When this determination is made, the master controller notifies the respective controller to reconfigure and change their operating status to primary and hot standby, respectively.”; para. 0046; “That is, if three or more controllers are utilized, then each controller needs to determine its order as to when a respective order transitions from a cold standby status mode (CS) to a hot standby status mode (HS) and from a hot standby status mode (HS) to a primary status mode (P).”; Note: One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the application, would know that microcontrollers or microprocessors are capable of processing data in parallel and/or sequentially. Since any controller is capable of being the application placement device in a decentralized approach and the master controller is the application placement device in a centralized approach, configurations for the subsets would be calculated at least partially parallel to one another, especially in the decentralized approach.).
Regarding claim 22, and analogous claims 15 and 28, Samii discloses the apparatus according to claim 19,
wherein configurations for the subsets are at least partially calculated sequentially via the application placement device (Samii, para. 0045: “Two alternative approaches to implement a reconfiguration are described herein. The first approach is a decentralized approach and the second approach is a centralized approach. In the decentralized approach, each controller implements logic to detect failure of any other controller in the system and reconfigure to primary or hot standby status if necessary. In the centralized approach, a master controller detects failures of all other controllers in the system, and determines which controller should reconfigure to primary status and which controller should reconfigure to hot standby status. When this determination is made, the master controller notifies the respective controller to reconfigure and change their operating status to primary and hot standby, respectively.”; para. 0046: “That is, if three or more controllers are utilized, then each controller needs to determine its order as to when a respective order transitions from a cold standby status mode (CS) to a hot standby status mode (HS) and from a hot standby status mode (HS) to a primary status mode (P).”; Note: One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the application, would know that microcontrollers or microprocessors are capable of processing data in parallel and/or sequentially. Since any controller is capable of being the application placement device in a decentralized approach and the master controller is the application placement device in a centralized approach, configurations for the subsets would be calculated at least partially in sequential order, especially in the centralized approach.).
Regarding claim 23, and analogous claims 16 and 29, Samii discloses the apparatus according to claim 22,
wherein the configurations are calculated first for those subsets comprising the largest number of highest priority classes (Samii, para. 0063: “In step (b), if the controller that failed has a priority number that is less than the priority number of the monitoring controller determining the count (recall that all controllers will be executing each of these steps and maintaining its own counts), then that monitoring controller increments a higher priority failure count. That is, a priority number that is less than another priority number indicates that the former has a higher priority (i.e., it has precedence in terms of becoming primary or hot standby). The higher priority failure count assists the current controller in identifying the number of controllers that are still functioning under normal operating conditions that have a higher priority (i.e., earlier precedence order) than the monitoring controller. This allows the monitoring controller to determine whether it should be reconfigured to the hot standby status mode (HS) or the primary status mode (P).”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 24, 17, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samii as applied to claims 11-16, 18-23, and 25-29 above, and further in view of US-20050160425-A1, hereinafter “Falsett” (previously of record).
Regarding claim 24, and analogous claims 17 and 30, Samii discloses the apparatus according to claim 21, but does not appear to disclose the following:
wherein the calculation is aborted when a predetermined maximum calculation time is reached or exceeded, and a configuration already calculated is selected for reconfiguration, based on application entities having the largest number of highest priority classes
However, in the same field of endeavor, Falsett teaches:
wherein the calculation is aborted when a predetermined maximum calculation time is reached or exceeded, and a configuration already calculated is selected for reconfiguration, based on application entities having the largest number of highest priority classes (Falsett, para. 0028: “A timing element for monitoring the maximum response time continues to run. If the maximum response time of the software process is exceeded [i.e., a predetermined maximum calculation time is reached or exceeded] due to the execution of the interrupt service routine, the result of the partial process selected according to the invention is automatically used as final result [i.e., a configuration already calculated is selected for reconfiguration], without special processing.”; para. 0059: “The allocated priority preferably depends on the significance of the interrupt service routine and on the maximum emergency response time—the lower the maximum emergency response time, the higher the priority [i.e., based on application entities having the largest number of highest priority classes].”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Samii, with the concept of ending a calculation after it has reached or exceeded a maximum calculation time and use a calculation already completed as the final value, taught by Falsett, in order to make a system more reliable and not have a calculation execute beyond a useful amount of time, which might consume excessive processing resources and ultimately not yield a useable value or set of values (Falsett, para. 0023: “The invention guarantees that, under all circumstances, the execution of the software process is ended after the maximum response time has elapsed. The software process will still yield a predictable and best-possible final result under the circumstances even if its execution is terminated.”; para. 0026: “A further advantage of the invention is realized when the maximum response time has elapsed without the software process having been executed completely to its end. In this situation, methods of the prior art will yield either no result at all, continue the execution at a later time or begin only at that point in time to yield an approximation result or an intermediate result. This determination is time consuming and there is scarcely any available computing time, especially after the maximum response time has elapsed.”).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Leah N Miller whose telephone number is (703)756-1933. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am - 5:30pm ET.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached on (571) 270-5227. 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.
/L.N.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3666 /TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666