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 .
This office action is in response to applicant amendment/remarks filed 03/16/2026. Claims 1, 7, 10, and 16 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/26/2026 have been fully considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 filed 03/13/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 03/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made with regards to Rahim US5,155,683A in view of Rankawat US20190286153A1. See the new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below.
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.
Claim 1, 5, 9-10, 14-16, and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahim US5,155,683A in view of Rankawat et al. US20190286153A1 (henceforth Rankawat).
Regarding claim 1,
Rahim discloses:
A method, comprising: receiving a video stream from a camera of a vehicle in a transportation network; (See at least Column 5, lines 19-23, wherein a video stream (i.e. a low data rate stream) is received from a camera of a vehicle. Further see Fig. 6, “camera-video data”.)
Wherein the video stream comprises coordinates that correspond to coordinates in a focal plane of the camera; Converting the coordinates into pixel coordinates with a transformation component. (See at least Fig. 2, which shows a focal plane of the camera, and at least Fig. 6, “camera-video data”. Further see Column 5, lines 12-18, “the transform which maps the screen path onto the ground path uses simple trigonometric formulas and perhaps coordinate transformations. The transform and parameters depend on the camera orientation and lens. The transform parameters can be continuously adjusted if the camera zooms, pans or tilts.” The video stream comprises coordinates that corresponds to coordinates in a focal plane of the camera, and the video stream comprises coordinates since the coordinates are transformed onto the ground path via coordinate transformations.)
receiving an input indicating the pixel coordinates in the video stream;
(See at least Column 6, lines 66-67, “The operator O, seen at the control station in FIG. 1, uses a cursor control joystick 10 to extend or modify the screen path line 12 as seen on the screen 14. The operator O traces out an apparent path for the vehicle V with the aid of a cursor 18 which is superimposed on the viewing image at the end of the line 12. The operator O can move the cursor 18 about at will with the joystick 10.” The operator uses a control joystick that indicates pixel coordinates in the video stream (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) to control the vehicle V.)
displaying an overlay in the video stream based on the pixel coordinates, the overlay including a visualization of a projected path of the vehicle; determining, from the pixel coordinates, spatial coordinates of the projected path of the vehicle in the transportation network, wherein the spatial coordinates are relative to at least one of the transportation network or the camera;
(See at least Fig. 1 and Column 8 lines 11-22, “the cursor 18 sweeps out the line 12 on the screen, just as a marker leaves a line on paper, to denote the screen path. As an alternative, the cursor 18 might be used to set the screen positions of the individual ground waypoints 20 through which the vehicle V would pass, like dots on paper. The screen points could be clicked on with a button and appear on the screen as dots or cursor shapes. The computer 16 would then transform the coordinates of the screen path points into ground waypoint coordinates for radio uplink transmission to the vehicle's guidance system.“ As shown in Fig. 1, the overlay is displayed in the video stream based on the pixel coordinates, wherein those coordinates are transferred to the vehicle’s guidance system. Since the video stream is based on the camera on the vehicle, then the spatial coordinates are relative to the camera.)
causing the vehicle based on a selection of the overlay, the information configured to cause the vehicle to follow the projected path according to the spatial coordinates based upon the information.
(See at least Fig. 1, and Column 8 lines 16-22, “The computer 16 would then transform the coordinates of the screen path points into ground waypoint coordinates for radio uplink transmission to the vehicle's guidance system.” The information is transmitted to the vehicle based on the selection of the overlay (i.e. from the operator input) to follow the projected path according to the spatial coordinates.)
Rahim does not specifically state “converting the film coordinates into pixel coordinates”.
However, Rankawat teaches:
converting the film coordinates into pixel coordinates(See at least Para. 0067, “film coordinates may be converted to pixel coordinates. Once the pixel coordinates are known, and the boundary is determined (e.g., the boundary points 106 are determined), the location of the boundary in the real-world coordinates may be determined using the known mapping from the boundary points 106 to the real-world coordinate”. The film coordinates are converted into pixel coordinates.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rahim to incorporate the teachings of Rankawat to include “converting the film coordinates into pixel coordinates” in order to better determine the location of the boundary in the real-world coordinate (Para. 0067, Rankawat). Furthermore, converting between coordinates would create a more robust system for projecting coordinates on a remote operator’s screen, and to better display a visualization of a projected path of the vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Rahim and Rankawat. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 5,
Rahim discloses:
starting the projected path from a point in the overlay corresponding to a predicted position of the vehicle.
(See at least Column 9, line 65 to Column 10 line 9, wherein starting the projected path from a point in the overlay corresponds to a predicted position of the vehicle.)
Regarding claim 9,
Rahim discloses:
receiving a second input indicating second pixel coordinates in the video stream while the vehicle is in motion in the transportation network; and displaying a second overlay in the video stream based on the second input, the second overlay including a visualization of a second projected path of the vehicle
(See at least Column 8 lines 45-50, “Since it may be necessary to readjust the projected path of the vehicle in the face of emergencies or miscalculations, the cursor control should have the capability of erasing the end of the screen path, that is, "back-tracking". It may be helpful to have a separate cursor reverse control which would erase the screen path line 12 from the end of the line back toward the vehicle.” A separate cursor reverse control is a second input that is a second overlay that includes a visualization of a second projected path of the vehicle (i.e. erasing the end of a first projected path involves creating a second projected path).)
Regarding claim 10,
Rahim and Rankawat discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Rahim further discloses:
display an overlay in the video stream based on the two dimensional pixel coordinates
(See Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, wherein an overlay of the path based on the two dimensional pixel coordinates from the user’s cursor is displayed.)
wherein the pixel coordinates are two dimensional pixel coordinates; (See at least Fig. 2, wherein the coordinates are two-dimensional pixel coordinate.)
determine, from the two dimensional pixel coordinates, three dimensional spatial coordinates of the projected path of the vehicle in the transportation network, wherein the three dimensional spatial coordinates are relative to the transportation network. (See at least Fig. 1 and 3, and Column 3 lines 33-35, “turns them into Cartesian space coordinates x, y, z at the vehicle location”, wherein the 3D coordinates of the projected path of the vehicle is determined based on the location of the cursor.)
transmit information to the vehicle based on a selection of the overlay, the information configured to cause the vehicle to follow the projected path according to the three dimensional spatial coordinates
(See at least Column 3 lines 33-35, “turns them into Cartesian space coordinates x, y, z at the vehicle location” and Column 3 lines 46-52, “The station computer then takes the control readings recorded from the waypoints, transforms them into the appropriate commands (vehicle angles, segment lengths, compass headings), and relays these commands to the vehicle. The received commands tell the vehicle's guidance system how to proceed. The vehicle automatically responds to the commands by moving to the next waypoint; eventually it reaches the final point.” The information is transmitted to the vehicle such that it follows the projected path according to the three dimensional spatial coordinates.)
Regarding claim 14,
Rahim discloses:
start the projected path from a point in the overlay corresponding to a predicted position of the vehicle. (See at least Column 9, line 65 to Column 10 line 9, wherein starting the projected path from a point in the overlay corresponds to a predicted position of the vehicle.)
Regarding claim 15,
Rahim discloses:
wherein the input is received through a graphical user interface (GUI) by a detecting a controller pointing to a location in the video stream.
(See at least Column 3, lines 28-32, “The control drives a cursor which is superimposed on the picture which the operator sees, and which appears to move about in space in response to the operator's motion of the three-dimensional control.” Additionally see Fig. 1, wherein the input is received through a GUI by detecting a controlling pointing to a location in the video stream.)
Regarding claim 16,
Rahim and Rankawat discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Rahim further discloses:
receiving a second input indicating a selection of the overlay
(See at least column 3 lines 41-45, “The operator, by depressing a button, can denote any cursor position as a waypoint. He or she denotes a series of waypoints to define points of a path in the space seen in the viewer, over which the operator wants the vehicle to travel.” The operator can input a second input indicating a selection of the overlay.)
Regarding claim 20,
Rahim discloses:
starting the projected path from a point in the overlay corresponding to a predicted position of the vehicle. (See at least Column 9, line 65 to Column 10 line 9, wherein starting the projected path from a point in the overlay corresponds to a predicted position of the vehicle.)
Claims 2-3, 11-12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahim and Rankawat further in view of Kumavat et al. US20230176573A1 (henceforth Kumavat).
Regarding claim 2,
Rahim and Rankawat discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above.
Rahim does not specifically state the limitation “determining, before displaying the overlay, that the pixel coordinates correspond to a location in the video stream that is valid to generate the projected path”.
However, Kumavat teaches:
determining, before displaying the overlay, that the pixel coordinates correspond to a location in the video stream that is valid to generate the projected path
(See at least Para. 0022, “the technology confers the benefit of validating inputs from remote operators prior to implementation, which functions to maintain safety standards and implement satisfactory actions based on numerous sources of information” and Para. 0023, “In a first example, the technology further confers the benefit of validating portions of remote operator inputs (e.g., in a batched fashion), such as initial waypoints in a series of waypoints entered by the remote operator, such that in an event that the initial waypoints do not satisfy the set of safety constraints and/or other satisfaction criteria, the remote operator can be notified and/or the additional waypoints can be not received and/or not processed”. Since the remote operator inputs are validated prior to implementation, then that includes determining that the pixel coordinates corresponds to a location in the video stream that is valid to generate the projected path before displaying (i.e. prior to implementation).)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rahim to incorporate the teachings of Kumavat to include “determining, before displaying the overlay, that the pixel coordinates correspond to a location in the video stream that is valid to generate the projected path” in order to “prevent the operator from providing feedback which is not able to be performed (and/or would be unsafe to be performed) by the AV” (Para. 0024, Kumavat), which would create a more robust vehicle remote operation system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Rahim and Kumavat. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 3,
Rahim and Rankawat discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above.
Rahim further discloses:
receiving a second input indicating second pixel coordinates in the video stream
(See column 3 lines 41-45, “The operator, by depressing a button, can denote any cursor position as a waypoint. He or she denotes a series of waypoints to define points of a path in the space seen in the viewer, over which the operator wants the vehicle to travel.” The operator can input a second input indicating second pixel coordinates to denote a waypoint in the video stream.)
Rahim does not specifically state the limitation “determining that the second pixel coordinates correspond to a location in the video stream that is invalid; and preventing display of a second overlay based on the location being invalid”.
However, Kumavat teaches:
determining that the second pixel coordinates correspond to a location in the video stream that is invalid; and preventing display of a second overlay based on the location being invalid
(See at least Para. 0022, “the technology confers the benefit of validating inputs from remote operators prior to implementation, which functions to maintain safety standards and implement satisfactory actions based on numerous sources of information” and Para. 0023, “In a first example, the technology further confers the benefit of validating portions of remote operator inputs (e.g., in a batched fashion), such as initial waypoints in a series of waypoints entered by the remote operator, such that in an event that the initial waypoints do not satisfy the set of safety constraints and/or other satisfaction criteria, the remote operator can be notified and/or the additional waypoints can be not received and/or not processed”. Since the remote operator inputs are validated/invalidated prior to implementation, then that includes preventing a display of any overlay based on the location of the waypoint being invalid.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rahim to incorporate the teachings of Kumavat to include “determining that the second pixel coordinates correspond to a location in the video stream that is invalid; and preventing display of a second overlay based on the location being invalid” in order to “prevent the operator from providing feedback which is not able to be performed (and/or would be unsafe to be performed) by the AV” (Para. 0024, Kumavat), which would create a more robust vehicle remote operation system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Rahim and Kumavat. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 11,
Rahim, Rankawat and Kumavat discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Rahim further discloses:
a two-dimensional coordinate correspond to a location in the video stream
(Fig. 1 and 3 shows a two-dimensional screen wherein the cursor pointer corresponds to a two-dimensional coordinate location in the video stream.)
Regarding claim 12,
Rahim, Rankawat and Kumavat discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Rahim further discloses:
a two-dimensional coordinate in the video stream
(Fig. 1 and 3 shows a two-dimensional screen wherein the cursor pointer corresponds to a two-dimensional coordinate location in the video stream.)
Regarding claim 17,
Rahim, Rankawat and Kumavat discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Rahim further discloses:
a two-dimensional coordinate correspond to a location in the video stream
(Fig. 1 and 3 shows a two-dimensional screen wherein the cursor pointer corresponds to a two-dimensional coordinate location in the video stream.)
Regarding claim 18,
Rahim, Rankawat and Kumavat discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Rahim further discloses:
a third input indicating second pixel coordinates in the video stream
(See column 3 lines 41-45, “The operator, by depressing a button, can denote any cursor position as a waypoint. He or she denotes a series of waypoints to define points of a path in the space seen in the viewer, over which the operator wants the vehicle to travel.” The operator can input a third input indicating second pixel coordinates to denote a waypoint in the video stream.)
Claims 4, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahim and Rankawat further in view of Simpson US12,029,156B1.
Regarding claim 4,
Rahim and Rankawat discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Rahim does not specifically state “predicting a position of the vehicle in the video stream based on a latency associated with the video stream; and including an indication of the position in the overlay.” However, Simpson teaches:
predicting a position of the vehicle in the video stream based on a latency associated with the video stream; and including an indication of the position in the overlay
(See at least Column 40, lines 4-13, “The spatial information captured at time t.sub.0 may be used to predict the position of the lawn maintenance machine and other objects in the environment at a time in the future, such as time t.sub.1, to produce a predicted environment that is displayed to a user. As described herein, the difference between to and t.sub.1 may correspond to a predictive offset that is based on the communication latency and/or other processing delays between the time when the spatial information is captured and when the 3-D environment is ultimately displayed to a remote operator.“ The position of the vehicle is predicted based on a latency associated with the video stream.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rahim to incorporate the teachings of Simpson to include “predicting a position of the vehicle in the video stream based on a latency associated with the video stream; and including an indication of the position in the overlay” such that “control of a lawn maintenance machine may be based on predicted real-world, live conditions, rather than outdated conditions” (Column 13, lines 1-3, Simpson). This would create a more robust remote control system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Rahim and Simpson. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 13 and 19,
Rahim, Rankawat and Simpson discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 4 above, and are therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahim and Rankawat further in view of Mortazavi et al. US20200269877A1 (henceforth Mortazavi).
Regarding claim 6,
Rahim and Rankawat discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Rahim does not specifically state “wherein the overlay is represented by lines corresponding to a lane of travel”.However, Mortazavi teaches:
wherein the overlay is represented by lines corresponding to a lane of travel.
(See at least Fig. 3 and 4, wherein the overlay is represented by lines corresponding to a lane of travel.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rahim to incorporate the teachings of Mortazavi to include “wherein the overlay is represented by lines corresponding to a lane of travel” in order to “ help to distinguish lanes for turning versus lanes for proceeding” (Para. 0087, Mortazavi). Furthermore, this would create a more robust remote operating overlay system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Rahim and Mortazavi. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahim and Rankawat further in view of Houshmand et al. US20220194419A1 (henceforth Houshmand).
Regarding claim 7,
Rahim and Rankawat discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Rahim does not specifically state “wherein the input is received through a graphical user interface (GUI) by a detecting a mouse hovering over a location in the video stream, and wherein the selection is received by detecting clicking a button of the mouse.”
However, Houshmand teaches:
wherein the input is received through a graphical user interface (GUI) by a detecting a mouse hovering over a location in the video stream, and wherein the selection is received by detecting clicking a button of the mouse.
(See at least Para. 0075, “At operation 410, example process 400 may comprise receiving, based at least in part on the presentation, input identifying a proposed trajectory 412 from among the candidate trajectory, according to any of the techniques discussed herein. In examples where the teleoperator is a human user, the input may comprise input via an input device, such as a touch screen, mouse, keyboard, microphone, or the like that identifies the trajectory 412.” An input from a mouse includes a mouse clicking, and the input is received through a GUI.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rahim to incorporate the teachings of Houshmand to include “wherein the input is received through a graphical user interface (GUI) by a detecting a mouse hovering over a location in the video stream, and wherein the selection is received by detecting a button of the mouse clicking”, since clicking via a mouse is more efficient than using another type of controller. This would create a more robust vehicle remote operation system for controlling a vehicle remotely. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Rahim and Houshmand. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahim and Rankawat further in view of Rosenzweig et al. US20200349844A1 (henceforth Rosenzweig).
Regarding claim 8,
Rahim and Rankawat discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. Rahim does not specifically state “wherein determining the spatial coordinates includes applying Ackermann steering geometry to determine a radius of the projected path.”
However, Rosenzweig teaches:
wherein determining the spatial coordinates includes applying Ackermann steering geometry to determine a radius of the projected path.
(See at least Para. 0051 “Equation 2 is used to calculate the second stopping distance. In Equation 2, t.sub.2 is the outgoing latency time (i.e., the amount of time it takes a single frame to reach the vehicle computing unit when sent from the remote operator device) and r is the reaction time of the operator. The reaction time of the operator may be a predetermined value, and may be a default value (i.e., the same for all operators) or may be a value determined based on past reactions by the operator (e.g., as an average of previous reaction times of that operator)” and Para. 0052, “The result of each of Equations 1 and 2 is a vector line representing the stopping distance in a three-dimensional (3D) environment. In an example implementation, two radii of movement of the vehicle are determined using the Ackermann model for steering geometry based on the results of Equations 1 and 2, respectively.” The spatial coordinates includes applying Ackermann steering geometry to determine a radius of the projected path.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rahim to incorporate the teachings of Rosenzweig to include “wherein determining the spatial coordinates includes applying Ackermann steering geometry to determine a radius of the projected path” in order to calculate dynamic trajectories of the vehicle (see Para. 0052, Rosenzweig), which would create a more robust remote vehicle controlling system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Rahim and Rosenzweig. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
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 GABRIEL J LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4334. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am- 6:00 pm MDT.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/G.J.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights