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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 18/196,405 filed on 05/11/2023.
Claims 1 – 30 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/04/2025; 10/17/2023; 06/22/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: element, assembly, device in claim 3, 4, 13 and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilliland et al. (US 2016/0003946 A1) in view of Droz et al. (US 2016/0291134 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gilliland discloses: “a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) scanning system used with a moveable platform [see abstract: A multi-ladar sensor system is proposed for operating in dense environments], comprising:
one or more light sources [see para: 0007; The first ladar sensor has a laser transmitter with a pulsed laser light output transmitting light at a first wavelength through a diffusing optic for illuminating a scene in a field of view of said first ladar sensor];
one or more optical core assemblies optically coupled to the one or more light sources [see para: 0007; The sensor additionally includes receiving optics for collecting and conditioning the pulsed laser light reflected from said scene in the field of view, a receive filter which receives light at said first wavelength and transmits light at said first wavelength], wherein at least one optical core assembly of the one or more optical core assemblies comprises:
an optical core assembly enclosure at least partially disposed in the moveable platform [see para: 0029; The benefits are realized through the use of a 3-D imaging facility, comprising a vehicle mounted ladar system with an object detection and recognition capability, a steering, braking, and accelerator control system, and a ride and suspension modification system];
Gilliland does not explicitly disclose: “a plurality of optical polygon elements, and
one or more moveable reflective elements, wherein the combination of the plurality of optical polygon elements and the one or more moveable reflective elements form one or more light steering devices operative to scan a field-of-view of the LiDAR system; and
transmitting and receiving optics, wherein the plurality of optical polygon elements, the one or more moveable reflective elements, and at least one of the transmitting and receiving optics are disposed within the optical core assembly enclosure”.
However, Droz, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “a plurality of optical polygon elements, and one or more moveable reflective elements, wherein the combination of the plurality of optical polygon elements and the one or more moveable reflective elements form one or more light steering devices operative to scan a field-of-view of the LiDAR system [see para: 0042; the first LIDAR 120 may be configured to scan an environment around the vehicle 100 by rotating about an axis (e.g., vertical axis, etc.) continuously while emitting one or more light pulses and detecting reflected light pulses off objects in the environment of the vehicle, for example. In some embodiments, the first LIDAR 120 may be configured to repeatedly rotate about the axis to be able to scan the environment at a sufficiently high refresh rate to quickly detect motion of objects in the environment]; and
transmitting and receiving optics [see para: 0042; the first LIDAR 120 may be configured to scan an environment around the vehicle 100 by rotating about an axis (e.g., vertical axis, etc.) continuously while emitting one or more light pulses and detecting reflected light pulses off objects in the environment of the vehicle, for example], wherein the plurality of optical polygon elements [see para: 0047; As shown, the light filter 126 is shaped to enclose the first LIDAR 120 and the second LIDAR 122. Thus, in some examples, the light filter 126 may also be configured to prevent environmental damage to the first LIDAR 120 and the second LIDAR 122, such as accumulation of dust or collision with airborne debris, among other possibilities], the one or more moveable reflective elements [see para: 0066; In an example embodiment, the scanning portion 224 may include a moveable mirror, a spring, and an actuator. The light source 222 of the LIDAR device 220 may emit light toward the moveable mirror. The spring and the actuator may be configured to move the moveable mirror in a reciprocating manner about a horizontal axis so as to move a beam of emitted light in along a substantially vertical line], and at least one of the transmitting and receiving optics are disposed within the optical core assembly enclosure [see para: 0053; In this example, the first LIDAR 120 may emit a series of pulses in the region of the environment between the arrows 142 and 144 and may receive reflected light pulses from that region to detect and/or identify objects in that region. Due to the positioning of the first LIDAR 120 (not shown) of the sensor unit 102 at the top side of the vehicle 100, the vertical FOV of the first LIDAR 120 is limited by the structure of the vehicle 100 (e.g., roof, etc.) as illustrated in FIG. 1D].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-ladar sensor system disclosed by Gilliland to add the teachings of Droz as above, in order to provide a means for improving lidar scanning system, by combining of plurality optical polygon elements and moveable reflective elements that forms light steering devices to scan a field-of-view of the LiDAR system and transmits and receives optical information. The plurality of optical elements, moveable reflective elements, transmitting and receiving optics are disposed within the optical core unit as per design requirements [Droz see para: 0042; 0066; 0053].
Regarding claim 2, Gilliland and Droz disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Gilliland discloses: “wherein the moveable platform comprises a vehicle, and wherein at least one of one or more optical core assemblies is positioned proximate to one or more pillars of a vehicle roof [see Fig. 3 and Fig. 4].
Regarding claim 3, Gilliland and Droz disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Gilliland does not explicitly disclose: “wherein the one or more light steering devices comprise a firs
PNG
media_image1.png
12
13
media_image1.png
Greyscale
optical polygon element and a second optical polygon elements of the plurality of optical polygon elements,
wherein the first optical polygon element is configured to steer light at least horizontally to scan a first partial field-of-view of the LiDAR scanning system, and
wherein the second optical polygon element is configured to steer light at least horizontally to scan a second partial field-of-view of the LiDAR scanning system”.
However, Droz, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein the one or more light steering devices comprise a first optical polygon element and a second optical polygon elements of the plurality of optical polygon elements [see para: 0074; The mirror 320 may be arranged to steer emitted light 304 from the optics assembly 310 towards the viewing direction of the LIDAR 300 as illustrated in FIG. 3A. Similarly, for example, the mirror 320 may be arranged to steer reflected light 306 from the environment towards the optics assembly 310],
wherein the first optical polygon element is configured to steer light at least horizontally to scan a first partial field-of-view of the LiDAR scanning system [see para: 0042; In one embodiment, the first LIDAR 120 may include a plurality of light sources that emit 64 laser beams having a wavelength of 905 nm. In this embodiment, the 3D map determined based on the data from the first LIDAR 120 may have a 0.2° (horizontal)×0.3° (vertical) angular resolution, and the first LIDAR 120 may have a 360° (horizontal)×20° (vertical) FOV of the environment], and
wherein the second optical polygon element is configured to steer light at least horizontally to scan a second partial field-of-view of the LiDAR scanning system [see para: 0027; A stepper motor may be configured to control the rotation of the LIDAR system. Furthermore, the laser beam may be steered about a horizontal axis such that the beam can be moved up and down. For example, a portion of the LIDAR system, e.g. various optics, may be coupled to the LIDAR system mount via a spring. The various optics may be moved about the horizontal axis such that the laser beam is steered up and down].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-ladar sensor system disclosed by Gilliland to add the teachings of Droz as above, in order to provide a means for combining optical core assembly to scan horizontal field-of-view. For example, a portion of the LIDAR system, may be coupled to the LIDAR system mount via a spring. The various optics may be moved about the horizontal axis such that the laser beam is steered up and down [Droz see para: 0027; 0042; 0074].
Regarding claim 4, Gilliland and Droz disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Gilliland does not explicitly disclose: “wherein the at least one optical core assembly is configured to scan at least one of an asymmetric horizontal partial field-of-view or an asymmetric vertical partial field-of-view”.
However, Droz, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein the at least one optical core assembly is configured to scan at least one of an asymmetric horizontal partial field-of-view or an asymmetric vertical partial field-of-view [see para: 0042; In this embodiment, the 3D map determined based on the data from the first LIDAR 120 may have a 0.2° (horizontal)×0.3° (vertical) angular resolution, and the first LIDAR 120 may have a 360° (horizontal)×20° (vertical) FOV of the environment].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-ladar sensor system disclosed by Gilliland to add the teachings of Droz as above, in order to provide a means for combining optical core assembly to scan asymmetric horizontal field-of-view or an asymmetric vertical field-of-view. Scanning horizontal or vertical view will capture partial area for calculation purposes [Droz see para: 0042].
Regarding claim 5, Gilliland and Droz disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Gilliland does not explicitly disclose: “wherein at least one of the one or more moveable reflective elements comprises an oscillating mirror”.
However, Droz, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein at least one of the one or more moveable reflective elements comprises an oscillating mirror [see para: 0066; In an example embodiment, a scanning portion 224 of the LIDAR device 220 may be configured to direct the emitted light in a reciprocating manner about a first axis. In an example embodiment, the scanning portion 224 may include a moveable mirror, a spring, and an actuator. The light source 222 of the LIDAR device 220 may emit light toward the moveable mirror. The spring and the actuator may be configured to move the moveable mirror in a reciprocating manner about a horizontal axis so as to move a beam of emitted light in along a substantially vertical line].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify multi-ladar sensor system disclosed by Gilliland to add the teachings of Droz as above, in order to provide a means for improving lidar scanning system by combining mirrors that are rotatable or oscillating by motors [Droz see para: 0066].
Regarding claims 6, “wherein at least a portion or a side surface of the at least one optical core assembly protrudes outside of a planar surface of a roof of the moveable platform to facilitate scanning of light; and wherein the portion of the at least one optical core assembly that protrudes outside of the planar surface of the roof of the moveable platform protrudes in a vertical direction by an amount corresponding to a lateral arrangement of the plurality of optical polygon elements, the one or more moveable reflective elements, and the transmitting and receiving optics” is only a matter of design choice because it only requires mere selection of a desired or specific arrangement that optical core assembly protrudes outside of the planar surface of the roof of the moveable platform in a vertical direction by an amount corresponding to a lateral arrangement.
Regarding claims 7, “wherein the lateral arrangement of the plurality of optical polygon elements, the one or more moveable reflective elements, and the transmitting and receiving optics comprises: an arrangement in which the transmitting and receiving optics and at least one of the one or more moveable reflective elements are positioned between the plurality of optical polygon elements in a lateral direction” is only a matter of design choice because it only requires mere selection of desired locations of optics and moveable reflective elements are positioned between the plurality of optical polygon elements in a lateral direction.
Regarding claim 8, Gilliland and Droz disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Gilliland does not explicitly disclose: “wherein the one or more light steering devices comprise a first light steering device and a second light steering device”.
However, Droz, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein the one or more light steering devices comprise a first light steering device and a second light steering device [see para: 0027; The laser beam may be steered using a combination of mirrors, motors, springs, magnets, lenses, and/or other known means to steer light beams].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-ladar sensor system disclosed by Gilliland to add the teachings of Droz as above, in order to provide a means for improving lidar scanning system by combining plurality of light steering devices that are moveable [Droz see para: 0027].
Regarding claims 9 – 11, “wherein the first light steering device and the second light steering device are configured substantially the same or configured differently based on respective scanning requirements” is only a matter of design choice because it only requires mere selection of specific arrangement that these light steering devices can be configured differently or in a same manner and the number of these elements are plural or more than one.
Regarding claims 12, “wherein the first optical polygon element and the second optical polygon element are configured differently such that they have one or more of: different rotational speeds, different rotational directions, different numbers of the reflective surfaces, different dimensions, different positions and/or orientations with respect to other optical elements, different shapes, and different angles between adjacent reflective surfaces” is only a matter of design choice because it only requires of selecting a specific optical elements in the lidar system to have one of the listed above criteria, but not all features.
Regarding claim 13, Gilliland and Droz disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Gilliland does not explicitly disclose: “wherein:
the first light steering device further comprises a first moveable reflective element of the one or more moveable reflective elements;
the second light steering device further comprises a second moveable reflective element of the one or more moveable reflective elements;
the first light steering device is configured to scan a first partial field-of-view at a first scanning density; and
the second light steering device is configured to scan a second partial field-of-view at a second scanning density”.
However, Droz, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein:
the first light steering device further comprises a first moveable reflective element of the one or more moveable reflective elements [see para: 0066; In an example embodiment, a scanning portion 224 of the LIDAR device 220 may be configured to direct the emitted light in a reciprocating manner about a first axis. In an example embodiment, the scanning portion 224 may include a moveable mirror, a spring, and an actuator. The light source 222 of the LIDAR device 220 may emit light toward the moveable mirror. The spring and the actuator may be configured to move the moveable mirror in a reciprocating manner about a horizontal axis so as to move a beam of emitted light in along a substantially vertical line];
the second light steering device further comprises a second moveable reflective element of the one or more moveable reflective elements [see para: 0066];
the first light steering device is configured to scan a first partial field-of-view at a first scanning density [see para: 0054; As shown in FIG. 1D, the sensor unit 102 (including the first LIDAR 120 and/or the second LIDAR 122) may scan for objects in the environment of the vehicle 100 in any direction around the vehicle 100 (e.g., by rotating, etc.), but may be less suitable for scanning the environment for objects in close proximity to the vehicle 100. For example, as shown, objects within distance 154 to the vehicle 100 may be undetected or may only be partially detected by the first LIDAR 120 of the sensor unit 102 due to positions of such objects being outside the region between the light pulses illustrated by the arrows 142 and 144. Similarly, objects within distance 156 may also be undetected or may only be partially detected by the second LIDAR 122 of the sensor unit 102]; and
the second light steering device is configured to scan a second partial field-of-view at a second scanning density [see para: 0054].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-ladar sensor system disclosed by Gilliland to add the teachings of Droz as above, in order to provide a means for improving lidar scanning system by combining plurality of light steering devices that are moveable and scans partial field-of-view at different scanning density based on the amount of time given and distance from the object [Droz see para: 0054; 0066].
Regarding claims 14, “wherein the first optical polygon element and the first moveable reflective element are arranged laterally with respect to each other to reduce the dimension in the vertical direction of the first light steering device; and wherein the second optical polygon element and the second moveable reflective element are arranged vertically with respect to each other” is only a matter of design choice because it only requires mere selection of arrangement (vertical or horizontally) that optical elements and movable reflective elements in a certain way to reduce the dimension of the steering device.
Regarding claims 15, “wherein: the first scanning density is different from the second scanning density” is considered as a general statement or design requirements that, based on the Lidar scanning system, density will be different from each scanned results based on time and amount of light emitted.
Regarding claims 16, “wherein the first moveable reflective element and the second moveable reflective elements are the same moveable reflective element shared by the first light steering device and the second light steering device” is only a matter of design choice because moveable reflective elements are shared by the light steering devices by the controller in the Lidar system.
Regarding claims 17, “wherein at least one of the first optical polygon element or the second optical polygon element is a variable angle multiple facet polygon (VAMFP) element” is only a matter of design choice because it only requires mere selection of variable angle multiple facet polygon (VAMFP) element as an optical polygon shaped element, the numbers could be one or more as per requirements.
Regarding claims 18, “wherein the first light steering device and the second light steering device are controlled independently from each other” is only a matter of design choice because it only requires mere selection of controlling independently or individually light steering devices that are available in the system.
Regarding claims 19, “wherein the transmitting and receiving optics comprise one or more collection lenses, at least one collection lens of the one or more collection lens having an opening, wherein a multiple-channel transmitter is at least partially disposed in the opening to deliver light to at least one of the one or more moveable reflective elements” is only a matter of design choice because it only requires plurality of lenses having an opening and multi-channel transmitter is disposed in the opening to deliver light to the moveable reflective elements, as per design requirement, light can be delivered in different directions as needed.
Regarding claims 20, “wherein the one or more moveable reflective elements are configured to redirect light provided by the multiple-channel transmitter to the plurality of optical polygon elements” is only a matter of design choice because it only requires of controlling moveable reflective elements to redirect lights to the optical polygon elements, polygon shape could produce better results than any other shapes.
Regarding claim 21, Gilliland and Droz disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Gilliland does not explicitly disclose: “wherein a combination of the plurality of optical polygon elements and the one or more moveable reflective elements, when moving with respect to each other,
steers light both horizontally and vertically to illuminate one or more objects in a field-of- view of the LiDAR scanning system; and
obtains return light formed based on the illumination of the one or more objects”.
However, Droz, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein a combination of the plurality of optical polygon elements and the one or more moveable reflective elements, when moving with respect to each other [see para: 0041; FIG. 1A. As shown, the sensor unit 102 includes a first LIDAR 120, a second LIDAR 122, a dividing structure 124, and light filter 126. And see para: 0080; The emission mirror 406 may be a flat mirror. Alternatively or additionally, the emission mirror 406 may include a converging mirror, a diverging mirror, or another type of reflective optic device],
steers light both horizontally and vertically to illuminate one or more objects in a field-of- view of the LiDAR scanning system [see para: 0050; The third LIDAR 130 may be configured to scan a FOV of the environment around the vehicle 100 that extends away from a given side of the vehicle 100 (i.e., the front side) where the third LIDAR 130 is positioned. Thus, in some examples, the third LIDAR 130 may be configured to rotate (e.g., horizontally) across a wider FOV than the second LIDAR 122 but less than the 360-degree FOV of the first LIDAR 120 due to the positioning of the third LIDAR 130. In one embodiment, the third LIDAR 130 may have a FOV of 270° (horizontal)×110° (vertical), a refresh rate of 4 Hz, and may emit one laser beam having a wavelength of 905 nm. In this embodiment, the 3D map determined based on the data from the third LIDAR 130 may have an angular resolution of 1.2° (horizontal)×0.2° (vertical), thereby allowing detection/identification of objects within a short range of 30 meters to the vehicle 100]; and
obtains return light formed based on the illumination of the one or more objects [see para: 0038; Sensors mounted on the rotating platform could be rotated so that the sensors may obtain information from various directions around the vehicle 100. For example, a LIDAR of the sensor unit 102 may have a viewing direction that can be adjusted by actuating the rotating platform to a different direction, etc].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-ladar sensor system disclosed by Gilliland to add the teachings of Droz as above, in order to provide a means for improving field-of- view, controlling or driving light directions both horizontally and vertically and received reflected light that formed based on the illumination so that accurate distance can be measured or any other means [Droz see para: 0041; 0050; 0038].
Regarding claims 22, “wherein the at least one optical core assembly further comprises a window forming a portion of an exterior surface of the optical core assembly enclosure, wherein the windows is tilted at an angle configured based on at least one of an orientation of an optical polygon element of the plurality of optical polygon elements or an orientation of the transmitting and receiving optics” is only a matter of design choice because having a window on the side of the exterior surface of the optical core assembly that will allow light emitted to the object or receiving reflected laser light from the object for calculating distance correctly or any other means.
Regarding claim 23, Gilliland and Droz disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Gilliland disclose: “wherein the plurality of optical polygon elements operates in a synchronized manner [see para: 0062; The receiver circuitry of the unit cell electronics shown in FIG. 15 is capable of sampling or of synchronously detecting the cumulative energy of the returned pulse peaks].
Regarding claim 24 and 25, claim 24 and 25 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 8.
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 13.
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 13.
Regarding claims 29, “further comprising controlling the first light steering device and the second light steering device independently from each other” is only a matter of design choice because it only requires mere selection of controlling independently or individually light steering devices that are available in the system.
Regarding claim 30, claim 30 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 23.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al (US 2009/0051926 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Masum Billah whose telephone number is (571)270-0701. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 - 5 PM ET.
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, Jamie J. Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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. PBA.
/MASUM BILLAH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486