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
The amendment of 01/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 11-12, and 14 are currently pending in the application. Claims 2-10 and 13 are canceled.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a receiving unit” in claim 12. The generic placeholder “unit” is linked by linking word “for” to the functional limitations “receiving a predefined trajectory that comprises at least a first section and a second section that are linked to one another at a travel direction turning point, wherein a travel direction of the first section is different from a travel direction of the second section” and “receiving a sensor signal indicative of surroundings of the vehicle” without reciting the structure of the unit capable of performing the recited function.
“a detection unit” in claim 12. The generic placeholder “unit” is linked by linking word “for” to the functional limitation “detecting an obstacle in the surroundings on the basis of the received sensor signal” without reciting the structure of the unit capable of performing the recited function.
“a calculation unit” in claim 12. The generic placeholder “unit” is linked by linking word “for” to the functional limitation “calculating at least one collision point, which is a point on the predefined trajectory, at which a collision occurs between the vehicle and the obstacle, on the basis of the predefined trajectory, the detected obstacle and a vehicle geometry of the vehicle” without reciting the structure of the unit capable of performing the recited function.
“an ascertaining unit” in claim 12. The generic placeholder “unit” is linked by linking word “for” to the functional limitation “ascertaining a replacement trajectory based on the at least one calculated collision point, wherein the replacement trajectory connects a starting point on the predefined trajectory, which is located before the collision point, to an end point on the predefined trajectory, which is located after the collision point, while avoiding the collision” without reciting the structure of the unit capable of performing the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification has returned the following respective structures:
A computer or microprocessor (pg. 15 line 30 - pg. 16 line 1), or a function, part of a program code, or an executable object (pg. 16 lines 3-4), or part of a higher-level control computer or control system (pg. 16 lines 5-6)
A computer or microprocessor (pg. 15 line 30 - pg. 16 line 1), or a function, part of a program code, or an executable object (pg. 16 lines 3-4), or part of a higher-level control computer or control system (pg. 16 lines 5-6)
A computer or microprocessor (pg. 15 line 30 - pg. 16 line 1), or a function, part of a program code, or an executable object (pg. 16 lines 3-4), or part of a higher-level control computer or control system (pg. 16 lines 5-6)
A computer or microprocessor (pg. 15 line 30 - pg. 16 line 1), or a function, part of a program code, or an executable object (pg. 16 lines 3-4), or part of a higher-level control computer or control system (pg. 16 lines 5-6)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HASEJIMA (US 11,345,337) in view of LAVOIE (US 9,827,970), PRINZHAUSEN (DE 10 2018 114 497, provided by Applicant on the 01/05/2023 IDS), and INABA (US 11,292,455).
Regarding claim 1, HASEJIMA discloses a method for determining a replacement trajectory for a vehicle operated by means of a parking assistance system in an autonomous driving mode (i.a. path resetting unit 15), comprising:
receiving a predefined trajectory (path of Fig. 14A; calculated by method of Fig. 7) that comprises at least a first section (P0 to B, Fig. 14A) and a second section (B to P1, Fig. 14A) that are linked to one another at a travel direction turning point (change in direction at B, Fig. 14A), wherein a travel direction of the first section is different from a travel direction of the second section (i.e., P0 to B is forward, B to P1 is reverse);
receiving a sensor signal indicative of surroundings of the vehicle (col. 5 lines 2-3), detecting an obstacle in the surroundings on the basis of the received sensor signal (col. 16 lines 20-28);
calculating at least one stop point (J0, Fig. 14B) in front of the obstacle (22)(col. 16 lines 28-29), which is a point on the predefined trajectory (P0 to B, Figs. 14A and 14B); and
ascertaining the replacement trajectory (connecting in order J0, J1, B’, C1, C2, and P1, Figs. 16 and 17) based on the at least one calculated stop point (Figs. 16 and 17), wherein the replacement trajectory connects a starting point on the predefined trajectory (P0 to B to P1, c.f. Figs. 14A-14B, 16, and 17), which is located before collision with the object (22), to an end point (P1) on the predefined trajectory (Figs. 14A-14B, 16, and 17), which is located after the collision point (Figs. 14A-14B, 16, and 17), while avoiding a collision (implied),
driving the vehicle along the ascertained replacement trajectory with the parking assistance system (implied, i.a. col. 1 lines 28-30 and 36-38).
HASEJIMA further discloses calculating at least one collision point (C, Fig. 5), at which a collision occurs between the vehicle and the obstacle, on the basis of a predefined trajectory (Fig. 5), the detected obstacle and a vehicle geometry of the vehicle (col. 8 lines 42-44).
HASEJIMA is not relied upon to teach calculating the stop point (J0, Fig. 14B) from calculating a collision point at which a collision occurs between the vehicle and an obstacle.
LAVOIE teaches stopping a vehicle within a predetermined safety distance from an obstacle (i.e. a collision point)(col. 5 lines 57-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the stop point (J0) of HASEJIMA as a predetermined distance from a calculated collision point as taught by LAVOIE to prevent damage to the vehicle and/or injury to the object.
HASEJIMA as modified teaches calculating at least one collision point, which is a point on the predefined trajectory, at which a collision occurs between the vehicle and the obstacle, on the basis of the predefined trajectory, the detected obstacle and a vehicle geometry of the vehicle; and
ascertaining the replacement based on the at least one calculated collision point, wherein the replacement trajectory connects a starting point on the predefined trajectory, which is located before the collision point, to an end point on the predefined trajectory, which is located after the collision point, while avoiding the collision.
HASEJIMA is not relied upon to teach recording a trained trajectory while the vehicle is manually driven as claimed.
PRINZHAUSEN teaches a parking assistance system (i.a. lines 30-33) wherein a predefined trajectory comprises a trained trajectory recorded while the vehicle is manually driven in a training mode (lines 190-192) to allow the vehicle to take over recurring tasks itself to significantly reduce the driver’s attention and thus contribute to a safer and more pleasant journey (lines 27-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of HASEJIMA to record the predefined trajectory while the vehicle is manually driven in a training mode as taught by PRINZHAUSEN to allow the vehicle to take over recurring tasks itself to significantly reduce the driver’s attention and thus contribute to a safer and more pleasant journey.
HASEJIMA is not relied upon to teach backtracking on the predefined trajectory as claimed.
PRINZHAUSEN further teaches a parking assistance system (i.a. lines 30-33) comprising backtracking on a predefined trajectory (i.a. lines 591-593) to enable the vehicle to reach its parking position safely and without manual intervention (lines 597-598).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the parking assistance system of HASEJIMA to backtrack on the predefined trajectory as taught by PRINZHAUSEN to enable the vehicle to reach its parking position safely and without manual intervention.
The above underlined limitation “to bring the vehicle to an improved starting position for bypassing an obstacle”. HASEJIMA as modified teaches all the structural components of the parking assistance system, which are read on those of the instant invention. Therefore, the prior art parking assistance system is capable of performing the same desired functions as the instant invention having been claimed. Furthermore, PRINZHAUSEN implies the backtracking to bring the vehicle to an improved starting position (lines 585-603).
HASEJIMA further discloses controlling the vehicle based on a digital environment map (implied, i.a. col. 5 lines 1-3, col. 16 lines 9-15, col. 18 lines 11-14, col. 24 line 38) but is silent regarding receiving the digital environment map as a preprocessed digital environment map.
INABA teaches a parking assistance system (1303, Fig. 13) that receives a sensor signal indicative of surroundings of the vehicle (surrounding information, Fig. 13, received from 1301, col. 5 lines 31-42), wherein the sensor signal comprises a preprocessed digital environment map (col. 5 lines 31-42; preprocessed because 1303 receives the map from 1301; digital implied/inherent in ECU; map because location of objects is implied/inherent in col. 5 lines 31-42) indicating detected obstacles in the surroundings of the vehicle (col. 5 lines 31-42). INABA further discloses these calculation units are individual ECUs in this manner, and thus, unit test verification and parallel development of the ECUs can be performed which is effective in shortening a development work period (col. 11 lines 13-17).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of HASEJIMA such that the digital environment map is received as a preprocessed digital environment from a separate ECU than the parking assistance system as taught by INABA such that unit test verification and parallel development of the ECUs can be performed which is effective in shortening a development work period. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in performing environment recognition separately from the parking assistance system (n.b. Applicant’s pg. 4 lines 6-10).
Regarding claim 11, HASEJIMA as modified teaches a non-transitory storage medium, comprising commands which during the execution of the program by a computer, cause said computer to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1 (implied, i.a. col. 10 line 18).
Regarding claim 12, HASEJIMA discloses a parking assistance system for a vehicle, which is configured to drive the vehicle automatically along a trajectory comprising:
a receiving unit for receiving a predefined trajectory (path of Fig. 14A; calculated by method of Fig. 7) that comprises at least a first section (P0 to B, Fig. 14A) and a second section (B to P1, Fig. 14A) that are linked to one another at a travel direction turning point (change in direction at B, Fig. 14A), wherein a travel direction of the first section is different from a travel direction of the second section (i.e., P0 to B is forward, B to P1 is reverse), and for receiving a sensor signal indicative of surroundings of the vehicle (col. 5 lines 2-3);
a detection unit for detecting an obstacle in the surroundings on the basis of the received sensor signal (col. 16 lines 20-28),
a calculation unit for calculating at least one stop point (J0, Fig. 14B) in front of the obstacle (22)(col. 16 lines 28-29), which is a point on the predefined trajectory (P0 to B, Figs. 14A and 14B), and
an ascertaining unit for ascertaining a replacement trajectory (connecting in order J0, J1, B’, C1, C2, and P1, Figs. 16 and 17) based on the at least one calculated stop point (Figs. 16 and 17), wherein the replacement trajectory connects a starting point on the predefined trajectory (P0 to B to P1, c.f. Figs. 14A-14B, 16, and 17), which is located before collision with the object (22), to an end point (P1) on the predefined trajectory (Figs. 14A-14B, 16, and 17), which is located after the collision point (Figs. 14A-14B, 16, and 17), while avoiding the collision (implied),
wherein the parking assistance system is configured for driving the vehicle automatically along the replacement trajectory (implied, i.a. col. 1 lines 28-30 and 36-38).
HASEJIMA further discloses calculating at least one collision point (C, Fig. 5), at which a collision occurs between the vehicle and the obstacle, on the basis of a predefined trajectory (Fig. 5), the detected obstacle and a vehicle geometry of the vehicle (col. 8 lines 42-44).
HASEJIMA is not relied upon to teach calculating the stop point (J0, Fig. 14B) from calculating a collision point at which a collision occurs between the vehicle and an obstacle.
LAVOIE teaches stopping a vehicle within a predetermined distance from an obstacle (i.e. a collision point)(col. 5 lines 57-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the stop point (J0) of HASEJIMA as a predetermined distance from a calculated collision point as taught by LAVOIE to prevent damage to the vehicle and/or injury to the object.
HASEJIMA as modified teaches a calculation unit for calculating at least one collision point, which is a point on the predefined trajectory, at which a collision occurs between the vehicle and the obstacle, on the basis of the predefined trajectory, the detected obstacle and a vehicle geometry of the vehicle, and
an ascertaining unit for ascertaining a replacement trajectory based on the at least one calculated collision point, wherein the replacement trajectory connects a starting point on the predefined trajectory, which is located before the collision point, to an end point on the predefined trajectory, which is located after the collision point, while avoiding the collision.
HASEJIMA is not relied upon to teach recording a trained trajectory while the vehicle is manually driven as claimed.
PRINZHAUSEN teaches a parking assistance system (i.a. lines 30-33) wherein a predefined trajectory comprises a trained trajectory recorded while the vehicle is manually driven in a training mode (lines 190-192) to allow the vehicle to take over recurring tasks itself to significantly reduce the driver’s attention and thus contribute to a safer and more pleasant journey (lines 27-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of HASEJIMA to record the predefined trajectory while the vehicle is manually driven in a training mode as taught by PRINZHAUSEN to allow the vehicle to take over recurring tasks itself to significantly reduce the driver’s attention and thus contribute to a safer and more pleasant journey.
HASEJIMA is not relied upon to teach the parking assistance system is configured to cause the vehicle to backtrack on the predefined trajectory as claimed.
PRINZHAUSEN further teaches a parking assistance system (i.a. lines 30-33) configured to cause a vehicle to backtrack on a predefined trajectory (i.a. lines 591-593) to enable the vehicle to reach its parking position safely and without manual intervention (lines 597-598).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the parking assistance system of HASEJIMA to bracktrack on the predefined trajectory as taught by PRINZHAUSEN to enable the vehicle to reach its parking position safely and without manual intervention.
The above underlined limitation “to bring the vehicle to an improved starting position for bypassing an obstacle”. HASEJIMA as modified teaches all the structural components of the parking assistance system, which are read on those of the instant invention. Therefore, the prior art parking assistance system is capable of performing the same desired functions as the instant invention having been claimed. Furthermore, PRINZHAUSEN implies the backtracking to bring the vehicle to an improved starting position (lines 585-603).
HASEJIMA further discloses controlling the vehicle based on a digital environment map (implied, i.a. col. 5 lines 1-3, col. 16 lines 9-15, col. 18 lines 11-14, col. 24 line 38) but is silent regarding receiving the digital environment map as a preprocessed digital environment map.
INABA teaches a parking assistance system (1303, Fig. 13) that receives a sensor signal indicative of surroundings of the vehicle (surrounding information, Fig. 13, received from 1301, col. 5 lines 31-42), wherein the sensor signal comprises a preprocessed digital environment map (col. 5 lines 31-42; preprocessed because 1303 receives the map from 1301; digital implied/inherent in ECU; map because location of objects is implied/inherent in col. 5 lines 31-42) indicating detected obstacles in the surroundings of the vehicle (col. 5 lines 31-42). INABA further discloses these calculation units are individual ECUs in this manner, and thus, unit test verification and parallel development of the ECUs can be performed which is effective in shortening a development work period (col. 11 lines 13-17).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the receiving unit of HASEJIMA such that the digital environment map is received as a preprocessed digital environment from a separate ECU than the parking assistance system as taught by INABA such that unit test verification and parallel development of the ECUs can be performed which is effective in shortening a development work period. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in performing environment recognition separately from the parking assistance system (n.b. Applicant’s pg. 4 lines 6-10).
Regarding claim 14, HASEJIMA as modified teaches a vehicle (V) having a parking assistance system (1) as claimed in claim 12.
Response to Arguments
The following remarks respond to Applicant’s arguments filed 01/06/2026.
Applicant’s arguments that HASEJIMA merely describes path planning and detection based on raw sensor signals, see pgs. 6-7, has been fully considered but is not persuasive. One of ordinary skill would recognize that vehicles cannot be controlled directly on point clouds or images but that the system of HASEJIMA requires the raw sensor outputs to be processed into some type of map, i.e. recognized objects resolved into a coordinate system.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the LAVOIE and PRINZHAUSEN references, see pg. 8, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because the references are not relied on to teach the limitation at issue.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the RAFAILA reference, see pgs. 8-9, have been fully considered but they are moot as the reference is not relied upon in the current rejections in view of newly discovered reference INABA.
Applicant argues the claim “requires that the preprocessed environment map data is utilized during the obstacle detection process” (pg. 10 lines 7-8). This is a narrower construction of the claim than is warranted by the original disclosure and the claim language itself.
The digital environment map is only disclosed in the original disclosure at pg. 4 lines 4-10. This passage states that “the parking assistance system can…receive [a sensor signal that is indicative of the surroundings] directly from one or more environment sensors…or else the parking assistance system receives the sensor signal already in a preprocessed state, for example in the form of a digital environment map, in which detected obstacles in the environment are indicated.” The last line of this passage clearly states that the detected obstacles are indicated in the map itself. Nowhere in this passage, and therefore the original disclosure as a whole, is it implicitly or explicitly disclosed that the map is utilized during an obstacle detection process.
The last line of the claim clearly recites “a preprocessed digital environment map indicating detected obstacles in the surroundings”, i.e., the claim recites that the detected obstacles are indicated in the map itself as is disclosed at pg. 4 line 10 of the original specification. Nowhere in the claim does the claim require that the map is utilized during an obstacle detection process.
Applicant argues that each of the references “relate to solely utilizing raw sensor feeds during a trajectory following process” (pg. 10 lines 12-end). This assertion is false as all machine vision applications require at least some processing of the raw sensor feeds, and therefore cannot be said to solely utilize raw sensor feeds during a trajectory following process. In arguendo, RAFAILA clearly discloses control based on a preprocessed environment (col. 9 lines 1-4 and 13-18).
Applicant’s argument regarding the motivation to modify HASJIMA in view RAFAILA, see bottom of pg. 10 to top of pg. 11, have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, the arguments are moot as they do not apply to the newly discovered INABA reference relied upon in the current rejections.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 12, see pg. 12, have been fully considered but are moot as they do not apply to the newly discovered INABA reference relied upon in the current rejections.
Applicant’s arguments regarding dependent claims 11 and 14, see pg. 12, have been fully considered but are not persuasive because the independent claims have not be found to be allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747