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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 09/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/14/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS page 6) about the rejections of claims 3-4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the rejections have not been overcome by the amendment.
Regarding Applicant’s argument “When a moving object and a static object having equal relative distances and equal angles of incidence are included in the target, Takeya (or the combination of Yosoku and Takeya) cannot solve a problem that it is impossible to correctly determine whether or not the target is a static object” (see REMARKS page 9 of 13 lines 4-7 from bottom), Examiner does not understand this argument because there is no claimed language regarding “a moving object and a static object having equal relative distances and equal angles of incidence are included in the target” and therefore Takeya (‘852) is not used in the related rejection in the most recent Office Action. And it appears that “the target” is one object. It is not clear how “the target” includes “a moving object and a static object having equal relative distances and equal angles of incidence”.
Regarding Applicant’s argument “Takeya and Yosoku cannot be combined where reference teaches away from their combination” (see REMARKS page 9 of 13 lines 1-2 from bottom), Examiner disagrees because prior art Takeya (‘852) does teach the claimed language (see word with underline) “a radar device that observes a target within an observation time period during which velocity resolution is less than an average moving velocity of a moving object” {[0005] lines 2-3 (provide Doppler radar device capable of calculating velocity with high resolution equal to or less than Doppler velocity determined by inverse number of CPI time); [0060] lines 1-3 (the velocity can be calculated with a resolution smaller than the Doppler cell even for the target signal having the correlation of the radar transmission / reception signal by the MUSIC processing using the correlation matrix based on the moving average of the PRI axis); [0064] line 3 (the moving average of the Doppler speed axis)}. Since Yosoku (‘991) does not teach the claimed language with underline above, the high resolution velocity obtained in Takeya (‘852) can be used in Yosoku (‘991) by combination. After using high resolution velocity in Yosoku (‘991), more accurate stationary object boundary can be obtained, which is consistent with the purpose of Yosoku (‘991) “a stationary object exists by using the echo signal” {see abstract line 7}. Therefore the combination does not teach away.
Regarding Applicant’s argument “When Yosoku's "Doppler filter unit 13" is replaced with Takeya's "signal processing unit 3", Takeya and Yosoku each have difficulty of solving its own problem” (see REMARKS page 10 of 13 lines 1-2), Examiner does not understand this argument because Yosoku's "Doppler filter unit 13" is not replaced with Takeya's "signal processing unit 3" in the rejections in the most recent Office Action. Instead, a combination of Yosoku (‘991) and Takeya (‘852) is used in the rejections in the most recent Office Action.
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 3-4 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 3 and 4 recite the limitation: " the moving body velocity" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “moving body velocity” defined or mentioned. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the moving velocity of the radar device”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yosoku et al. (US 2017 / 0356991, hereafter Yosoku) in view of Takeya (JP2016008852, hereafter Takeya).
Regarding claim 1, Yosoku (‘991) discloses that An object detection device {[0003] lines 2-3 (a radar device and a detection method that can detect a target)} comprising:
processing circuitry { Fig.2; [0005] lines 1-3 (embodiments may be implemented as a system , a method , an integrated circuit , a computer program , a storage medium); [0161] lines 1-3 (implementing an integrated circuit, processor)} configured to
acquire wave data provided from a radar device that observes a target within an observation time period { Fig.2 item 12 (range measurement unit) coupled to an antenna; [0009] lines 1-2 (Fig.2, radar device); [0039] lines 1-5 (To recognize the surrounding circumstances with simple computation by using the radar device , for example , a possible method includes : radar device receiving reflected waves from peripheral objects including a target and a peripheral stationary object); [0046] lines 5-6 (radar device 1 includes, range measurement unit 12); [0094] lines 4-5 (one measurement time in the radar device, frame)}
acquire a moving velocity of the radar device {Fig.2 item 15 (vehicle information obtaining unit) with vehicle speed output; [0046] lines 3-5 (The radar device 1 is mounted on a moving body such as a vehicle, radar device 1 includes), 7-8 (vehicle information obtaining unit 15); [0058] lines 1-3 (The vehicle information obtaining unit 15 obtains vehicle information about the movement of the vehicle , such as a vehicle speed)};
estimate a relative distance between the radar device and the target, angle of incidence of a signal incident upon the radar device, the signal being emitted from the radar device and reflected by the target, and a first relative velocity between the radar device and the target, by using the wave data {Fig.2 items 11 (radar signal transmitting unit), 12 (range measurement unit), 13 (Doppler filter unit), 14 (direction of - arrival estimating unit); Fig.8 range, azimuth and moving for relative between object and vehicle or radar; [0004] lines 5-6 (receives an echo signal that is the radar signal reflected from an object); [0046] lines 5-7 (radar device 1 includes, a radar signal transmitting unit 11, range measurement unit 12, Doppler filter unit 13, direction of - arrival estimating unit 14); Examiner’s note: Fig.2 items 12~14 are implemented using signal from receive antenna coupled to item 12.}; and
estimate a second relative velocity between the radar device and the target in a case where the target is a static object, on a basis of the acquired moving velocity and the relative distance and the angle of incidence which have been estimated {Fig.2 item 17 (a stationary object Doppler region calculating unit) with input of vehicle speed from item 15; Fig.4A~C for “on a basis of” “the relative distance and the angle of incidence which have been estimated”; [0046] lines 8-9 (a stationary object Doppler region calculating unit 17); [0062] lines 8-10 (a radar velocity vector Vs calculated by the radar movement calculating unit 16 and a velocity component Vsr in the range direction with respect to the target are depicted); [0067] lines 1-5 (The stationary object Doppler region calculating unit 17 calculates the velocity component Vt for each θ based on the velocity vector Vs and Equation ( 3 ) . Then , the stationary object Doppler region calculating unit 17 calculates , as a stationary object Doppler region); Examiner’s note: “the stationary object Doppler region” for “estimate a second relative velocity between the radar device and the target in a case where the target is a static object”} and
configured to determine whether the target is a static object by comparing the first relative velocity and the second relative velocity {Fig.13 item 282 (clustering unit) with input from (azimuth, range, doppler) map and item 17 (stationary object doppler region calculating unit), 283 (boundary detecting unit); Examiner’s note: clustering for “comparing”}.
However, Yosoku (‘991) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “a radar device that observes a target within an observation time period during which velocity resolution is less than an average moving velocity of a moving object”. In the same field of endeavor, Takeya (‘852) discloses that
a radar device that observes a target within an observation time period during which velocity resolution is less than an average moving velocity of a moving object {[0005] lines 2-3 (provide Doppler radar device capable of calculating velocity with high resolution equal to or less than Doppler velocity determined by inverse number of CPI time); [0060] lines 1-3 (the velocity can be calculated with a resolution smaller than the Doppler cell even for the target signal having the correlation of the radar transmission / reception signal by the MUSIC processing using the correlation matrix based on the moving average of the PRI axis); [0064] line 3 (the moving average of the Doppler speed axis)};
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yosoku (‘991) with the teachings of Takeya (‘852) { calculate velocity with resolution equal to or less than Doppler velocity determined by inverse number of CPI time for average speed} to calculate velocity with resolution equal to or less than Doppler velocity determined by inverse number of CPI time for average speed. Doing so would detects target speed by high resolution processing so as to separate targets based on speed (e.g. on Doppler frequency axis) because the received signal of N pulses is subjected to FFT processing in the PRI axis direction, signals at Nr points are extracted, and the target is separated on the Doppler frequency axis by processing (e.g. MUSIC) using an average correlation matrix, therefore, improve the resolution, as recognized by Takeya (‘852) {[0006] lines 8-9 (that separates the target on the Doppler frequency axis and detects its speed by high resolution processing); [0026] lines 2-4 (the received signal of N pulses is subjected to FFT processing in the PRI axis direction, signals at Nr points are extracted, and the target is separated on the Doppler frequency axis by MUSIC processing using an average correlation matrix, improve the resolution)}.
Regarding claim 5, as modified above, Yosoku (‘991) discloses that A radar device {[0003] line 2 (a radar device)} comprising:
a transmitter configured to generate a transmission signal to be emitted to space {Fig.2 item 11 (radar signal transmitting unit) coupled to an antenna; [0004] lines 2-3 (a transmitter including a first antenna which , in operation , transmits a radar signal); [0046] line 5 (a radar signal transmitting unit 11)};
a receiver configured to receive a signal resulting from reflection of the transmission signal emitted to the space on a target {[0004] lines 2-6 (radar device including, a receiver including a second antenna which, in operation, receives an echo signal that is the radar signal reflected from an object)};
a speed meter configured to measure a moving velocity of the radar device {Fig.2 item 15 (vehicle information obtaining unit); [0046] lines 3-4 (The radar device 1 is mounted on a moving body such as a vehicle), 7-8 (vehicle information obtaining unit 15); [0058] lines 1-4 (The vehicle information obtaining unit 15 obtains vehicle information about the movement of the vehicle , such as a vehicle speed, from various, sensors); Examiner’s note: “vehicle information obtaining unit”, “a vehicle speed”, “from various”, and “sensors)” for “speed meter”}; and
the object detection device according to claim 1 {see the rejections of claim 1},
the object detection device acquiring the wave data from the signal received by the receiver and acquiring the moving velocity from the speed meter {Fig.2 item 18 (stationary object boundary detecting unit) has one input from item 12 and one input from item 15; [0046] lines 9-10 (stationary object boundary detecting unit 18); [0048] lines 1-4 (The range measuring unit 12 receives , via one or more receiving antennas , an echo signal ( reflected wave ) that is the radar signal reflected from the target and performs received signal processing)}.
Regarding claim 7, as modified above, Yosoku (‘991) discloses that An object detection method {{[0003] lines 2-3 (a radar device and a detection method that can detect a target)} } comprising:
acquiring wave data provided from a radar device that observes a target within an observation time period during which velocity resolution is less than an average moving velocity of a moving object;
acquiring a moving velocity of the radar device;
estimating a relative distance between the radar device and the target, angle of incidence of a signal incident upon the radar device, the signal being emitted from the radar device and reflected by the target, and a first relative velocity between the radar device and the target, by use of the wave data;
estimating a second relative velocity between the radar device and the target in a case where the target is a static object, on a basis of the acquired moving velocity and the relative distance and the angle of incidence which have been estimated; and
determining whether the target is a static object by comparing the first relative velocity and the second relative velocity.
{The claim limitations above are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 1. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 1. See the rejections of claim 1}.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yosoku (‘991) and Takeya (’852) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakanishi (US 7.924,215, hereafter Nakanishi).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Yosoku (‘991) and Takeya (’852) do not explicitly disclose “the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether there is a possibility that the target collides with the radar device”. In the same field of endeavor, Nakanishi (‘215) discloses that in the object detection device,
the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether there is a possibility that the target collides with the radar device {col.6 lines 38-41 (the radar apparatus can further include collision determining means for determining whether risk of collision with the detection object exists)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Yosoku (‘991) and Takeya (‘852) with the teachings of Nakanishi (‘215) {use collision determining means in radar apparatus} to use collision determining means in radar apparatus. Doing so would prevent collision highly accurately by using radar on a mobile object for detecting objection and by collision avoidance control system according to the result of determination in terms of collision, as recognized by Nakanishi (‘215) {col.1 lines 16-18 (a radar apparatus for detecting an object using electromagnetic waves and a mobile object including the radar apparatus.); col.2 line 37 (in order to prevent collision); col.3 lines 4-6 (a radar apparatus and a mobile object capable of avoiding collision highly accurately); col.7 lines 31-34 (the result of determination in terms of collision can be provided to an operator of the mobile object or a collision avoidance control system of the mobile object.)}.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claims 1-2, Yosoku (‘991) discloses that in the object detection device,
the processing circuitry repeatedly performs the steps of acquiring the wave data; acquiring the moving body velocity; estimating the relative distance, the angle of incidence, and the first relative velocity; estimating the second relative velocity; comparing the first relative velocity with the second relative velocity; and determining whether the target is the static object in multiple cycles {Fig.2; Fig.13; [0094] lines 4-5 (one measurement time in the radar device, frame), 8 (P frames); Examiner’s note: frame for “cycle”}, and
estimates a moving direction of the target using a velocity vector of the target {Fig.1 (moving vector of target X); [0041] lines 1-4 (Of the moving velocity ( moving vector ) of the target X , the Doppler velocity ( the value obtained by converting a Doppler frequency into a velocity ) that can be observed by the radar device); [0117] lines 2-3 (the moving direction of the target)},
the velocity vector being acquired through determination in the multiple cycles {[0041] lines 1-6 (Of the moving velocity ( moving vector ) of the target X , the Doppler velocity ( the value obtained by converting a Doppler frequency into a velocity ) that can be observed by the radar device is a velocity component in a direction of a straight line connecting the target X and the radar device); Examiner’s note: Doppler velocity is from Fast Fourier Tranesform (FFT), which uses measurement of at least 2 points based on FFT definition)}, and
.
However, Yosoku (‘991) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “determines whether there is a possibility that the target collides with the radar device on the basis of the estimated moving direction of the target”. Takeya (’852) does not disclose the limitation, which Yosoku (‘991) does not disclose, as well. In the same field of endeavor, Nakanishi (‘215) discloses that
determines whether there is a possibility that the target collides with the radar device on the basis of the estimated moving direction of the target {col.4 lines 2-3 (the relative velocities obtained at the two timing points), 24-25 (the distance r of closest approach), Eq.(6), Eq.(7), 35-38 (This indicates that a distance of closest approach can be computed from only the distance and a component of the relative velocity of the detection object in the radar-apparatus direction); col.6 lines 38-41 (the radar apparatus can further include collision determining means for determining whether risk of collision with the detection object exists on the basis of the distance of closest approach)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Yosoku (‘991) and Takeya (‘852) with the teachings of Nakanishi (‘215) {use collision determining means in radar apparatus to make decision based on relative distances, velocities, and moving direction between detected targets and radar mounted on a vehicle} to use collision determining means in radar apparatus to make decision based on relative distances, velocities, and moving direction between detected targets and radar mounted on a vehicle. Doing so would prevent collision highly accurately by using radar on a mobile object for detecting objection and by collision avoidance control system according to the result of determination in terms of collision, as recognized by Nakanishi (‘215) {col.1 lines 16-18 (a radar apparatus for detecting an object using electromagnetic waves and a mobile object including the radar apparatus.); col.2 line 37 (in order to prevent collision); col.3 lines 4-6 (a radar apparatus and a mobile object capable of avoiding collision highly accurately); col.7 lines 31-34 (the result of determination in terms of collision can be provided to an operator of the mobile object or a collision avoidance control system of the mobile object.)}.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claims 1-2, Yosoku (‘991) discloses that in the object detection device,
the processing circuitry repeatedly performs the steps of, acquiring the wave data; acquiring the moving body velocity; estimating the relative distance, the angle of incidence, and the first relative velocity; estimating the second relative velocity; comparing the first relative velocity with the second relative velocity; and determining whether the target is the static object at least two or more cycles {Fig.2; Fig.13; [0094] lines 4-5 (one measurement time in the radar device, frame), 8 (P frames); Examiner’s note: frame for “cycle”}, and
However, Yosoku (‘991) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “calculates a velocity vector of the target using positions of the target at different times, the positions being acquired through determination in the at least two or more cycles, and determines whether there is a possibility that the target collides with the radar device on a basis of a predicted line of movement of the target, the predicted line being estimated with a velocity vector of the target”. Takeya (’852) does not disclose the limitation, which Yosoku (‘991) does not disclose, as well. In the same field of endeavor, Nakanishi (‘215) discloses that
calculates a velocity vector of the target using positions of the target at different times {col.3 lines 42 (L1 denotes a distance detected at a first timing point), 44-45 (L2 denotes a distance detected at a second timing point close to the first timing point), 48-49 (V1 denotes the relative velocity (the relative velocity in the traveling direction); col.4 lines 2-3 (the relative velocities obtained at the two timing points); Examiner’s note: “relative velocity in the traveling direction” for “a velocity vector”}, the positions being acquired through determination in the at least two or more cycles {col.3 lines 42-47 (L1 denotes a distance detected at a first timing point, Vmod1 denotes a component of the relative velocity in the radar-apparatus direction at that timing point. L2 denotes a distance detected at a second timing point close to the first timing point, and Vmod2 denotes a component of the relative velocity in the radar-apparatus direction at that timing point.); col.4 Eq.(4A); Eq.4B}, and determines whether there is a possibility that the target collides with the radar device on a basis of a predicted line of movement of the target, the predicted line being estimated with a velocity vector of the target {Fig.7; col.4 Eq.(6), Eq.(7), lines 35-38 (This indicates that a distance of closest approach can be computed from only the distance and a component of the relative velocity of the detection object in the radar-apparatus direction); col.6 lines 16 (line O-F), 22 (line O-S), 38-41 (the radar apparatus can further include collision determining means for determining whether risk of collision with the detection object exists on the basis of the distance of closest approach)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Yosoku (‘991) and Takeya (‘852) with the teachings of Nakanishi (‘215) {use collision determining means in radar apparatus to make decision based on relative distances, velocities, and moving direction between detected targets and radar mounted on a vehicle} to use collision determining means in radar apparatus to make decision based on relative distances, velocities, and moving direction between detected targets and radar mounted on a vehicle. Doing so would prevent collision highly accurately by using radar on a mobile object for detecting objection and by collision avoidance control system according to the result of determination in terms of collision, as recognized by Nakanishi (‘215) {col.1 lines 16-18 (a radar apparatus for detecting an object using electromagnetic waves and a mobile object including the radar apparatus.); col.2 line 37 (in order to prevent collision); col.3 lines 4-6 (a radar apparatus and a mobile object capable of avoiding collision highly accurately); col.7 lines 31-34 (the result of determination in terms of collision can be provided to an operator of the mobile object or a collision avoidance control system of the mobile object.)}.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yosoku (‘991) and Takeya (‘852) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kim et al .( US 2020/0238904, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Yosoku (‘991) and Takeya (‘852) do not explicitly disclose that “at least two or more transmitting antennas and at least two or more receiving antennas in a direction horizontal or perpendicular to a moving direction of the radar device, and wherein the transmitter and the receiver perform multiple-input multiple-output processing using signals transmitted by the at least two or more transmitting antennas and signals received by the at least two or more receiving antennas”. In the same field of endeavor, Kim (‘904) discloses that the radar device further comprising:
at least two or more transmitting antennas and at least two or more receiving antennas in a direction horizontal or perpendicular to a moving direction of the radar device {[0051] lines 1-5 (the radar sensor, adopted a two – dimensional antenna array configuration including a transmitting antenna unit including a total of 12 transmitting antennas ( Tx ) and a receiving antenna unit including 16 receiving antennas ( Rx )); [0052] lines 6-8 (the first or second transmitting antenna group may be spaced apart from the third transmitting antenna group by a predetermined distance ( D ) in a horizontal direction); [0053] lines 4-7 (receiving antenna unit may be disposed between the first transmitting antenna group and the third transmitting antenna group spaced in the horizontal direction)},
wherein the transmitter and the receiver perform multiple-input multiple-output processing using signals transmitted by the at least two or more transmitting antennas and signals received by the at least two or more receiving antennas {[0050] line 5 (MIMO); [0051] lines 3-5 (a transmitting antenna unit including a total of 12 transmitting antennas ( Tx ) and a receiving antenna unit including 16 receiving antennas ( Rx )}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Yosoku (‘991) and Takeya (‘852) with the teachings of Kim (‘904) {use MIMO antenna system with horizontally arranged transmitting antennas and receiving antennas} to use MIMO antenna system with horizontally arranged transmitting antennas and receiving antennas. Doing so would use a MIMO antenna system to firm a virtual antenna aperture larger than an actual antenna aperture so as to implement sensing accuracy or resolution in the vertical and horizontal directions, as recognized by Kim (‘904) {[0049] lines 1-5 (radar sensor, adopt a signal transmission / reception scheme of a multi - dimensional antenna array and multiple input multiple outputs to form a virtual antenna aperture larger than an actual antenna aperture); [0057] lines 2-4 (use a MIMO antenna system in order to implement sensing accuracy or resolution in the vertical and horizontal directions)}.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached on (571)270-5144. 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.
/YONGHONG LI/Examiner, Art Unit 3648