DETAILED ACTION
NOTICE OF PRE-AIA OR AIA STATUS
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 5/18/2026. Applicant amended claims 1 and 8; and canceled claims 2, 3, 12 and 13. Claims 1, 4-8 and 14-17 are pending and are examined below.
CONTINUED EXAMINATION UNDER 37 CFR § 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 5/18/2026 has been entered.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
Regarding the objection to the specification, Applicant’s amendment to the abstract filed on 5/18/2026 obviates said objection – accordingly, the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Regarding the claim rejections under § 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a checking apparatus, configured to carry out a check” in claim 8 (with dependent claims 14–17).
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function at least includes:
Checking apparatus: controller 220; processor 222 – see at least FIG. 2 and associated discussion.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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(s) 1, 5-8, and 15-18 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Reichel et al. (US20150286219A1; “Reichel”) in view of Frtunikj et al. (DE102017213353A1; “Frtunikj”), in view of Justus et al. (WO2018108293A1; “Justus”) and in view of Akella et al. (WO2020092500A1; “Akella”).
As to independent claim 1, Reichel discloses a method to be carried out by an electronic control device of a first vehicle, comprising:
checking a trajectory of the first vehicle, which trajectory is planned cooperatively with a second vehicle, with respect to a potential safety-critical traffic situation, by a checking apparatus of the first vehicle based on sensor information from at least one sensor of the first vehicle (“[D]esired trajectories may also be determined which cannot be executed without cooperation between motor vehicles. The trajectory is determined in the vehicle system of the motor vehicle. Predominantly sensor information … is used to determine the trajectory” ¶ 20. “After the trajectory data have been transmitted, it can be checked in each of the motor vehicles or by the arbitration device, whether a conflict exists between the trajectories. A conflict exists especially when the distance between two vehicles is at any point of the trajectory smaller than the size of vehicles and, if appropriate, a safety margin. The safety margin can also be adapted to the driving conditions and/or the environmental conditions. When such conflict exists, there would be the risk of collision when the motor vehicles move along these trajectories” ¶ 26. “If the destination is not yet reached, the ego-information and environmental information of the motor vehicle are updated in step S108 and the process is repeated from step S102 on, wherein the trajectory must be newly determined only when the newly determined ego-information or environmental information shows that the previous trajectory is unfavorable” ¶ 66. “If another vehicle is detected in the environment by one of the sensors, such as the camera 31, or through communication data received by the communication device 29, then the vehicle trajectory can be transmitted to the other vehicle via the communication device 29, if a coordination condition is satisfied.” See at least ¶ 84 and FIG. 8. Note: The claimed checking analogizes to the re-evaluation disclosed in ¶ 66, in which the ego-information and environmental information (which is predominantly first vehicle sensor information) are updated and the trajectory is newly determined when the updated information shows that the previous trajectory is unfavorable.);
outputting a signal for executing the planned trajectory depending on a result of the check, the signal being effective to actuate components of the first vehicle to influence driving dynamics of the first vehicle (“If there is a conflict between the trajectories, then the coordination results in arbitration and adjustment of the trajectory of at least one motor vehicle involved in the conflict … In step S105, the driving interventions of the trajectories are executed … the trajectory must be newly determined only when the newly determined ego-information or environmental information shows that the previous trajectory is unfavorable” ¶ 66.);
Reichel fails to explicitly disclose: wherein for the checking, only data for which a time delay between capturing and utilizing the data is intentionally minimized is used, such that the data used for checking excludes a delay chain comprising one more of: any creation of object data from sensor information from at least one sensor of the second vehicle by the second vehicle, any temporal delays as a result of a fusion of object data from a plurality of sensors of the second vehicle, any maneuver planning by the second vehicle, any vehicle-to-X communication of a result of the maneuver planning or fused object data, any fusion of received fused object data of the second vehicle and of object data created from sensor information from at least one sensor of the first vehicle, or any maneuver planning by the first vehicle.
Nevertheless, Frtunikj teaches: wherein for checking of a trajectory of a first vehicle with respect to a potential safety-critical traffic situation, only data for which a time delay between capturing and utilizing the data is intentionally minimized is used, such that the checking excludes a delay chain comprising one more of: any creation of object data from sensor information from at least one sensor of the second vehicle by the second vehicle, any temporal delays as a result of a fusion of object data from a plurality of sensors of the second vehicle, any maneuver planning by the second vehicle, any vehicle-to-X communication of a result of the maneuver planning or fused object data, any fusion of received fused object data of the second vehicle and of object data created from sensor information from at least one sensor of the first vehicle, or any maneuver planning by the first vehicle (“[T]he verification device is set up to check the planned trajectory for a collision of the motor vehicle with an object using the environmental data of at least one sensor, so that a verified trajectory results” ¶ 19. “[T]he environmental data of a sensor consists in particular of data that has not yet been processed by sensor data fusion with the environmental data of at least one other sensor and/or integrated into the environmental model” ¶ 20. “[T]he check of the planned trajectory for a collision of the motor vehicle with an object can be carried out sequentially using the environmental data from at least two sensors” ¶ 21. Note: Frtunikj’s checking uses only data from the vehicle’s own sensor, not yet processed by sensor data fusion from other sources. Therefore, Frtunikj excludes all six delay-chain items.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Reichel with the feature taught by Frtunikj with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for providing the independence needed for the safety-oriented verification of trajectories (see Frtunikj, ¶ 4). Applying this verification to the cooperatively planned trajectory of Reichel would have predictably yielded a safety check of that trajectory that is independent of the data used to plan it.
The combination of Reichel and Frtunikj fails to explicitly disclose: a trajectory is planned cooperatively with a second vehicle and is afflicted with latency.
Nevertheless, Justus teaches: a trajectory is planned cooperatively with a second vehicle and is afflicted with latency (“As a result, by dividing the process of authenticating a vehicle during a cooperative maneuver in a preparation stage and a maneuver execution stage, security of V2V communication can be increased and latency during V2V communication can be decreased at the same time … In the maneuver execution stage, information exclusively needs to be transmitted to those entities which were successfully authenticated during the preparation stage, which allows transmitting less information in the maneuver execution stage, thereby meeting the low latency requirement of V2V communication” ll. 18-33 at p. 16.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Reichel and Frtunikj with the feature taught by Justus with a reasonable expectation of success because the safety and efficiency of cooperative maneuvers depend on accounting for latency (see Justus, Background at pp. 1-2). Recognizing that the cooperatively planned trajectory of Reichel is afflicted with latency predictably yields a check of that trajectory which accounts for its delay.
The combination of Reichel, Frtunikj and Justus fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the planned trajectory is checked by the checking apparatus of the first vehicle based on a planned distance to be driven for the first vehicle over a defined time.
Nevertheless, Akella teaches: wherein the planned trajectory is checked by the checking apparatus of the first vehicle based on a planned distance to be driven for the first vehicle over a defined time (“[A] target trajectory can be checked to maintain a lateral displacement less than a threshold distance given a distance traveled forward by the vehicle and/or given a period of travel time” ¶ 19.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Reichel, Frtunikj and Justus with the feature taught by Akella with a reasonable expectation of success because Akella’s checks are useful for ensuring safe vehicle dynamics along a planned trajectory (see Akella, ¶ 19). Checking the planned trajectory of Reichel over a defined distance and time window predictably yields a check of the portion of the trajectory to be driven within that window.
As to independent claim 8, Reichel discloses an electronic control device for a first vehicle, comprising:
a checking apparatus, configured to carry out a check of a planned trajectory of the first vehicle with respect to a potential safety-critical traffic situation, by a checking apparatus of the first vehicle based on sensor information from at least one sensor of the first vehicle, wherein the planned trajectory was received via a vehicle-to-X communication device of the first vehicle (“[D]esired trajectories may also be determined which cannot be executed without cooperation between motor vehicles. The trajectory is determined in the vehicle system of the motor vehicle. Predominantly sensor information … is used to determine the trajectory” ¶ 20. “The trajectory may be transmitted via a vehicle-to-vehicle communication (car2car communication) or via a vehicle-to-infrastructure communication (car2x communication)” ¶ 25. “After the trajectory data have been transmitted, it can be checked in each of the motor vehicles or by the arbitration device, whether a conflict exists between the trajectories. A conflict exists especially when the distance between two vehicles is at any point of the trajectory smaller than the size of vehicles and, if appropriate, a safety margin. The safety margin can also be adapted to the driving conditions and/or the environmental conditions. When such conflict exists, there would be the risk of collision when the motor vehicles move along these trajectories” ¶ 26. “If the destination is not yet reached, the ego-information and environmental information of the motor vehicle are updated in step S108 and the process is repeated from step S102 on, wherein the trajectory must be newly determined only when the newly determined ego-information or environmental information shows that the previous trajectory is unfavorable” ¶ 66. “If another vehicle is detected in the environment by one of the sensors, such as the camera 31, or through communication data received by the communication device 29, then the vehicle trajectory can be transmitted to the other vehicle via the communication device 29, if a coordination condition is satisfied.” See at least ¶ 84 and FIG. 8. “If the vehicle system 28 is not designated as the arbitration device, then the vehicle system 28 must only be able to evaluate and execute a proposed or prescribed trajectory received with the communication device 29” ¶ 86. Note: The claimed checking analogizes to the re-evaluation disclosed in ¶ 66, in which the ego-information and environmental information (which is predominantly first vehicle sensor information) are updated and the trajectory is newly determined when the updated information shows that the previous trajectory is unfavorable.);
wherein the checking apparatus is implemented at a controller and the controller is configured to output a signal for executing the planned trajectory depending on a result of the check, the signal being effective to actuate components of the first vehicle to influence driving dynamics of the first vehicle (“If there is a conflict between the trajectories, then the coordination results in arbitration and adjustment of the trajectory of at least one motor vehicle involved in the conflict … In step S105, the driving interventions of the trajectories are executed … the trajectory must be newly determined only when the newly determined ego-information or environmental information shows that the previous trajectory is unfavorable” ¶ 66.);
Reichel fails to explicitly disclose: wherein for the checking, only data for which a time delay between capturing and utilizing the data is intentionally minimized is used, such that the data used for checking excludes a delay chain comprising one more of: any creation of object data from sensor information from at least one sensor of the second vehicle by the second vehicle, any temporal delays as a result of a fusion of object data from a plurality of sensors of the second vehicle, any maneuver planning by the second vehicle, any vehicle-to-X communication of a result of the maneuver planning or fused object data, any fusion of received fused object data of the second vehicle and of object data created from sensor information from at least one sensor of the first vehicle, or any maneuver planning by the first vehicle.
Nevertheless, Frtunikj teaches: wherein for checking of a trajectory of a first vehicle with respect to a potential safety-critical traffic situation, only data for which a time delay between capturing and utilizing the data is intentionally minimized is used, such that the checking excludes a delay chain comprising one more of: any creation of object data from sensor information from at least one sensor of the second vehicle by the second vehicle, any temporal delays as a result of a fusion of object data from a plurality of sensors of the second vehicle, any maneuver planning by the second vehicle, any vehicle-to-X communication of a result of the maneuver planning or fused object data, any fusion of received fused object data of the second vehicle and of object data created from sensor information from at least one sensor of the first vehicle, or any maneuver planning by the first vehicle (“[T]he verification device is set up to check the planned trajectory for a collision of the motor vehicle with an object using the environmental data of at least one sensor, so that a verified trajectory results” ¶ 19. “[T]he environmental data of a sensor consists in particular of data that has not yet been processed by sensor data fusion with the environmental data of at least one other sensor and/or integrated into the environmental model” ¶ 20. “[T]he check of the planned trajectory for a collision of the motor vehicle with an object can be carried out sequentially using the environmental data from at least two sensors” ¶ 21. Note: Frtunikj’s checking uses only data from the vehicle’s own sensor, not yet processed by sensor data fusion from other sources. Therefore, Frtunikj excludes all six delay-chain items.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Reichel with the feature taught by Frtunikj with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for providing the independence needed for the safety-oriented verification of trajectories (see Frtunikj, ¶ 4). Applying this verification to the cooperatively planned trajectory of Reichel would have predictably yielded a safety check of that trajectory that is independent of the data used to plan it.
The combination of Reichel and Frtunikj fails to explicitly disclose: a trajectory is planned cooperatively with a second vehicle and is afflicted with latency.
Nevertheless, Justus teaches: a trajectory is planned cooperatively with a second vehicle and is afflicted with latency (“As a result, by dividing the process of authenticating a vehicle during a cooperative maneuver in a preparation stage and a maneuver execution stage, security of V2V communication can be increased and latency during V2V communication can be decreased at the same time … In the maneuver execution stage, information exclusively needs to be transmitted to those entities which were successfully authenticated during the preparation stage, which allows transmitting less information in the maneuver execution stage, thereby meeting the low latency requirement of V2V communication” ll. 18-33 at p. 16.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Reichel and Frtunikj with the feature taught by Justus with a reasonable expectation of success because the safety and efficiency of cooperative maneuvers depend on accounting for latency (see Justus, Background at pp. 1-2). Recognizing that the cooperatively planned trajectory of Reichel is afflicted with latency predictably yields a check of that trajectory which accounts for its delay.
The combination of Reichel, Frtunikj and Justus fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the planned trajectory is checked by the checking apparatus of the first vehicle based on a planned distance to be driven for the first vehicle over a defined time.
Nevertheless, Akella teaches: wherein the planned trajectory is checked by the checking apparatus of the first vehicle based on a planned distance to be driven for the first vehicle over a defined time (“[A] target trajectory can be checked to maintain a lateral displacement less than a threshold distance given a distance traveled forward by the vehicle and/or given a period of travel time” ¶ 19.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Reichel, Frtunikj and Justus with the feature taught by Akella with a reasonable expectation of success because Akella’s checks are useful for ensuring safe vehicle dynamics along a planned trajectory (see Akella, ¶ 19). Checking the planned trajectory of Reichel over a defined distance and time window predictably yields a check of the portion of the trajectory to be driven within that window.
As to claims 5 and 15, Reichel fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the signal for executing the planned trajectory is output if no potentially safety-critical traffic situation is identified during the checking of the planned trajectory.
Nevertheless, Frtunikj teaches: wherein the signal for executing the planned trajectory is output if no potentially safety-critical traffic situation is identified during the checking of the planned trajectory (“[T]he verification device is configured to select the verified trajectory by means of a trajectory selection device upon successful verification of the planned trajectory, and to specify the verified trajectory to the driver assistance system as the trajectory to be driven” ¶ 35. “Successful verification of the planned trajectory means, in particular, that when the motor vehicle moves along the planned trajectory, there will be no collision of the motor vehicle with an object” ¶ 36.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Reichel with the feature taught by Frtunikj with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for ensuring that a vehicle drives only a trajectory verified to be free of collision (see Frtunikj, ¶ 36). Executing the planned trajectory upon successful verification predictably yields driving of a cooperatively planned trajectory only when the check identifies no safety-critical situation.
As to claims 6 and 16, Reichel fails to explicitly disclose: wherein a signal for initiating a safety measure is output if a potentially safety-critical traffic situation is identified during the checking of the planned trajectory.
Nevertheless, Frtunikj teaches: wherein a signal for initiating a safety measure is output if a potentially safety-critical traffic situation is identified during the checking of the planned trajectory (“[T]he verification device is configured to generate a fallback environmental model using the environmental data of a subset of the vehicle's sensors if the verification of the planned trajectory is unsuccessful” ¶ 37. “Unsuccessful verification of the planned trajectory means, in particular, that if the motor vehicle moves along the planned trajectory, there will be a collision between the motor vehicle and an object” ¶ 38. “[T]he verification device is set up to plan a fallback trajectory for the motor vehicle, depending on the fallback environment model. The fallback trajectory may in particular be an emergency maneuver and/or a risk-minimizing maneuver, such as an emergency stop maneuver” ¶ 41.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Reichel with the feature taught by Frtunikj with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for preventing a vehicle from driving a trajectory in which a collision is expected (see Frtunikj, ¶ 38). Initiating a safety measure upon unsuccessful verification predictably yields a fallback maneuver in place of a cooperatively planned trajectory when a check identifies a safety-critical situation.
As to claims 7 and 17, Reichel discloses: replanning the planned trajectory (“If the destination is not yet reached, the ego-information and environmental information of the motor vehicle are updated in step S108 and the process is repeated from step S102 on, wherein the trajectory must be newly determined only when the newly determined ego-information or environmental information shows that the previous trajectory is unfavorable” ¶ 66.).
Reichel fails to explicitly disclose: wherein replanning of the planned trajectory, an evasive maneuver can be provided as the safety measure.
Nevertheless, Frtunikj teaches: an evasive maneuver can be provided as the safety measure (“[T]he verification device is set up to plan a fallback trajectory for the motor vehicle, depending on the fallback environment model. The fallback trajectory may in particular be an emergency maneuver and/or a risk-minimizing maneuver, such as an emergency stop maneuver” ¶ 41.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Reichel with the feature taught by Frtunikj with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for implementing an evasive maneuver as a safety measure (see Frtunikj, ¶ 41). Replanning a trajectory to initiate a safety measure predictably yields performing an evasive maneuver in place of a cooperatively planned trajectory when a check identifies a safety-critical situation.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Reichel in view of Frtunikj, in view of Justus and in view of Akella as applied to claim 1 – further in view of Wood et al. (US20190004538A1; “Wood”)
As to claims 4 and 14, the combination of Reichel, Frtunikj, Justus and Wood fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the at least one sensor of the first vehicle, and/or a section of a capture region of the at least one sensor of the first vehicle, which is assessed as relevant for the planned trajectory is selected from a plurality of sensors of the first vehicle to create the object data.
Nevertheless, Wood teaches: wherein the at least one sensor of the first vehicle, and/or a section of a capture region of the at least one sensor of the first vehicle, which is assessed as relevant for the planned trajectory is selected from a plurality of sensors of the first vehicle to create the object data (“The collision mitigation system can determine a region of interest in a surrounding environment of the autonomous vehicle based at least in part on the motion plan data” ¶ 26; see also ¶ 49. “[T]he collision mitigation system 138 can steer a sensor by filtering data corresponding to the region of interest from data provided by the sensor” ¶ 50. “[T]he collision mitigation system 138 can identify one or more object(s) in the region of interest based at least in part on the data obtained by the sensor(s) 140” ¶ 59.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Reichel, Frtunikj, Justus and Akella with the feature taught by Wood with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful to focus a check on a region most likely to contain a potential collision (see Wood, ¶ 30). Selecting the relevant section of the capture region for the check of the planned trajectory predictably yields object data limited to the region the vehicle will travel through.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/MARIO C GONZALEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights