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 correspondence is responsive to the amendments filed June 27, 2025.
Claims 1-65 have been previously canceled.
Claims 66, 79, and 83 have been amended.
Claims 66-85 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 66-78 and 83-85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 66 and 83 each recite the step of “encode a message according to a protocol”. However, it is unclear whether the protocol refers to the messaging format, or a encoding/encryption protocol. Based on the context of the limitation, that the message comprises emergency type, occupant information, health information, vehicle information, and emergency contact information of the occupant, the protocol is being interpreted for the purposes of examination as referring to the format and content of the message itself and not how the message is to be transmitted. This interpretation is also consistent with claim 79; claim 79 also recites the “encode a message.. according to a protocol” limitation, but specifies that the protocol comprises a message header and a message content.
Claims 67-78, and 84-85 are dependent on claims 66 and 83 respectively and thus are also rejected.
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 66-85 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within the statutory category of machines (claims 66, 79, and 83), which are recited as systems that perform the steps and/or functions of:
detect an emergency associated with an occupant in a vehicle based on one or more of an image captured by an image sensor, data captured from one or more sensors associated with the vehicle, and a press of an emergency button in the vehicle;
determine a severity of the emergency based on data captured from at least one of the one or more sensors associated with the vehicle and health and wellness data associated with the occupant;
encode a message according to a protocol comprising an emergency type, an occupant information, a health information, a vehicle information, and an emergency contact information of the occupant, wherein the emergency type comprises a health emergency and a severity related to the health emergency of the occupant;
establish a secured connection between the system and a central server; and
transmit the message in real-time via the communication module to an application installed in the central server, wherein the application is configured to facilitate receipt of the message from the central server to an entity.
Step 2A: Prong 1
When taken individually and as a whole, the steps corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such “certain methods of organizing human activity”, which are interactions between individuals that can include: fundamental economic principles or practices; commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim is directed to a system to perform the process of detecting an emergency, determine a severity of the emergency and notifying others, which is performed by the system performing the underlined steps of the claim above. This is certain methods of organizing human activity because it is providing rules or instructions for notifying someone of an emergency situation involving a vehicle.
Step 2A: Prong 2
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to be considered a practical application because the additional elements amount to: insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), generally linking the application of the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment (2106.05(h)), or mere instructions to apply it with a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), as discussed below.
Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
The steps that would require receiving the information to detect the emergency are examples of mere data gathering (e.g., “collect a vital data of an occupant in a vehicle seat of a vehicle using one or more of a band attached to the occupant, a band attached to the vehicle seat, and one or more sensors associated with the vehicle seat”), which is an insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.5(g)).
The steps specifying the data used to detect the emergency as being, “based on one or more of an image captured by an image sensor, data captured from one or more sensors associated with the vehicle, and a press of an emergency button in the vehicle” and the steps specifying the encoded message including “an emergency type, an occupant information, a health information, a vehicle information, and an emergency contact information of the occupant” are examples of selecting by type or source the data to be manipulated, which is an extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The steps of “establish a secured connection between the system and a central server” and “transmit the message…via the communication module to an application installed in the central server, wherein the application is configured to facilitate receipt of the message from the central server to an entity” and “transmit the message via the communication module to an infotainment system of the vehicle; and display the message on the infotainment system of the vehicle” are examples of necessary data outputting. Necessary data outputting is an insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Insignificant extra-solution activities are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g))
Mere Instructions to Apply the Abstract Idea Using a Computer
The steps reciting the use of computer components, such as reciting the components of the system (modules, a processor coupled to a memory storing instructions) and limitations like “transmit the message via the communication module to an application installed in the central server, wherein the application is configured to facilitate receipt of the message from the central server to an entity”, serve as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer. Mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to be considered a significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements amount to: insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), mere instructions to apply it with a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), generally linking the application of the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), or a well-understood, routine, and conventional limitation (MPEP 2106.05(d)), as discussed below.
The steps addressed above in Step 2A: Prong 2, when considered again under Step 2B are not considered to make the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because those steps, when considered additionally with regards to Step 2B, are still considered to be either insignificant extra-solution activity, mere instructions to apply an abstract idea with a computer, or generally linking the application of the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment, which are types of limitations that are not sufficient to make the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.I.A).
The steps recited as either being part of the abstract idea or insignificant extra-solution activity are all examples of at least one of: storing and retrieving data from a memory (accessing the data used to detect the emergency and encode the message), sending and receiving data over a network (receiving data from sensors remote to the processor and transmit the message), electronic recordkeeping, or performing repetitive calculations. All of those functions have been identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a generic computer that are not significantly more than the abstract idea when claimed broadly or as an extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(d).II).
The recited computer components (e.g., a communication module, a processor, sensors, and a display) are all generically recited components (see specification, par. [0059]-[0078], [0145], [0155]-[0157], [0414]). Commercially available components, generic computer components, and specially-programmed computer components performing the functions of a generic computer are not considered to be amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
When considered as a whole, the components do not provide anything that is not present when the component parts are considered individually. Using the broadest reasonable interpretation, the system as a whole is a system that makes a determination of an emergency event and provides notifications based on that detected event. This is a system of generic components performing the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activities through these generically described devices performing well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Dependent Claim Analysis
Claims 67-78 are ultimately dependent from Claim(s) 66 and includes all the limitations of Claim(s) 66. Therefore, claim(s) 67-78 recite the same abstract idea as claim 66.
Claims 67-78 all recite additional limitations that serve to select by type or source the data to be manipulated by limiting the analysis to either specific types of data or the types of sensors used to collect the data. Selecting by type or source of the data to be manipulated is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 80-82 are ultimately dependent from Claim(s) 79 and includes all the limitations of Claim(s) 79. Therefore, claim(s) 80-82 recite the same abstract idea as claim 79.
Claims 80-82 all recite additional limitations that serve to select by type or source the data to be manipulated by limiting the analysis to either specific types of data or the types/locations of sensors used to collect the data. Selecting by type or source the data to be manipulated is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 84-85 are ultimately dependent from Claim(s) 83 and includes all the limitations of Claim(s) 83. Therefore, claim(s) 84-85 recite the same abstract idea as claim 83.
Claims 84-85 all recite additional limitations that serve to select by type or source the data to be manipulated by limiting the analysis to either specific types of data or the types/locations of sensors used to collect the data. Selecting by type or source the data to be manipulated is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 66-67, 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konrardy (US PGPub 2021/0133871) in view of Suthar (US PGPub 2021/0027334).
As per claim 66, Konrardy teaches a system comprising:
a communication module (paragraph 9); and
a processor coupled to a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (paragraph 9):
detect an emergency associated with an occupant in a vehicle based on one or more of an image captured by an image sensor, data captured from one or more sensors associated with the vehicle, and a press of an emergency button in the vehicle (Figure 5, paragraphs 207-209: upon receiving an indication of an accident… receive sensor data and communication data);
determine a severity of the emergency based on data captured from at least one of the one or more sensors associated with the vehicle and health and wellness data associated with the occupant (paragraph 185: accident related information may be automatically gathered and/or transmitted to a remote server in the event of a vehicle accident and indicate the severity and/or type of accident and whether everyone involved is alright or if immediate assistance is needed; paragraph 192: received sensor data may include information regarding the vehicle, the vehicle’s environment and/or the vehicle operator; paragraphs 207-209: upon receiving an indication of an accident… receive sensor data and communication data);
encode a message according to a protocol, wherein the message comprises an emergency type, an occupant information, a health information, a vehicle information, wherein the emergency type comprises a health emergency and the severity related to the health emergency of the occupant (paragraph 128: server receives information regarding the vehicle (e.g., type, make, model, year of production); paragraphs 184-185: accident related information may be automatically gathered and/or transmitted to a remote server in the event of a vehicle accident and indicate the severity and/or type of accident and whether everyone involved is alright or if immediate assistance is needed and/or the number of persons injured);
establish a secured connection between the system and a central server (paragraph 185: accident related information may be.. automatically transmitted to a remote server in the event of a vehicle accident); and
transmit the message in real-time via the communication module to an application installed in the central server, wherein the application is configured to facilitate receipt of the message from the central server to an entity (paragraphs 184-185: real-time monitoring and feedback… may be used to send a tow truck, claim representative, ambulance, fire truck, and/or police vehicle to the scene of an accident….. accident related information may be.. automatically transmitted to a remote server in the event of a vehicle accident).
Further regarding (c), Konrardy does not explicitly teach a message that includes an emergency contact information of the occupant. However, Suthar teaches account profiles of each driver or each passenger that includes an emergency contact detail, and that an emergency message may be sent and identifying emergency contacts when a degree of severity of the emergency incident is high priority (paragraphs 40 and 45).
Both Konrardy and Suthar are directed towards collecting data of users and passengers of a vehicle using sensors to take action in case of an emergency; thus, they are considered to be analogous references as they are directed towards solving similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date of the invention to combine Konrardy with the teachings of Suthar, specifically, the use of emergency contact information of occupants of a vehicle, because doing so would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by providing additional information useful in facilitating an appropriate emergency response and would reduce the amount of information needed to be collected over the telephone, leading to a quicker response time for first responders, ambulances, police and the like (paragraph 185).
As per claim 67, Konrardy teaches the system of claim 66, wherein the image sensor comprises at least one of a camera and an infra-red camera (paragraph 192: sensor data may include data from interior cameras).
As per claim 69, Konrardy teaches the system of claim 66, wherein the entity comprises at least one of an emergency care and an emergency service (paragraphs 184-185: real-time monitoring and feedback… may be used to send a tow truck… ambulance, fire truck, and/or police vehicle to the scene of an accident)
Claim 68 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konrardy (US PGPub 2021/0133871) in view of Suthar (US PGPub 2021/0027334) in further view of Swan (US PGPub 20190047578).
As per claim 68, Konrardy teaches the system of claim 66, where sensor data is collected when an accident is detected, including data from interior cameras (paragraph 192) and that the sensor data from an accident is used in analysis (paragraphs 207-209)
However, Konrary and Suthar do not explicitly teach an image analysis of the one or more images associated with the occupant using an image processor comprising artificial intelligence algorithms. However, Swan teaches the use of artificial intelligence framework to automatically detect and/or predict emergency events in real time based on behavior data associated with one or more occupants of a vehicle, specifically movements of the occupants of the vehicle being identified by the artificial intelligence framework by analyzing captured image data obtained via one or more cameras of the vehicle (paragraph 82).
Both Konrardy and Swan are directed towards collecting data of users and passengers of a vehicle using sensors to take action in case of an emergency; thus, they are considered to be analogous references as they are directed towards solving similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date of the invention to combine Konrardy with the teachings of Swan, specifically, applying AI to analyze images associated with the occupant, because doing so would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by providing additional information useful in facilitating an appropriate emergency response and would reduce the amount of information needed to be collected over the telephone, leading to a quicker response time for first responders, ambulances, police and the like (paragraph 185).
Claims 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konrardy (US PGPub 2021/0133871) in view of Suthar (US PGPub 2021/0027334) in further view of Wilson (US PGPub 20190359056).
As per claim 71, although not taught by Konrary or Suthar, Wilson teaches the system of claim 66, wherein the health emergency comprises at least one of a choking, a fever, a cholic, an incessant crying, a skin color change, a rash, a vomiting, and a change in vital signs indicating a problem in physiological function of the occupant (paragraph 25: The vehicular medical assistant can use cognitive computing to identify a medical event (e.g., choking, heart attack, nausea, etc.) based on the data collected from the one or more sensors and compared with information in a medical data store; paragraphs 32-42: aural sensors can be sensors configured to detect sounds such as… choking sounds, retching sounds, coughing sounds, breathing level s (e.g., hyperventilation), groans, and so on…. Visual sensors can include video cameras capable of capturing… color variation (e.g., pale, flushed, etc.), perspiration (e.g., changes in facial reflectivity), pupil dilation…. the medical condition 124 “fever” could be associated with diagnostic data 122 of three consecutive thermometer measurements on a passenger's forehead above 100° Fahrenheit as measured by biometric sensors 106).
Both Konrardy and Wilson are directed towards collecting data of users and passengers of a vehicle using sensors to take action in case of an emergency; thus, they are considered to be analogous references as they are directed towards solving similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date of the invention to combine Konrardy with the teachings of Wilson, specifically, health emergency types of an occupant including choking, fever, cholic, crying, skin color change, rash, vomiting, change in vital signs indicating a problem in physiological function, because doing so would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by providing additional information useful in facilitating an appropriate emergency response and would reduce the amount of information needed to be collected over the telephone, leading to a quicker response time for first responders, ambulances, police and the like (paragraph 185).
Claims 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konrardy (US PGPub 2021/0133871) in view of Suthar (US PGPub 2021/0027334) in further view of Nagasawa (US PGPub 20220038881).
As per claim 72, although not taught by Konrardy or Suthar, Nagasawa teaches the system of claim 66, wherein the occupant information comprises a name of the occupant, an identification of the occupant; and a seating detail of the occupant inside the vehicle (paragraphs 63-65: Examples of the rich information include information on a riding status of the occupant in the automobile 10, information on conditions of the automobile 10, information on either one of the latest traveling point and time, and information on any one of a model, a color, and a feature of the automobile 10. The information on the riding status of the occupant may include the number of occupants and their seated positions, seatbelt statuses, sexes, and names).
Both Konrardy and Swan are directed towards collecting data of users and passengers of a vehicle using sensors to take action in case of an emergency; thus, they are considered to be analogous references as they are directed towards solving similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date of the invention to combine Konrardy with the teachings of Nagasawa, specifically, the name and identify of the occupant along with where they are situated within the vehicle, because doing so would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by providing additional information useful in facilitating an appropriate emergency response and would reduce the amount of information needed to be collected over the telephone, leading to a quicker response time for first responders, ambulances, police and the like (paragraph 185).
Claims 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konrardy (US PGPub 2021/0133871) in view of Suthar (US PGPub 2021/0027334) in further view of McClellan (US PGPub 20080306996).
As per claim 73, although not taught by Konrardy or Suthar, McClellan teaches the system of claim 72, wherein the occupant information further comprises a height of the occupant, a weight of the occupant, an age of the occupant, and a gender of the occupant (paragraphs 21-22: monitoring device 101 detects when vehicle 102 is involved in an accident, crash or collision and provides automatic crash notification…. Monitoring system 101 may also determine and record occupant information, such as, for example, the height, weight, age, and sex of the occupants. Additional occupant information, such as their driver's license number, insurance information, medical history information (e.g. allergies, prior surgeries, primary doctor, emergency notification information, and donor information) may also be determined by the monitoring system.).
Both Konrardy and McClellan are directed towards collecting data of users and passengers of a vehicle using sensors to take action in case of an emergency; thus, they are considered to be analogous references as they are directed towards solving similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date of the invention to combine Konrardy with the teachings of McClellan, specifically, the height, weight, age and gender of occupant, because doing so would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by providing additional information useful in facilitating an appropriate emergency response and would reduce the amount of information needed to be collected over the telephone, leading to a quicker response time for first responders, ambulances, police and the like (paragraph 185).
Claims 74-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konrardy (US PGPub 2021/0133871) in view of Suthar (US PGPub 2021/0027334) in further view of Satpathy (US PGPub 20120256769).
As per claim 74, although not taught by Konrardy or Suthar, Satpathy teaches the system of claim 66, wherein the health information comprises a detail of a physiological parameter obtained in real time using a sensor (paragraph 192: The sensor data may include information regarding the physical or mental state of the vehicle operator using sensors… the sensor data may include data from.. physiological sensors (e.g., thermometer, microphone, thermal image capture device, electroencephalograph, galvanic skin response sensor, heart rate sensors, respiratory rate sensor, other biometric sensors, etc.).
Both Konrardy and Satpathy are directed towards collecting data of users and passengers of a vehicle using sensors to take action in case of an emergency; thus, they are considered to be analogous references as they are directed towards solving similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date of the invention to combine Konrardy with the teachings of Satpathy, specifically, using sensors to obtain physiological parameters of vehicle occupants, because doing so would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by providing additional information useful in facilitating an appropriate emergency response and would reduce the amount of information needed to be collected over the telephone, leading to a quicker response time for first responders, ambulances, police and the like (paragraph 185).
As per claim 75, Konrardy teaches the system of claim 74, wherein the physiological parameter comprises at least one of a heart rate, a blood pressure, and a temperature; and wherein the sensor comprises at least one of a heart rate sensor, a blood pressure sensor, and a temperature sensor (paragraph 192: The sensor data may include information regarding the physical or mental state of the vehicle operator using sensors… the sensor data may include data from.. physiological sensors (e.g., thermometer, microphone, thermal image capture device, electroencephalograph, galvanic skin response sensor, heart rate sensors, respiratory rate sensor, other biometric sensors, etc.).
Claims 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konrardy (US PGPub 2021/0133871) in view of Suthar (US PGPub 2021/0027334) in further view of Holla (US PGPub 20080021834).
As per claim 76, although not taught by Konrardy or Suthar, Holla teaches the system of claim 66, wherein the health information further comprises a detail providing access to a medical record of the occupant, wherein the detail providing access to the medical record of the occupant comprises a web link to the medical record (paragraphs 34: a hospital may post patient medical records on a website portal which may be accessed by registered physicians. Once a physician is paged or called for consultation, the physician may access the medical records over the World Wide Web (WWW) using a computer; paragraph 48: By way of the Ethernet/Internet 130 connection the message and data are sent to a message delivery server 130 where it is prepared for transmission to the physician's handheld device 150 via an available wireless network 140 linked to the mobile device. In a particular embodiment, the server 130 first sends an SMS message, via a cellular network SMS server 132, to the physician's handheld device 150 notifying the device that a data package is available for downloading. In response to the SMS message the handheld device 150 can send a download request back to the server 130 which then transmits the data via a server 131 (which may be optimized for communication to mobile devices, and hence sometimes referred to herein as a mobile web server), an e-mail server 133 or other wireless transmission facility; paragraph 60: An e-mail server 133 may be configured send e-mail messages to the physician's mobile device 150, directly or indirectly, as well as receive messages in e-mail format sent by the console 120, the SMS server 132 other locations, such as a referring physician's office; paragraph 83: the data server… may send an e-mail to the physician's mobile device 150, step 238. E-mail addresses of physicians may be available on the data server 131 or in the console 120, or may be manually included in the message by the user via data entry into the console 120. The data server 131 may be configured so that the e-mail transmitted to a mobile device 150 may carry the attached medical data or transmit the e-mail text without an attachment but with a hyperlink to a website from which the attachments may be retrieved).
Both Konrardy and Holla are directed towards collecting data of users and passengers of a vehicle using sensors to take action in case of an emergency; thus, they are considered to be analogous references as they are directed towards solving similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date of the invention to combine Konrardy with the teachings of Holla, specifically, providing access to medical record of vehicle occupants via a weblink, because doing so would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by providing additional information useful in facilitating an appropriate emergency response and would reduce the amount of information needed to be collected over the telephone, leading to a quicker response time for first responders, ambulances, police and the like (paragraph 185).
Claims 77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konrardy (US PGPub 2021/0133871) in view of Suthar (US PGPub 2021/0027334) in further view of Kobayashi (US PGPub 20180272973).
As per claim 77, although not taught by Konrardy or Suthar, Kobayashi teaches the system of claim 66, wherein the vehicle information comprises a vehicle identification number and a vehicle location, wherein the vehicle location comprises at least one of a current location and a pull over location (paragraph: The vehicle 1 is configured to acquire current location information (information about a current location of the vehicle 1) using a GPS satellite 5, and transmit the data regarding the current location information, vehicle identification information and others, via the established communication link to the emergency notification center 2).
Both Konrardy and Kobayashi are directed towards collecting data of users and passengers of a vehicle using sensors to take action in case of an emergency; thus, they are considered to be analogous references as they are directed towards solving similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date of the invention to combine Konrardy with the teachings of Kobayashi, specifically, vehicle ID and location, because doing so would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by providing additional information useful in facilitating an appropriate emergency response and would reduce the amount of information needed to be collected over the telephone, leading to a quicker response time for first responders, ambulances, police and the like (paragraph 185).
Claims 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konrardy (US PGPub 2021/0133871) in view of Suthar (US PGPub 2021/0027334) in further view of Zhao (US PGPub 20210097864).
As per claim 78, although not taught by Konrardy or Suthar, Zhao teaches the system of claim 66, wherein the emergency contact information comprises a contact name and a contact number (paragraph 44: transmitting accident information and emergency contact information to the traffic accident monitoring server…. the emergency contact information includes name and phone number of emergency contact).
Both Konrardy and Zhao are directed towards collecting data of users and passengers of a vehicle using sensors to take action in case of an emergency; thus, they are considered to be analogous references as they are directed towards solving similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date of the invention to combine Konrardy with the teachings of Zhao, specifically, emergency contact name and number for vehicle occupants, because doing so would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by providing additional information useful in facilitating an appropriate emergency response and would reduce the amount of information needed to be collected over the telephone, leading to a quicker response time for first responders, ambulances, police and the like (paragraph 185).
Claims 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konrardy (US PGPub 2021/0133871) in view of Suthar (US PGPub 2021/0027334) in further view of Maier (US PGPub 20170238129).
As per claim 70, although not taught by Konrardy or Suthar, Maier teaches the system of claim 66, wherein the protocol comprises a message header and a message content (paragraph 207: the plurality outbound signals include SIP messages with geo-location headers and/or message bodies with may include SDP messages).
Both Konrardy and Maier are directed towards collecting data of users and passengers of a vehicle using sensors to take action in case of an emergency; thus, they are considered to be analogous references as they are directed towards solving similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date of the invention to combine Konrardy with the teachings of Maier, specifically, message header and message content, because doing so would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by providing information in the necessary format so that it is compatible and usable across different users and service providers.
Claims 79-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konrardy (US PGPub 2021/0133871) in view of Suthar (US PGPub 2021/0027334) in view of Maier (US PGPub 20170238129) in further view of Zumo (US PGPub 20100168527).
As per claim 79, Konrardy teaches system comprising:
a communication module (paragraph 9); and
a processor coupled to a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (paragraph 9):
collect a vital data of an occupant in a vehicle seat of a vehicle using one or more of a band attached to the occupant, and one or more sensors associated with the vehicle seat (claim 23: monitoring, at one or more processors, physiological sensor data regarding a current state of a vehicle operator from one or more physiological sensors; paragraph 192: The sensor data may include information regarding the physical or mental state of the vehicle operator using sensors 120 disposed within the vehicle 108 or communicatively connected thereto (e.g., disposed within or communicatively connected to a mobile device 110, such as a smart phone, and/or a wearable computing device, such as a smart watch or smart glasses). This sensor data may include data from interior cameras, microphones, accelerometers, and/or physiological sensors (e.g., thermometer, microphone, thermal image capture device, electroencephalograph, galvanic skin response sensor, heart rate sensors, respiratory rate sensor, other biometric sensors, etc.));
detect an emergency associated with the occupant in a vehicle based on the collected vital data (Figure 5, paragraphs 207-209: upon receiving an indication of an accident… receive sensor data and communication data);
determine a severity of the emergency based on data captured from at least one of the one or more sensors and health and wellness data associated with the occupant (paragraph 185: accident related information may be automatically gathered and/or transmitted to a remote server in the event of a vehicle accident and indicate the severity and/or type of accident and whether everyone involved is alright or if immediate assistance is needed; paragraph 192: received sensor data may include information regarding the vehicle, the vehicle’s environment and/or the vehicle operator; paragraphs 207-209: upon receiving an indication of an accident… receive sensor data and communication data);
encode a message, according to a protocol, wherein the message comprises comprising an emergency type, an occupant information, a health information, a vehicle information, and an emergency contact information of the occupant, wherein the emergency type comprises a health emergency and the severity related to the health emergency of the occupant (paragraph 128: server receives information regarding the vehicle (e.g., type, make, model, year of production); paragraphs 184-185: accident related information may be automatically gathered and/or transmitted to a remote server in the event of a vehicle accident and indicate the severity and/or type of accident and whether everyone involved is alright or if immediate assistance is needed and/or the number of persons injured);
establish a secured connection between the system and a device (paragraph 185: Wireless communication with the driver or vehicle… Such accident related information may be automatically gathered by a smart vehicle and/or mobile device, and/or automatically transmitted to a remote server in the event of a vehicle accident); and
transmit the message in real-time via the communication module to the device, wherein the device comprises a software application configured to receive the message (paragraph 67: Each server 140 may include one or more computer processors adapted and configured to execute various software applications and components of the autonomous vehicle insurance system 100, in addition to other software applications; paragraphs 184-185: real-time monitoring and feedback… may be used to send a tow truck, claim representative, ambulance, fire truck, and/or police vehicle to the scene of an accident….. accident related information may be.. automatically transmitted to a remote server in the event of a vehicle accident).
As per (d), Konrardy does not explicitly teach a message that includes an emergency contact information of the occupant. However, Suthar teaches account profiles of each driver or each passenger that includes an emergency contact detail, and that an emergency message may be sent and identifying emergency contacts when a degree of severity of the emergency incident is high priority (paragraphs 40 and 45).
Both Konrardy and Suthar are directed towards collecting data of users and passengers of a vehicle using sensors to take action in case of an emergency; thus, they are considered to be analogous references as they are directed towards solving similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date of the invention to combine Konrardy with the teachings of Suthar, specifically, the use of emergency contact information of occupants of a vehicle, because doing so would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by providing additional information useful in facilitating an appropriate emergency response and would reduce the amount of information needed to be collected over the telephone, leading to a quicker response time for first responders, ambulances, police and the like (paragraph 185).
As per (g), Konrardy does not explicitly teach wherein the protocol comprises a message header and a message content. However, Maier teaches a message header and a message content (paragraph 207: the plurality outbound signals include SIP messages with geo-location headers and/or message bodies with may include SDP messages).
Both Konrardy and Maier are directed towards collecting data of users and passengers of a vehicle using sensors to take action in case of an emergency; thus, they are considered to be analogous references as they are directed towards solving similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date of the invention to combine Konrardy with the teachings of Maier, specifically, message header and message content, because doing so would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by providing information in the necessary format so that it is compatible and usable across different users and service providers.
As per (a), Konrardy does not teach a band attached to the vehicle seat. However, Zumo teaches a seat belt attachment wrapped around a seat belt (Figures 1-4, paragraph 71: In operation, one uses the seat belt in a normal manner but with the seat belt attachment 3 wrapped around and fastened around the seat belt, the user whether driver or passenger of the vehicle can, when desired record or transmit via sensors 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 autonomic physiologic data and distance vector locator respectively (FIG. 4 and 7)).
Both Konrardy and Zumo are directed towards collecting data of users and passengers of a vehicle using sensors to take action in case of an emergency; thus, they are considered to be analogous references as they are directed towards solving similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date of the invention to combine Konrardy with the teachings of Zumo, specifically, using bands attached to a vehicle seat to collect vital data of vehicle occupants, because doing so would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by increasing the amount of information and data gathered from vehicle occupants in assessing the proper medical and emergency response in case of accidents.
As per claim 80, Konrardy teaches the system of claim 79, wherein the system comprises a computer system of the vehicle comprising the processor; and the system is configured to be part of the vehicle (paragraph 33: A smart vehicle may maneuver itself without human intervention and/or include sensors, processors, computer instructions, and/or other components that may perform or direct certain actions conventionally performed by a human driver).
As per claim 81, Konrardy teaches the system of claim 79, wherein the band attached to the occupant is configured to sense the vital data associated with the occupant and transmit the vital data to the processor of the system; and wherein the band is a wearable (paragraph 192: the controller 204 may receive sensor data from the sensors 120…. The sensor data may include information regarding the physical or mental state of the vehicle operator using sensors 120….. communicatively connected to a mobile device 110, such as ….. a wearable computing device, such as a smart watch or smart glasses)).
As per claim 82, although not taught by Konrardy, Suthar or Maier, Zumo teaches the system of claim 79, wherein the band attached to the vehicle seat is configured to sense the vital data associated with the occupant and detect presence of the occupant in the vehicle seat; and wherein the band is a wearable (Figures 1-4, paragraph 71: In operation, one uses the seat belt in a normal manner but with the seat belt attachment 3 wrapped around and fastened around the seat belt, the user whether driver or passenger of the vehicle can, when desired record or transmit via sensors 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 autonomic physiologic data and distance vector locator respectively (FIG. 4 and 7)).
Both Konrardy and Zumo are directed towards collecting data of users and passengers of a vehicle using sensors to take action in case of an emergency; thus, they are considered to be analogous references as they are directed towards solving similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date of the invention to combine Konrardy with the teachings of Zumo, specifically, using bands attached to a vehicle seat to collect vital data of vehicle occupants and detect the presence of a vehicle occupant in a seat, because doing so would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by increasing the amount of information and data gathered from vehicle occupants in assessing the proper medical and emergency response in case of accidents.
Claims 83-85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konrardy (US PGPub 2021/0133871) in view of Ricci (US PGPub 20130145279).
As per claim 83, Konrardy teaches a system comprising:
a communication module (paragraph 9); and
a processor coupled to a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (paragraph 9):
detect an emergency associated with an occupant in a vehicle based on one or more of an image captured by an image sensor, data captured by one or more sensors associated with the vehicle, and a press of an emergency button in the vehicle (Figure 5, paragraphs 207-209: upon receiving an indication of an accident… receive sensor data and communication data);
determine a severity of the emergency based on data captured from at least one of the one or more sensors associated with the vehicle and health and wellness data associated with the occupant (paragraph 185: accident related information may be automatically gathered and/or transmitted to a remote server in the event of a vehicle accident and indicate the severity and/or type of accident and whether everyone involved is alright or if immediate assistance is needed; paragraph 192: received sensor data may include information regarding the vehicle, the vehicle’s environment and/or the vehicle operator; paragraphs 207-209: upon receiving an indication of an accident… receive sensor data and communication data);
encode a message according to a protocol, wherein the message comprises an emergency type, an occupant information, a health information of the occupant, a location of the vehicle, a vehicle information, wherein the emergency type comprises a health emergency and the severity related to the health emergency of the occupant, wherein the severity related to the health emergency is determined based on data captured from at least one of the one or more sensors associated with the vehicle and health and wellness data associated with the occupant (paragraph 128: server receives information regarding the vehicle (e.g., type, make, model, year of production); paragraphs 184-185: accident related information may be automatically gathered and/or transmitted to a remote server in the event of a vehicle accident and indicate the severity and/or type of accident and whether everyone involved is alright or if immediate assistance is needed and/or the number of persons injured; paragraph 43: From such remote monitoring, the present embodiments may remotely determine that a vehicle accident has occurred. As a result, emergency responders may be informed of the location of the vehicle accident; paragraph 96: When assistance is determined to be needed at block 432, the controller 204 or the server 140 may send a request for assistance at block 434. The request may include information regarding the vehicle 108, such as the vehicle's location, the type of assistance required, other vehicles involved in the incident, the pedestrians involved in the incident, vehicle operators or passengers involved in the incident, and/or other relevant information);
establish a secured connection between the system and the vehicle (paragraph 185: accident related information may be.. automatically transmitted to a remote server in the event of a vehicle accident);
transmit the message in real-time via the communication module (paragraphs 184-185: real-time monitoring and feedback… may be used to send a tow truck, claim representative, ambulance, fire truck, and/or police vehicle to the scene of an accident….. accident related information may be.. automatically transmitted to a remote server in the event of a vehicle accident).
Per (e) and (f), Konrardy does not teach an infotainment system of the vehicle to transmit the message to and display the message. However, Ricci teaches the use of a vehicle console to transmit and display messages, including information, images and video (Figures 6A-6B, paragraphs 102-108: a GUI of a configurable vehicle console is shown in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. In some instances, the GUI may show a warning, message, and/or application output… in the event of an accident, the vehicle may associate a number of warnings and/or messages to the event. In some cases, these warnings and/or messages may be important for the at least one vehicle operator and/or passenger to review and even respond to. As shown in FIG. 6A, a warning message, indicator, and/or cue image 604 may be presented to the display 208 by the device 100. This information may be presented in response to input detected by the device 100, through GPS, gyroscopic, and/or accelerometer data. Additionally or alternatively, the information may be presented in response to the device 100 detecting input received from the vehicle and/or at least one peripheral device associated with the vehicle.).
Both Konrardy and Ricci are directed towards collecting data of users and passengers of a vehicle using sensors to take action in case of an emergency; thus, they are considered to be analogous references as they are directed towards solving similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date of the invention to combine Konrardy with the teachings of Ricci, specifically, using an infotainment unit within the vehicle for transmitting and displaying messages and information, because doing so would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by providing warnings and messages to the occupants of the vehicle to review and even respond to in emergency situations (paragraph 102 of Ricci).
As per claim 84, Konrardy teaches the system of claim 83, wherein the image sensor comprises at least one of a camera and an infra-red camera (paragraph 192: sensor data may include data from interior cameras).
As per claim 85, although not taught by Konrardy, Ricci teaches the system of claim 83, wherein the infotainment system further receives at least one of the image captured by the image sensor and a video (paragraph 75: One or more image capture interfaces/devices 340, such as a camera 272, can be included for capturing still and/or video images) and displays at least one of the image and the video on the infotainment system along with the message (paragraph 102: As shown in FIG. 6A, a warning message, indicator, and/or cue image 604 may be presented to the display 208 by the device 100.. Additionally or alternatively, the information may be presented in response to the device 100 detecting input received from the vehicle and/or at least one peripheral device associated with the vehicle; paragraph 104: one or more images 604 (associated with warnings, messages, cues, and the like) may appear on the display 208, which are then followed by directions, recommendations, and/or controls. Continuing the previous example, if a vehicle is involved in an emergency event (such as an accident), a warning image may be displayed followed by directions and access to specific vehicle controls; paragraph 105: it is one aspect of the present disclosure to provide a warning indicator 612 that may be text, an image, or combinations thereof. This warning indicator 612 alerts at least one individual that an emergency has been detected by the device 100, the vehicle, and/or associated peripheral device; paragraph 56: The configurable vehicle console can include a number of devices that work together with at least one process of a vehicle to provide various input/output functions. One such device 100 includes a touch sensitive front screen 204… The front screen 204 includes touch sensitive display 208, which, in addition to being touch sensitive, also displays information to a user. In other embodiments, the screen 204 may include more than one display area. ).
Both Konrardy and Ricci are directed towards collecting data of users and passengers of a vehicle using sensors to take action in case of an emergency; thus, they are considered to be analogous references as they are directed towards solving similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date of the invention to combine Konrardy with the teachings of Ricci, specifically, using an infotainment unit within the vehicle for transmitting and displaying image and video captured by a sensor, because doing so would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by providing warnings and messages to the occupants of the vehicle to review and even respond to in emergency situations (paragraph 102 of Ricci).
Response to Arguments
101 Rejections
Applicant argues that claim 66 is not directed to a business or interpersonal activity, but is directed to a technological solution implemented in a vehicular environment, asserting that the process is machine-driven and grounded in a technological environment with the goal of improving occupant safety through real-time autonomous response.
This argument is not persuasive. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(c), the ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’ grouping encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), an example of which includes a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions, In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982). In this instance, claim 66 recites a series of rules or instructions that would be followed after being made aware of an emergency associated with an occupant of a vehicle, namely detecting the emergency, determining a severity of the emergency based on captured data, encoding a message that includes the health emergency and severity information, occupant information, health information, vehicle information, emergency contact information, to be transmitted. These steps are not technology based or driven; instead, they simply utilize technology in an “apply it” manner. For instance, “detect an emergency associated with an occupant in a vehicle” is based on either an image or data captured by sensors or an emergency button being pressed. The determination of the severity of the emergency is “based on data captured” with no further details on how this is performed using “technology” at all. There is no detail claimed as to how the message is encoded, only the information included within the message. Similarly, the claim only recites that the message is transmitted using a communication module to an application installed in a central server, which is akin to “apply it”, without any technical details as to how this is performed. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614-15, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1749-50 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding the claims ineligible because they fail to provide requisite technical details necessary to carry out the function). TLI Communications is further relevant to the claims, as the courts have held that recording, transmitting, and archiving digital images by use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any assertion that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining a camera and a cellular telephone, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747.
Further, the courts have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra solution activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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))
Applicant argues that the claims are directed to real-time machine interpretation of human health parameters in a constrained, safety-critical vehicular domain, rather than an abstract idea or method of organizing human activity.
This argument is not persuasive. The contextual environment in which the health and wellness data are used to make a determination as to the severity of a (medical) emergency does not serve to improve the functioning of the underlying vehicle in which the data is collected or the occupant is in. As stated in the rejection, the steps recited in the claims are series of rules or instructions that would be followed after being made aware of an emergency associated an individual, regardless of their location (e.g., situated within a vehicle). The vehicular domain has no real bearing or impact on the “interpretation of human health parameters”, as all recited steps and hardware would operate the same whether they are located inside or outside of a vehicle or regardless of the type of vehicle.
Applicant argues that the invention determines severity using current sensor input and contextual health and wellness data and therefor integrates the claims into a practical application.
This argument is not persuasive. As stated in the rejection, this step is part of the abstract idea; an abstract idea cannot integrate itself into a practical application or provide significantly more than itself.
Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application due to using multiple non-generic hardware inputs such as physiological sensors, image sensors and emergency buttons.
This argument is not persuasive. Other than claim 67, the claims do not recite any particular details about the sensors other than they are “image sensors”, or “sensors associated with the vehicle”. Cameras (e.g., image sensors), heart rate, temperature and blood pressure sensors (e.g., physiological sensors) are not non-generic hardware. Neither the claims nor the specification describes that these are anything but ordinary cameras, buttons or physiological sensors used. The specification omits any description of what an “emergency button” entails, as its only recitation comes in paragraph 374 of the specification.
Applicant argues that the system encodes emergency messages into a defined data protocol, and is not generic “data output” but is essential to the system’s effectiveness in interfacing with downstream medical or emergency systems. Similarly, Applicant also argues that the invention requires the establishment of a secured communication channel with encryption, server authentication and key exchange, which are central operations to the claimed invention. Applicant argues that several limitations (real-time sensor fusion and AI-based emergency detection, protocol-based structured messaging, Secured M2M communication infrastructure) provide significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.
This argument is not persuasive. The claim does not recite any details on how the message is “encoded… according to a protocol” and focuses more on the information contained within the message. The protocol is not specifically recited as being directed to the encoding of the message and could be directed towards the contents of the message. Similarly, no details are claimed in terms of the technical process or equipment involved in “encoding” the message. The result of the “encoding” is simply the transmission of the message to a central server. Again, the claim does not recite any details on how the message is being transmitted other than it is “via the communication module”; thus, the communication module is deemed to be simply a tool used in performing the process of transmitting the message. Similarly, the claim does not recite any details on how a secured communication channel is established, and the claims do not recite encryption, server authentication or key exchange at all.
As noted above TLI Communications LLC was found by the courts to fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more when use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data). TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER H CHOI whose telephone number is (469)295-9171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930am-6pm.
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, Pinky Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights