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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 31, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on March 31, 2026. Claims 1-15 were previously pending, of which claims 1, 8, 10 and 15 have been amended, no have been cancelled, and claims 16 and 17 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-17 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 7-11 filed March 31, 2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the interpretation under USC § 112(f) , the amendments have removed the term “acquisition unit” from claims 1,8 and 10. Therefore, the interpretation has been withdrawn for these claims.
With respect to the rejection under USC § 112(b) , the amendments have removed the term “acquisition unit” from claims 1, 8 and 10. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn for these claims.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)/103, applicant's arguments have been fully considered and they are persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "when a group ride mode in which the leaning vehicle travels together with a plurality of other leaning vehicles in a group is operable, the controller causes the leaning vehicle to execute, as the automatic acceleration and deceleration operation, a positional relationship adjustment control with respect to a virtual moving object that represents a plurality of peripheral vehicles near the leaning vehicle (100), wherein the plurality of peripheral vehicles includes more than one leaning vehicle (200A),") are not clearly defined in the prior art under Knitt. Therefore, the rejection in view of the amended claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) is withdrawn. However, even though the specific limitation in claim 1 "... a virtual moving object that represents a plurality of peripheral vehicles (200) near the leaning vehicle (100)” is clearly defined in Knitt FIGS. 7A-B and [0030]. As such, Knitt discloses controlling the motorcycle 10 based on an object represented by a GUI element. The GUI element (i.e., icons of the motorcycle 30, the motorcycle 40, or the rectangular boxes) of Knitt represents a live visual representation of a plurality of objects in the field of view as a GUI display is related to terms that are known in the art. Although Knitt controls the intravehicular distance based on a virtual moving object, it only specifies one “locked” target in the disclosure for following. However, when this limitation is viewed with reference to Ohashi’s device (see 103 ref below) , which provides control using multiple intravehicular relationships including in the same lane as noted in Fig. 3, 19, 29 and 30, it would be obvious to utilize this control in Ohashi for the purpose of group ride mode as in the applicant’s amended Claim 1 limitation. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is issued for the entirety of the amended claims , as presented in the Office Action 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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knitt et al., US 2019/0248367 Al (Hereinafter, “Knitt”), in view of Ohashi et al., US2017/0144665 A1 (Hereinafter, “Ohashi”).
Regarding Claim 1 and 15, Knitt discloses an electronic controller (20) configured to maneuver a leaning vehicle (10), the electronic controller (20) configured to: acquire a surrounding environment information that is information about an environment surrounding the leaning vehicle (10), wherein the surrounding environment information is acquired while the leaning vehicle travels; and cause the leaning vehicle to execute an automatic acceleration and deceleration operation based on the surrounding environment information that is acquired; See [0024], “FIG. 2 is a block diagram of the adaptive cruise control system 20. In the example illustrated, the system 20 includes a transceiver 210, an electronic an electronic controller 220, a display device 230, speed sensors 240, a braking system 250, an acceleration control system 260, a camera 270, and a communication bus 280”. Also, in [0025], “the transceiver 210 includes one or more radar sensors, LIDAR (light detection and ranging) sensors, ultrasonic sensors, or a combination thereof located at different positions of the motorcycle 10. The transceiver 210 is configured to receive signals (for example, RF or sound signals) indicative of the motorcycle's distance from and position relative to, vehicles in the vehicle's surrounding environment”. Also, in [0030], “FIG. 4 is a flow chart illustrating a method 400 of providing adaptive cruise control for a motorcycle 10 (shown in FIG. 1) performed by the system 20”.
wherein when a group ride mode in which the leaning vehicle travels together with a plurality of other leaning vehicles in a group is operable, the electronic controller causes the leaning vehicle to execute, as the automatic acceleration and deceleration operation, a positional relationship adjustment control with respect to a virtual moving object that represents a plurality of peripheral vehicles near the leaning vehicle, wherein the plurality of peripheral vehicles (200) includes more than one leaning vehicle (200A).group of motorcycles, such as in a staggered formation. As illustrated in FIG. 4, at block 402, an adaptive cruise control application 224 is executed. At block 404, the electronic controller 220 determines if one or more vehicles (such as motorcycles) are available for locking based on data received from the transceiver 210 ... If one or more vehicles are identified at block 404, the method 400 proceeds to block 406 otherwise the method 400 proceeds to block 412. At block 406, the display device 230 displays a graphical user interface showing relative locations of the objects available for locking”.
Knitt discloses an electronic controller for a vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose the positional relationship control with multiple vehicles. However, Ohashi teaches an electronic controller including the positional control to a set point (virtual object) defined based on (i.e. including) multiple leaning vehicles in Fig.3, 19, 29-30 and [0087], [0090],[0091] and [0105] where the following point for the motorcycle is set/defined by two leading objects (leaning vehicles) of the group.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Knitt’s device with the intravehicular spacing limitation disclosed in Ohashi with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to perform a cruise control superior in the basic characteristics and the vehicle approach avoiding performance of motorcycles , see Ohashi [0006].
Regarding Claim 2, Knitt discloses the following limitation dependent on claim 1:
wherein the virtual moving object represents only the plurality of other leaning vehicles belonging to the group. See [0034], “FIGS. 5A-5B illustrate a motorcycle traveling in a group riding scenario in accordance with some embodiments. FIG. 5A shows the motorcycle 10 detecting the motorcycle 40 riding directly in front in the path of travel of the motorcycle 10. In some embodiments, a graphical user interface displayed in the display device 230 shows motorcycle 40 as being highlighted. In the example shown in FIG. 5A, the motorcycle 40 is shown within a rectangular box 42 having dotted lines to indicate that motorcycle 10 speed is being controlled by the motorcycle 40. In some embodiments, the motorcycle also detects and displays the motorcycle 30 that is staggered and offset to the right of the motorcycle 10 when the motorcycle 30 is within the field-of-view of the transceiver 210”. Note: There is no mention of locking to any other vehicles in the cited prior art, so it is interpreted this is not an available option in the group ride.
Regarding Claim 3, Knitt discloses the following limitations dependent on claim 2:
wherein the virtual moving object represents: the plurality of other leaning vehicles forming a first line to which the leaning vehicle belongs; and the plurality of other leaning vehicles forming a second line to which the leaning vehicle does not belong. See [0045], “FIGS. 7A-7B are illustrations of graphical user interfaces having various objects used for controlling the speed of a motorcycle in a group riding scenario, in accordance with some embodiments. FIG. 7A is a graphical user interface 710 showing the motorcycle riding in the back of the group and locked in with motorcycle 30 that is riding staggered to the right of motorcycle 10”.
Regarding Claim 4, Knitt discloses the following limitations dependent on claim 1:
wherein the electronic controller (20) is configured to: acquire, as the surrounding environment information, a set of positional relationship information that is information about a plurality of positional relationships between the leaning vehicle and respective ones of the peripheral vehicles, and determine, based on the set of positional relationship information a target value used in the positional relationship adjustment control performed with respect to the virtual moving object. See [0046][, “FIGS. 8A-8B are illustrations of graphical user interfaces having objects used for controlling the speed of the motorcycle 10 by locking to a target (motorcycle 30) that
is offset in a lane begins overtaking a vehicle in the same lane, in accordance with some embodiments. FIG. 8B shows the motorcycle 30 shifting to the left lane to get ready for overtaking vehicle 50. Once the motorcycle 30 moves over to the left lane, then the speed of motorcycle 10 needs to be lowered to maintain the desired gap to vehicle 50 other than keeping the desired gap to vehicle 30. As a result, motorcycle 10 may begin to control to vehicle 50 (if the output of the kinematic an electronic controller tracking vehicle 50 is proving a speed/acceleration request that is less than the output of the kinematic an electronic controller tracking motorcycle 30) but does not lock onto motorcycle 50 because system 20 is already locked onto motorcycle 30”.
Regarding Claim 5, Knitt discloses the following limitations dependent on claim 4:
wherein the electronic controller (20) is configured to: derive a virtual positional relationship information based on the set of positional relationship information, the virtual positional relationship information is information about a positional relationship between the leaning vehicle and the virtual moving object, and determine, based on the virtual positional relationship information , the target value used in the positional relationship adjustment control performed with respect to the virtual moving object. See Fig.10 and [0049], “At block 1020, the electronic processor 222 dynamically controls the speed of the motorcycle dynamically based on an output of a first kinematic an electronic controller 225, wherein the first kinematic an electronic controller is configured to receive a first input including at least one of an item selected from at least one of a distance of the motorcycle 10 to the motorcycle 30, the velocity of the motorcycle 30, velocity of the motorcycle 10, a desired separation distance (for example, a gap distance) between the motorcycle 10 and the motorcycle 30, and a desired separation time (for example, a gap time) between the motorcycle 10 and the motorcycle 30 (as shown in FIG. 9)”.
Regarding Claim 6, Knitt discloses the following limitations dependent on claim 4:
wherein the electronic controller (20) is configured to: determine a separate target value based on the set of positional relationship information, the separate target value is set with respect to the respective ones of the peripheral vehicles and used in the positional relationship adjustment control performed with respect to the respective ones of the peripheral vehicles; and determine, based on the separate target value, the target value that is used in the positional relationship adjustment control performed with respect to the virtual moving object. See [0050], “In some embodiments, the electronic processor 222 determines the presence of a second vehicle 30, wherein the second vehicle 40 is in the direct path of travel of the motorcycle. The electronic processor 222 is further configured to control the speed of the motorcycle 10 dynamically based on an output of a second kinematic an electronic controller 226, wherein the second kinematic an electronic controller 226 is configured to receive a second input including at least one of an item selected from the group consisting of distance of the motorcycle to the second vehicle, velocity of the second vehicle, velocity of the motorcycle, the cruise set speed associated with the motorcycle, a desired separation distance between the motorcycle and the second vehicle, and a desired separation time between the motorcycle and the second vehicle
(as shown in FIG. 9)”.
Regarding Claim 7, Knitt discloses an electronic controller for a vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose the lateral positional relationship. However, Ohashi teaches the following limitations dependent on claim 4:
wherein the electronic controller (20) is configured to: acquire, as the positional relationship information: a longitudinal positional relationship information that is information about a positional relationship between the leaning vehicle and the respective ones of peripheral vehicles along a front-rear direction of the leaning vehicle; and a lateral positional relationship information that is information about a positional relationship between the leaning vehicle and the respective ones of peripheral vehicles in a left-right direction of the leaning vehicle. See [0088], “The cruise control means 5 of the present embodiment can determine a forward intervehicular distance Y which is a distance relative to the preceding vehicle in a traveling direction and a side intervehicular distance X which is a distance relative to the preceding vehicle in a vehicle width direction ( direction substantially orthogonal to the traveling direction) based on information detected by detection means 10. The cruise control means 5 can perform the cruise control in accordance with the forward intervehicular distance Y and the side intervehicular distance X, judge a plurality of vehicles traveling in a same traffic lane as preceding vehicles, and perform the cruise control in accordance with the forward intervehicular distance Y and the side intervehicular distance X relative to the preceding vehicles respectively”.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Knitt’s device with the intervehicular spacing limitation disclosed in Ohashi with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to perform a cruise control superior in the basic characteristics and the vehicle approach avoiding performance of motorcycles. , see Ohashi [0006].
Regarding Claim 8, Knitt discloses the following limitations dependent on claim 4:
wherein the electronic controller (20) is configured to: determine a weight with respect to each of the plurality of peripheral vehicles for which the positional relationship information is acquired; and determine, based on the weight, the target value that is used in the positional relationship adjustment control performed with respect to the virtual moving object. See [0045], “FIGS. 7A-7B are illustrations of graphical user interfaces having various objects used for controlling the speed of a motorcycle in a group riding scenario, in accordance with some embodiments. FIG. 7A is a graphical user
interface 710 showing the motorcycle riding in the back of the group and locked in with motorcycle 30 that is riding staggered to the right of motorcycle 10. Rectangle 32 indicates to the rider of motorcycle 10 that the motorcycle 10 is locked onto the motorcycle 30. Also riding ahead of motorcycle 10 and motorcycle 30 is the leader of the group (motorcycle 40). FIG. 7B is a graphical user interface 720
that shows the motorcycle 10 that is locked onto motorcycle 30 further controlling to motorcycle 40 as it slows its speed. When motorcycle 40 slows down and is within a predetermined gap time with either the motorcycle 30 or motorcycle 40, then the rectangle 42 indicates that the system 20 is controlling motorcycle 10 based on the speed and position of motorcycle 40 rather than motorcycle 30 because controlling to motorcycle 40 requires a slower speed/greater deceleration than by controlling to motorcycle 30. Note: For purposes of this examination, weight will be interpreted as an arbitrary percentage assigned by the execution unit and does not corroborate to a specific value based on information obtained from the specification. The electronic processor in Knitt can calculate a positional relationship for the motorcycle based on the kinematic an electronic controller data (i.e. weight, speed, and location).
Regarding Claim 9, Knitt discloses the following limitations dependent on claim 8:
wherein the electronic controller (20) is configured to determine the weight based on a line information that is information about a line formed by the group. See [0045], “FIGS. 7A-7B are illustrations of graphical user interfaces having various objects used for controlling the speed of a motorcycle in a group riding scenario, in accordance with some embodiments. FIG. 7A is a graphical user interface 710 showing the motorcycle riding in the back of the group and locked in with motorcycle 30 that is riding staggered to the right of motorcycle 10. Rectangle 32 indicates to the rider of motorcycle 10 that the motorcycle 10 is locked onto the motorcycle 30. Also riding ahead of motorcycle 10 and motorcycle 30 is the leader of the group (motorcycle 40). FIG. 7B is a graphical user interface 720 that shows the motorcycle 10 that is locked onto motorcycle 30 further controlling to motorcycle 40 as it slows its speed”. Note: For purposes of this examination, weight will be interpreted as any value that encourages a prioritization to the vehicle which should be the target. In Knitt, the higher deceleration determination between the two surrounding vehicles is a value that would be a deciding weight in the calculation. The electronic processor in can calculate a positional relationship weighting for the motorcycle based on the kinematic an electronic controller data (i.e. size, speed, and location).
Regarding Claim 10, Knitt discloses the following limitations dependent on claim 1:
wherein the electronic controller (20) is configured to determine the weight (k1, k2) based on the surrounding environment information that is acquired. See [0049], “ At block 1020, the electronic processor 222 dynamically controls the speed of the motorcycle dynamically based on an output of a first kinematic an electronic controller 225, wherein the first kinematic an electronic controller is configured to receive a first input including at least one of an item selected from at least one of a distance of the motorcycle 10 to the motorcycle 30, the velocity of the motorcycle 30, velocity of the motorcycle 10, a desired separation distance (for example, a gap distance) between the motorcycle 10 and the motorcycle 30, and a desired separation time (for example, a gap time) between the motorcycle 10 and the motorcycle 30 (as shown in FIG. 9)”. Note: For purposes of this examination, weight will be interpreted as an arbitrary percentage assigned by the execution unit and does not corroborate to a unique value based on information obtained from the specification. The electronic processor in Knitt can calculate a positional relationship for the motorcycle based on the kinematic an electronic controller data (i.e. weight, speed, and location).
Regarding Claim 11, Knitt discloses the following limitations dependent on claim 8:
wherein the electronic controller (20) is configured to determine the weight based on a setting information that is information about an input by a rider of the leaning vehicle. See Fig. 11-15 and [0049-0051], “wherein the first kinematic an electronic controller is configured to receive a first input including at least one of an item selected from at least one of … a desired separation distance (for example, a gap distance) between the motorcycle 10 and the motorcycle 30… a second input including at least one of an item selected from the group consisting of… a desired separation distance between the motorcycle and the second vehicle”.
Regarding Claim 12, Knitt discloses the following limitations dependent on claim 8:
wherein the electronic controller (20) is configured to determine the weight based on a behavior information that is information about a behavior of the leaning vehicle. See [0045], “FIG. 7B is a graphical user interface 720 that shows the motorcycle 10 that is locked onto motorcycle 30 further controlling to motorcycle 40 as it slows its speed. When motorcycle 40 slows down and is within a predetermined gap time with either the motorcycle 30 or motorcycle 40, then the rectangle 42 indicates that the system 20 is controlling motorcycle 10 based on the speed and position of motorcycle 40 rather than motorcycle 30 because controlling to motorcycle 40 requires a slower speed/greater deceleration than by controlling to motorcycle 30”.
Regarding Claim 13, Knitt discloses the following limitations dependent on claim 1:
wherein the electronic controller (20) is configured to execute an operation that causes a notification device to display a mark representing the virtual moving object. See [0034], “ FIGS. 5A-5B illustrate a motorcycle traveling in a group riding scenario in accordance with some embodiments. FIG. 5A shows the motorcycle 10 detecting the motorcycle 40 riding directly in front in the path of travel of the motorcycle 10. In some embodiments, a graphical user interface displayed in the display device 230 shows motorcycle 40 as being highlighted. In the example shown in FIG. 5A, the motorcycle 40 is shown within a rectangular box 42 having dotted lines to indicate that motorcycle 10 speed is being controlled by the motorcycle 40”.
Regarding Claim 14, Knitt discloses the following limitations dependent on claim 1:
wherein the electronic controller executes an operation that causes a notification device to notify of an information about the virtual moving object. See Fig.6 and [0038], “At block 606, the electronic an electronic controller 220 determining whether the motorcycle 10 is locked to an object to the left side of motorcycle 10. When the motorcycle is locked onto a nearby motorcycle 30 (as shown in FIG. 5A) that is to the left of motorcycle 10, then the method 600 displays a "MOTORCYCLE" icon to the left of the motorcycle 10 in a graphical user interface displayed on the display device 230 (block 610). When the motorcycle 10 does not have an object to its right or to its left, the method 600 proceeds to block 614. At block 614, the display device 230 displays a "MOTORCYCLE" icon directly to the front of the motorcycle 10 in the graphical user interface displayed on the display device 230 (block 614)”. In [0039], “ Returning to block 618, the electronic an electronic controller 220 determines whether an object is in the path of travel of motorcycle 10. When it is determined that there is an object in the path of travel of motorcycle 10, the display device 230 displays a "CAR" icon in the path of travel of the motorcycle 10. Upon displaying the "CAR" icon, the method 600 further proceeds to block 632”.
Regarding Claim 16, Knitt discloses an electronic controller for a vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose the virtual positional relationship of multiple vehicles. However, Ohashi teaches the following limitations dependent on claim 1:
wherein the virtual moving object is an aggregated positional relationship derived from positional relationship information corresponding to each of the more than one leaning vehicle (200A).
See Ohashi [0167], “in place of obtaining the forward intervehicular distances and the side intervehicular distances relative to the preceding vehicle by the cruise control means 5, it is possible to obtain other parameters ( e.g. respective distances from a virtual point on a traffic lane) exhibiting relations between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle(s) by the cruise control means 5. This makes it possible to substantially judge the side intervehicular distances between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle(s).”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Knitt’s device with the intervehicular spacing limitation disclosed in Ohashi with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to perform a cruise control superior in the basic characteristics and the vehicle approach avoiding performance of motorcycles. , see Ohashi [0006].
Regarding Claim 17, Knitt discloses an electronic controller for a vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose the lateral positional relationship. However, Ohashi teaches the following limitations dependent on claim 1:
wherein the positional relationship adjustment control is performed based on positional relationship information related to each of the plurality of peripheral vehicles represented by the virtual moving object. See Fig.7A/B and [0030], “the method is described as being performed by the system 20 and, in particular, the electronic an electronic controller 220 … a graphical user interface to be displayed on the display device 230 and adaptive cruise control for the motorcycle 10 while riding amongst a group of motorcycles, such as in a staggered formation. As illustrated in FIG. 4, at block 402, an adaptive cruise control application 224 is executed. At block 404, the electronic controller 220 determines if one or more vehicles (such as motorcycles) are available for locking based on data received from the transceiver 210 ... If one or more vehicles are identified at block 404, the method 400 proceeds to block 406 otherwise the method 400 proceeds to block 412. At block 406, the display device 230 displays a graphical user interface showing relative locations of the objects available for locking”.
Knitt discloses an electronic controller for a vehicle that locks on a virtual moving object, but does not explicitly disclose the positional relationship control with multiple vehicles at once. However, Ohashi teaches an electronic controller including the positional control with multiple vehicles in at least Fig.3 and [0105], “saddled vehicle judges a plurality of vehicles traveling in the same traffic lane as preceding vehicles 1 and/or 2 and controls the own vehicle A relative to the preceding vehicles 1 and/or 2 in accordance with respective forward intervehicular distances Y and side intervehicular distances X relative to them, it is possible to shorten a row of vehicles when a plurality of vehicles travel in a same traffic lane if traveling in two alternate rows of two longitudinal rows as compared with a single longitudinal row travel in a same traffic lane. Although, in some illustrations and descriptions of the present disclosure a plurality of vehicles traveling in a same traffic lane in two alternate rows are shown as the preceding vehicles, a single vehicle traveling in a same traffic lane may be target of the cruise control means of the present embodiment.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Knitt’s device with the intervehicular spacing limitation disclosed in Ohashi with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to perform a cruise control superior in the basic characteristics and the vehicle approach avoiding performance of motorcycles. , see Ohashi [0006].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights