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 . Claims 1-20 remain pending. Claim 14 was amended to address a claim objection and claims 1-13 and 15-20 remain as originally filed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are summarized and responded to in full below.
102 Rejection Arguments:
Regarding Claim 12, Applicant argues that Li fails to anticipate the limitation "determining a distance between points of the filtered point cloud and the contour, wherein the distance corresponds to a misalignment error,” because Li merely performs an iterative alignment process to determine extrinsic calibration parameters, i.e., a rotation matrix and translation vector, when coordinate alignment is achieved (Li, paragraphs [0034]-[0035]).
Pending Claim 12 only requires determination of “a distance” between points of the filtered point cloud and the contour where the distance corresponds to a misalignment error. Claim 12 does not require that the system measure a distance between each point in the filtered point cloud and the contour. [0078] of the instant specification describes this determination being made “when the points of the filtered point cloud and the contour are converted into… the same coordinate system” ([0034] of Li also describes conversion of the LIDAR and camera data into the same coordinate plan). Later in [0078] the instant specification describes the determined distance as representing “an offset or misalignment between the LIDAR sensor and the camera”. The end of [0078] goes on to imply that only a single distance may be necessary since the features are expected to match closely. Regardless of whether an iterative process is required to make the determination, Li also determines a translation vector taking the form of a distance representing a misalignment offset/error between the extracted points of the LIDAR sensor and extracted edge of the camera ([0034]-[0035] of Li).
Examiner notes that [0079] describes an optional method in which multiple distance measurements are made but when the samples are run through the RANSAC algorithm the output is still a single misalignment error. Pending Claim 16 corresponds more closely to the description in [0079] and is rejected under 103 by Li in view of Qian.
Applicant also argues that Li does not disclose computing, outputting, or otherwise using any distance between point-cloud points and camera-image contour points as a misalignment error.
Examiner respectfully disagrees since [0036] of Li describes alignment of one feature point with another by sequential repositioning of one feature point to another. [0037] describes how this movement/ repositioning is used to determine the translation vector. Given that a vector is known to correspond to both a distance and direction, Li clearly teaches determining a direction based on captured positions of the extracted point cloud and imagery features.
Applicant also argues that Li's determination of a translation vector does not satisfy the claimed limitation of "determining a distance between points of the filtered point cloud and the contour, wherein the distance corresponds to a misalignment error."
As articulated above, this argument is undercut by the instant specification at [0078], which clearly describes the determined distance as representing “an offset or misalignment between the LIDAR sensor and the camera” rather than a distance between corresponding feature points extracted from the point cloud and imagery data.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s argument repeatedly references the failure of Li to specifically describe measurement of distance between lidar and camera derived data points. However, since claim 12 does not include a limitation requiring measurement of such a distance, it appears that Applicant is arguing that measurement of these distances is impossible without making such measurements. This is clearly not the case since Li describes clearly in [0037], as articulated above, that movement of one feature point toward another allows the system to generate a misalignment error. While not specifically articulated by Li, tracking this movement of one point towards another would provide a computing system a distance between points regardless of whether the distance could be said to have been directly measured in a single operation.
Applicant argues that Li fails to disclose "filtering a segmented light detection and ranging (LIDAR) point cloud captured by a LIDAR sensor to generate a filtered point cloud". Applicant’s argument points to cited [0029] as failing to teach a filtering step. While [0029] describes recognition of a static object from surrounding objects, [0030] follows immediately and describes how the static object is extracted from the LIDAR data to obtain feature points in a LIDAR coordinate system. Extraction of these points corresponding to the static object results in the creation of a point cloud in which surrounding objects are no longer present, resulting in a filtered point cloud.
Examiner notes that the instant specification includes no special definition for what constitutes filtering in the instant application nor does Applicant’s argument explain an intended definition for filtered point cloud, only that Li’s teachings do not specifically teach a filtered point cloud. Examiner disagrees that Li fails to teach a filtered point cloud since extraction of the desired static data points results in a point cloud without surrounding moving data points, thereby yielding a filtered point cloud.
Regarding Claims 13-15 and 18-19, Applicant argues their dependence on claim 12 makes them novel and patentable over Li. Since Examiner disagrees with the above arguments regarding Claim 12 being distinguished over Li, Claims 13-15 and 18-19 remain rejected.
Regarding Claim 20, Applicant argues it is novel and patentable over Li for the same reasons as claim 12. Since Examiner disagrees with the above arguments regarding Claim 12 being distinguished over Li, Claim 20 remains rejected.
103 Rejection Arguments
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues Levinson fails to disclose, "in response to the misalignment error meeting a first threshold, raising a diagnostic error; and in response to the misalignment error failing to meet the first threshold, performing misalignment correction based on the misalignment error". Applicant argues that Levinson instead derives a probability that the current calibration is correct and applies a threshold to that probability.
Examiner does not find this argument convincing since determination of the misalignment value is taught by Li and Levinson is used merely to render obvious the use of mitigation responses in addition to online calibration depending on a level of miscalibration exceeding various threshold levels (see page 5, column 2 of Levinson).
Examiner also notes, that while it may be arguable whether Levinson teaches using a misalignment value as a threshold, Levinson’s probability metric value is based directly upon a 9-frame misalignment measurement window. Furthermore, the instant specification at [0081] describes how a misalignment error can take the form of an accumulated and/or averaged error value, which when interpreted under a broadest reasonable interpretation, could take the form of a correct calibration probability that is according to Levinson merely an accumulation of error values over a 9-frame measurement window.
Consequently, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would read Levinson in light of Li and find it obvious to apply the different thresholding-based alternatives described in Levinson (page 5, column 2) to improve safety where online recalibration is not keeping the sensors aligned closely enough to a miscalibration threshold to continue safe operation, or to skip a recalibration entirely where calibration is below a particular miscalibration threshold level (see Levinson page 6 column 2 suggesting misalignments of 0.25 or 0.1 degrees can be ignored due to difficulties with reliably detecting such small errors).
Regarding Claims 2-11 and 16-17 Applicant argues their dependence on claim 1 makes them novel and patentable over the various cited combinations of references. Since Examiner disagrees with the above arguments regarding Claim 1 being distinguished over the combination of Li and Levinson, Claims 2-6, 7-11 and 11 remain rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20200089971 (hereinafter Li).
Regarding Claim 12, Li teaches a computer-implemented method for performing online calibration of misalignment of vehicle sensors, comprising:
filtering a segmented light detection and ranging (LIDAR) point cloud captured by a LIDAR sensor to generate a filtered point cloud ([0029] describes filtering the point cloud data to include only a static object);
identifying a contour corresponding to a silhouette of a first object in a camera image captured by a camera ([0030] describes performing feature extraction on an identified edge of a static object), wherein the LIDAR sensor and the camera are mounted on a vehicle, and the point cloud and the camera image are captured while the vehicle is operating normally ([0016] describes how during travel of a vehicle, the vehicle's sensors can include camera and lidar sensors used to detect surrounding objects);
determining a distance between points of the filtered point cloud and the contour, wherein the distance corresponds to a misalignment error between the LIDAR sensor and the camera ([0034] describes determining a translation vector between LIDAR and camera data to achieve alignment); and
performing correction based on the misalignment error ([0034] describes performing an alignment operation).
Regarding Claim 13, Li teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the segmented LIDAR point cloud is clustered, and clusters of points in the segmented LIDAR point cloud correspond to certain objects ([0021] describes classifying objects in the point cloud to types including cars, houses, trees and utility poles).
Regarding Claim 14, Li teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein filtering the segmented LIDAR point cloud comprises: removing points which are not associated with the first object ([0004] describes filtering the point cloud data for static objects. Since the first object is a static object, removal of points associated with moving objects would not be associated with the first object).
Regarding Claim 15, Li teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the filtered point cloud has points corresponding to a silhouette of the first object ([0030] describes performing feature extraction on an identified edge of LIDAR data associated with a static object. An edge of a static object is considered to be part of its silhouette).
Regarding Claim 18, Li teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein performing the correction comprises: performing a post-processing procedure which transforms, one or more of: (1) point clouds from the LIDAR sensor and (2) camera images from the camera, based on the misalignment error ([0034] describes determining a translation vector between the camera and the lidar and performing an alignment operation).
Regarding Claim 19, Li teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein identifying the contour comprises: performing object classification or image segmentation to identify the first object in the camera image ([0019] of Li describes classification of objects in the point cloud using the image acquired by the camera and deep learning & [0031] of Li describes how the contour is recognized based on the image recognition technology).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Non-Patent Literature “Automatic Online Calibration of Cameras and Lasers” (hereinafter Levinson).
Regarding Claim 1, Li teaches a computer-implemented method for monitoring and addressing misalignment of vehicle sensors, comprising:
receiving a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) point cloud captured by a LIDAR sensor, and a camera image captured by a camera, wherein the LIDAR sensor and the camera are mounted on a vehicle, and the LIDAR point cloud and the camera image are captured while the vehicle is operating on a road ([0016] describes how during travel of a vehicle, the vehicle's sensors can include camera and lidar sensors used to detect surrounding objects);
performing online calibration based on the LIDAR point cloud and the camera image to determine a misalignment error between the LIDAR sensor and the camera ([0025] describes how sensor calibration is implemented based on camera and lidar data, [0034] describes determining a translation vector between the camera and the lidar and performing an alignment operation);
Li fails to teach in response to the misalignment error meeting a first threshold raising a diagnostic error; and in response to the misalignment error failing to meet the first threshold, performing misalignment correction based on the misalignment error.
However, Levinson teaches:
in response to the misalignment error meeting a first threshold raising a diagnostic error (on page 5, the final paragraph of Section III describes alerting a command center if the calibration falls below a threshold {analogous to a diagnostic error}); and
in response to the misalignment error failing to meet the first threshold, performing misalignment correction based on the misalignment error (on page 6, column 2 the final paragraph of Section V-A describes ignoring very small calibration errors of less than 0.2 or 0.1 degrees).
Li and Levinson are both directed to online calibration systems for alignment of LIDAR and camera sensors associated with mobile autonomous platforms and are therefore analogous art. Levinson teaches three different responses to cases of misalignment that vary in severity from reporting to complete cessation of activity and are implemented based on a misalignment metric meeting a particular threshold. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to improve the teachings of Li with different levels of response based on designated thresholds as taught by Levinson in order to apply an appropriate level of response to a particular level of misalignment. For example, in the case of the error failing to meet the first threshold (page 6, column 2 of the final paragraph of Section V-A of Levinson) normal online misalignment correction as taught by Li would continue to be performed.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Li and Levinson teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the LIDAR point cloud is segmented by an object classification process ([0019] of Li describes classification of objects in the point cloud using the image acquired by the camera and deep learning).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Li and Levinson teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein performing online calibration comprises: filtering the LIDAR point cloud to remove points which are not associated with vehicles ([0021] describes how static objects include cars, meaning that the system would filter out many non-car returns).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Li and Levinson teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein performing online calibration comprises: filtering the LIDAR point cloud to keep points which are associated with edges ([0030] describes performing analysis on edge portions of the detected objects).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Li and Levinson teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein performing online calibration comprises: filtering the LIDAR point cloud to remove points which are associated with moving objects ([0029] describes recognizing a static object from the surrounding objects from the point cloud).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Li and Levinson teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein performing online calibration comprises: filtering the LIDAR point cloud to remove points which are beyond a threshold depth (on page 3 in the Laser Processing section, Levinson describes how depth discontinuities of greater than 30cm are used to identify edges of objects in a point cloud and filter all other points out. Consequently, any LIDAR points adjacent to but not on the edge of a detected object would be more than a threshold 30 cm behind the detected object and filtered out).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Li and Levinson teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to the diagnostic error being raised, causing the vehicle to enter a first degraded state, and to perform a safe stop maneuver (Page 5, final paragraph of Section III of Levinson describes suspending operation when sensor calibration falls below a threshold).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Li and Levinson teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to the diagnostic error being raised, causing the vehicle to perform a safe stop maneuver and to perform offline calibration for misalignment between the LIDAR sensor and the camera (Page 5, final paragraph of Section III of Levinson describes pausing to perform offline calibration before resuming).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Li and Levinson teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the LIDAR point cloud and the camera image are captured at substantially the same time ([0025] of Li describes simultaneous acquisition of data by the camera and the LIDAR).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Levinson as applied to claim 1 and further in view of CN 117368943 (hereinafter Yan).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Li and Levinson teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, however, the combination fails to teach wherein performing online calibration comprises: filtering the LIDAR point cloud to remove points which are associated with vegetation.
Yan teaches filtering the LIDAR point cloud to remove points which are associated with vegetation (at page 6 lines 16-19 Yan describes performing point cloud registration… to remove noise objects, where the noise objects include vegetation).
Yan, Li and Levinson all describe the manipulation of point cloud data collected by a LIDAR device and are therefore analogous art. Yan teaches that vegetation can introduce noise into a point cloud and suggests removal of vegetation from a point cloud and then at page 6 lines 43-47 goes on to state how removal of data points ensures the quality and consistency of the point cloud data. Consequently, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve the invention of Li and Levinson by removing vegetation detections in order to obtain a higher quality LIDAR point cloud.
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to the misalignment error meeting a second threshold greater than the first threshold, causing the vehicle to enter a second degraded state and to navigate to a maintenance facility.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Levinson as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 20230152431 (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Li and Levinson teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but fail to teach further comprising in response to the misalignment error meeting a second threshold greater than the first threshold, causing the vehicle to enter a second degraded state and to navigate to a maintenance facility.
However, Zhang teaches further comprising in response to the misalignment error meeting a second threshold greater than the first threshold, causing the vehicle to enter a second degraded state and to navigate to a maintenance facility ([0109] of Zhang describes navigating the vehicle to a maintenance facility to address hardware issues with sensors of an autonomous vehicle).
Zhang and Levinson both describe ways of managing degradation of sensors enabling self-driving operation of an autonomous platform. As described above in the rejection of Claim 1, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add responses to a degraded state taught by Levinson to the teachings of Li. That same person having ordinary skill in the art would also have found it obvious to further improve the combination of Li and Levinson by adding the additional response to sensor degradation taught by Zhang in order to give the autonomous vehicle additional ways to deal with sensor degradation problems.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of US20240095960 (hereinafter Qian).
Regarding Claim 16, Li teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein determining the distance comprises:
matching points in filtered point cloud to points in the contour ([0035] describes rotating the 3d point cloud to correspond to the image plane of the camera-derived imagery);
forming residual vectors measuring distances between the points in filtered point cloud to the points in the contour; and summing magnitudes of the residual vectors ([0035]describes an iterative process performed between coordinates on the camera-derived imagery and the point cloud),
wherein the summed magnitudes corresponds to the misalignment error ([0035] describes translation vectors and rotation matrices derived from the iterative process corresponding to the misalignment error). Li does not teach applying a random sample consensus algorithm to match points in the filtered point cloud with the contour.
However, Qian teaches applying a random sample consensus algorithm to match points in the filtered point cloud with the contour ([0052] describes the use of a RANSAC framework to match detected objects (lane blocks) from the camera in successive frames, which is part of the process for calibrating a LIDAR 112A with a camera 110A, as described in [0036])
Li and Qian are both directed to calibration of LIDAR and camera sensors during operation of an autonomous vehicle and are therefore analogous art. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known RANSAC framework described in Qian to improve the matching techniques of Li would have yielded predictable results. In particular, doing so would improve the point to point correlation taught by Li, thereby helping to disregard erroneous or outlying data points during the correlation.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of US20210270948 (hereinafter Villalobos-Martinez).
Regarding Claim 17, Li teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein performing the correction comprises: performing a physical adjustment of the LIDAR sensor and the camera which reduces the misalignment error.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Yan and further in view of US 20180284279 (hereinafter Campbell).
Regarding Claim 20, Li teaches a vehicle, comprising:
one or more light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensors;
one or more cameras ([0016] describes the first embodiment in which a vehicle has multiple sensors including a camera and a LIDAR);
one or more processors (processors 416, FIG. 4 and [0048] describe a computer device with one or more processors 416 usable with the first embodiment); and
one or more storage devices (storage device 428) to store point clouds generated by the one or more LIDAR sensor, camera images generated by the one or more cameras, and instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform misalignment calibration ([0054] describe a program being stored in storage device 428 for implementing a sensor calibration method describe in embodiment 1) comprising:
generating a filtered point cloud from a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) point cloud captured by the one or more LIDAR sensors ([0020]-[0021] describe filtering the point cloud collected by the LIDAR sensor for static objects), wherein generating comprises maintaining points corresponding to edges, and removing points corresponding to moving objects, ([0020]-[0021] describe filtering the point cloud collected by the LIDAR sensor for static objects)
identifying a contour corresponding to a silhouette of a first object in a camera image captured by the one or more cameras ([0032] describes identifying a contour of the static object (analogous to the first object) based object recognition), wherein the LIDAR point cloud and the camera image are aligned in time (;
determining a misalignment error between points of the filtered point cloud and the contour ([0030] describes performing feature extraction on an identified edge of a static object & [0034] describes determining a translation vector and rotation matrix characterizing the misalignment between the camera and LIDAR sensor readings corresponding to the static object); and
performing correction based on the misalignment error ([0034]-[0035] also describes performing an alignment operation to correct the misalignment).
Li fails to teach: (1) wherein generating comprises removing points corresponding to vegetation, and (2) wherein generating comprises removing points corresponding to distant objects.
However, Yan teaches wherein generating comprises removing points corresponding to vegetation (Page 6 lines 16-19 of Yan describes performing point cloud registration… to remove noise objects on the target slope that do not belong to the target slope, where the noise objects include vegetation) and
Yan and Li both describe the manipulation of point cloud data collected by a LIDAR device and are therefore analogous art. Yan teaches that vegetation can introduce noise into a point cloud and suggests removal of vegetation from a point cloud and then at page 6 lines 43-47, Yan goes on to state how removal of data points ensures the quality and consistency of the point cloud data. Consequently, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve the invention of Li by removing vegetation detections, as taught by Li, in order to obtain a higher quality / less noisy LIDAR point cloud.
Li as modified by Yan still does not teach wherein generating comprises removing points corresponding to distant objects.
However, Campbell teaches wherein generating comprising removing points corresponding to distant objects ([0093] describes using range-gating to filter out any point cloud data arriving outside a distance of 50 – 100m from the LIDAR system, [0042] identifies exemplary max ranges beyond which a LIDAR system does not operate).
Campbell and Li as modified by Yan both pertain to the detection of objects using LIDAR devices. Campbell at [0093] teaches that range-gating can be used with LIDAR devices to limit the collection or point cloud data past a particular range from the LIDAR device. Doing so prevents weak returns and other ambient noise sources from adversely affecting the collection of point cloud data (Campbell at [0034] describes problems caused by background noise). Consequently, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve the invention of Li as modified by Yan by removing distant detections using range-gating techniques in order to obtain a higher quality / cleaner LIDAR point cloud data.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571)270-5227. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights