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
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11, 13-17, 19, and 21-27 of US Application No. 18/333295 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 13, 17, and 21-24, canceled claim 18, and added claims 26 and 27. Applicant previously canceled claims 4, 8-10, 12, and 20.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The previous rejections of claims 1, 5, 6, 11, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn in consideration of amended independent claims 1 and 24.
The previous rejections of claims 1, 5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and of claims 2, 3, 6, 11, 22, 23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in consideration of amended independent claim 1. However, new rejections of claims 1-3, 5-7, 11, 22, and 23 are set forth below.
The previous rejections of claims 13-16, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained. The previously-cited prior art teaches all of the limitations of the claims as indicated in the rejections set forth below.
The previous rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in consideration of amended claim 21. However, a new rejection of claim 21 is set forth below.
The previous rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in consideration of the amended claims. However, a new rejection of claim 21 is set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thode (US 2018/0059682 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Thode discloses materials handling vehicle path validation and dynamic path modification and teaches:
one or more processors; and a data store configured to store computer executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (computing device 200 having a processor 205 and computer-readable medium 210 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0043]), configure the one or more processors to:
obtain at least one of:
machine operation plan data indicative of actuation of one or more controllable subsystems of a mobile machine operating at a worksite, wherein the actuation of the one or more controllable subsystems affects one or more dimensions of a boundary of the mobile machine (dynamic exterior boundary 13 having portions that approximate articulation boundaries 17 of a vehicle – see at least Fig. 1A and ¶ [0039]), or
georeferenced worksite data indicative of one or more georeferenced characteristics of a terrain of the worksite (another polygon or obstacle in warehouse – see at least ¶ [0057]);
generate, based on the at least one of machine operation plan data or georeferenced worksite data, a dynamic boundary output corresponding to the mobile machine, the dynamic boundary output indicative of a predictive boundary of the mobile machine at a location along a predictive path of the mobile machine at the worksite (dynamic exterior boundary 13 is configured to match the operational parameters of the vehicle – see at least ¶ [0073]; path validation logic 240 predicts the position of the vehicle around a path in a warehouse at any point along the path, where the vehicle is defined by the dynamic exterior boundary – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0055]; clearance polygons for each pose of the vehicle as it traverses the path – see at least ¶ [0056]; dynamic exterior boundary represented by polygon – see at least ¶ [0038]); and
control a machine subsystem based on the dynamic boundary output corresponding to the mobile machine (at 1316, the proposed path may be modified based on impingement of the dynamic vehicle boundary with other obstacles determined at 1314 – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0084]-[0085]; at 1318, drive unit D, steering unit S, localization module L and navigation module N cooperate to direct the vehicle along the modified proposed travel path – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 5, Thode further teaches:
wherein the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the one or more processors to:
generate a confidence band corresponding to the dynamic boundary output, the confidence band surrounding an area of the worksite to which the predictive boundary of the first mobile machine corresponds (dynamic clearance boundary 19 – see at least Fig. 1A and ¶ [0038]); and
perform the machine control based further on the confidence band (path validation tool may use the clearance boundary 19 polygon first – see at least ¶ [0058]; at 1316, the proposed path may be modified based on impingement of the dynamic vehicle boundary with other obstacles determined at 1314 – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0084]-[0085]; at 1318, drive unit D, steering unit S, localization module L and navigation module N cooperate to direct the vehicle along the modified proposed travel path – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 24, Thode discloses materials handling vehicle path validation and dynamic path modification and teaches:
one or more processors; and a data store configured to store computer executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (computing device 200 having a processor 205 and computer-readable medium 210 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0043]), configure the one or more processors to:
obtain data indicative of a mobile machine operating at a worksite (dynamic exterior boundary 13 having portions that approximate articulation boundaries 17 of a vehicle – see at least Fig. 1A and ¶ [0039]);
generate a dynamic boundary output corresponding to the mobile machine, the dynamic boundary output indicative of a predictive boundary of the mobile machine at a location along a predictive path of the mobile machine at the worksite (dynamic exterior boundary 13 is configured to match the operational parameters of the vehicle – see at least ¶ [0073]; path validation logic 240 predicts the position of the vehicle around a path in a warehouse at any point along the path, where the vehicle is defined by the dynamic exterior boundary – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0055]; clearance polygons for each pose of the vehicle as it traverses the path – see at least ¶ [0056]; dynamic exterior boundary represented by polygon – see at least ¶ [0038]);
generate a confidence band surrounding an area of the worksite to which the predictive boundary of the mobile machine corresponds (dynamic clearance boundary 19 offset from dynamic exterior boundary 13 to provide for an additional margin for error – see at least Fig. 1A and ¶ [0060]), wherein the confidence band is generated based on at least one of:
machine sensor data indicative of one or more sensed characteristics of the mobile machine,
machine configuration data indicative of one or more configuration characteristics of the mobile machine,
georeferenced worksite data indicative of one or more georeferenced characteristics of the worksite, or
machine operation plan data indicative of one or more characteristics of an operation being performed by the mobile machine at the worksite (dynamic exterior boundary 13 may be determined based on articulation boundaries 17 of the vehicle – see at least Fig. 1A and ¶ [0039]); and
control a machine subsystem based on the confidence band (path validation tool may use the clearance boundary 19 polygon first – see at least ¶ [0058]; at 1316, the proposed path may be modified based on impingement of the dynamic vehicle boundary with other obstacles determined at 1314 – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0084]-[0085]; at 1318, drive unit D, steering unit S, localization module L and navigation module N cooperate to direct the vehicle along the modified proposed travel path – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 25, Thode further teaches:
wherein the predictive boundary of the mobile machine changes, along the predictive path, in at least one of size or dimension based on predictive machine operation along the predictive path (dynamic exterior boundary 13 is configured to match the operational parameters of the vehicle – see at least ¶ [0073]; path validation logic 240 predicts the position of the vehicle around a path in a warehouse at any point along the path, where the vehicle is defined by the dynamic exterior boundary – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0055]).
Regarding claim 26, Thode further teaches:
wherein the dynamic boundary output indicative of the predictive boundary of the mobile machine is generated based on the machine operation plan data indicative of actuation of the one or more controllable subsystems of the mobile machine (dynamic exterior boundary 13 having portions that approximate articulation boundaries 17 of a vehicle – see at least Fig. 1A and ¶ [0039]; dynamic exterior boundary 13 is configured to match the operational parameters of the vehicle – see at least ¶ [0073]).
Claims 13-16, 19, 22, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Burns (US 6,393,362 B1).
Regarding claim 13, Burns discloses a dynamic safety envelope for autonomous-vehicle collision avoidance system and teaches:
obtaining data indicative of one or more characteristics of a first mobile machine operating at the worksite (variable safety envelope 44 may be determined as a function of current speed – see at least 5:50-6:12; i.e., data indicative of current speed is required to determine the safety envelope);
generating, based on the obtained data, a dynamic boundary output corresponding to the first mobile machine, the dynamic boundary output indicative of a future predictive boundary of the first mobile machine at a location along a future predictive path of the first mobile machine at the worksite (planned future location of safety envelope 44 as the vehicle travels along a trajectory – see at least 5:50-6:12);
identifying an interference between the dynamic boundary output corresponding to the first mobile machine and a second mobile machine based on a travel path of the second mobile machine and a travel speed of the second mobile machine along the travel path (variable safety envelope 44 may be determined as a function of current speed – see at least 5:50-6:12; determination is made if safety envelope 44 of the vehicle along its trajectory overlaps with the safety envelope of another vehicle along another trajectory – see at least 5:50-6:12; variable safety envelope 44 may be determined as a function of current speed – see at least 5:50-6:12);
identifying an adjustment of a travel setting of the second mobile machine that mitigates the interference between the dynamic boundary output and the second mobile machine, wherein the adjustment of the travel setting of the second mobile machine comprises at least one of an adjustment to the travel path of the second mobile machine or an adjustment of the travel speed at which the second mobile machine traverses along the travel path (determination is made if safety envelope 44 of the vehicle along its trajectory overlaps with the safety envelope of another vehicle along another trajectory – see at least 5:50-6:12; one of the vehicles may be directed to stop if their safety envelopes could encroach – see at least Fig. 6 and 7:38-8:14; path modification to avoid collision – see at least 1:34-64); and
controlling the second mobile machine to traverse the worksite, using the adjustment to the travel setting, to perform the worksite operation (one of the vehicles may be directed to stop if their safety envelopes could encroach – see at least Fig. 6 and 7:38-8:14).
Regarding claim 14, Burns further teaches:
wherein generating the dynamic boundary output comprises generating the dynamic boundary output in three dimensions (variable safety envelope 44 may be determined as a function of current speed – see at least 5:50-6:12; planned future location of safety envelope 44 as the vehicle travels along a trajectory – see at least 5:50-6:12; i.e., two-dimensional footprint projected in time).
Regarding claim 15, Burns further teaches:
wherein the travel setting comprises a travel path setting (determination is made if safety envelope 44 of the vehicle along its trajectory overlaps with the safety envelope of another vehicle along another trajectory – see at least 5:50-6:12), and controlling the second mobile machine comprises controlling a travel path of the second mobile machine based on the adjustment of the travel path setting (when a hazard is identified, the path of the vehicle may be modified – see at least 1:55-64; if the safety envelopes A’ and B’ encroach, one vehicle may be directed to stop on a side of the roadway, i.e., placed outside the expected corridor traveled by the other moving vehicle’s envelope – see at least Fig. 8 and 7:57 to 8:14).
Regarding claim 16, Burns further teaches:
wherein the travel setting comprises a travel speed setting (variable safety envelope 44 may be determined as a function of current speed – see at least 5:50-6:12; planned future location of safety envelope 44 as the vehicle travels along a trajectory – see at least 5:50-6:12), and controlling the second mobile machine comprises controlling a travel speed of the second mobile machine based on the adjustment of the travel speed setting (vehicles A and B may have safety envelopes A’ and B’, respectively, where one of the vehicles may be directed to stop if their safety envelopes could encroach – see at least Fig. 6 and 7:38-8:14).
Regarding claim 19, Burns further teaches:
wherein obtaining data indicative of one or more characteristics of the first mobile machine operating at the worksite comprises: obtaining one or more of machine sensor data indicative of one or more sensed characteristics of the first mobile machine (variable safety envelope 44 may be determined as a function of current speed – see at least 5:50-6:12; i.e., data indicative of current speed is required to determine the safety envelope), machine configuration data indicative of one or more configuration characteristics of the first mobile machine (safety envelope 44 is a function of the vehicle’s physical configuration – see at least 5:50-6:12), georeferenced worksite data indicative of one or more georeferenced characteristics of the worksite, or operation plan data indicative of one or more characteristics of an operation being performed by the first mobile machine at the worksite.
Regarding claim 22, Burns further teaches:
wherein the control of the machine subsystem comprises increasing a ground speed of the mobile machine from a first traveling speed to a second traveling speed different than the first traveling speed (one of the vehicles may be directed to stop if their trajectories cross – see at least Fig. 6 and 7:38-57; a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer that after the stopped vehicle is passed and their envelopes do not intersect, then the stopped vehicle resumes along its original trajectory).
Regarding claim 27, Burns further teaches:
wherein identifying the adjustment of the travel setting comprises adjusting a travel path of the second mobile machine, and wherein controlling the second mobile machine comprises controlling the second mobile machine to traverse the adjusted travel path (path modification to avoid collision – see at least 1:34-64).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thode in view of Burns.
Regarding claim 2, Thode further teaches:
wherein the mobile machine comprises a first mobile machine (vehicle 10 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0034]).
Thode fails to teach but Burns discloses a dynamic safety envelope for autonomous-vehicle collision avoidance system and teaches:
wherein the mobile machine comprises a first mobile machine, and the machine control comprises machine speed control of a second mobile machine (vehicles A and B may have safety envelopes A’ and B’, respectively, where one of the vehicles may be directed to stop if their trajectories cross – see at least Fig. 6 and 7:38-57).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the materials handling vehicle path validation and dynamic path modification device of Thode to provide a machine speed control of a second mobile vehicle, as taught by Burns, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would ensure that traffic flow is controlled to prevent the encroachment of any another vehicle within the safety envelope of the vehicle (Burns at 7:38-57).
Regarding claim 7, Thode further teaches:
wherein the mobile machine comprises a first mobile machine (vehicle 10 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0034]).
Thode fails to teach but Burns discloses a dynamic safety envelope for autonomous-vehicle collision avoidance system and teaches:
wherein the mobile machine comprises a first mobile machine, and the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the one or more processors to: generate a route based on the dynamic boundary output; and control a heading of a second mobile machine based on the route (vehicle A or B having safety envelopes A’ and B’, respectively – see at least Fig. 6 and 7:38-57; when a hazard is identified, the path of the vehicle may be modified – see at least 1:55-64).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the materials handling vehicle path validation and dynamic path modification device of Thode to provide for generating a route and controlling a heading of a second machine based on the route, as taught by Burns, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would help avoid collisions (Burns at 1:55-64).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thode in view of Burns, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Gordon et al. (US 2017/0278404 A1, “Gordon”).
Regarding claim 3, Thode further teaches:
wherein the first mobile machine comprises a ground-based mobile machine (vehicle 10 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0034]).
Thode and Burns fail to teach the second mobile machine comprises an aerial mobile machine.
However, Gordon discloses operation of an aerial drone inside an exclusion zone and teaches:
wherein the first mobile machine comprises a ground-based mobile machine (moving mobile entity 408 having an exclusion zone, i.e., changing airspace 406, having a radius R from the mobile entity — see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0056]) and the second mobile machine comprises an aerial mobile machine (aerial drone 400 — see at least Fig. 4; drone barrier prevents the drone from entering the restricted airspace or may take control of the drone to cause the drone to remain outside of the restricted airspace — see at least ¶ [0059)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined materials handling vehicle path validation and dynamic path modification device of Thode and Burns to provide the mobile machines as a ground-based machine and aerial machine, as taught by Burns, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for prohibiting a drone from entering a safety zone around a moving object (Gordon at ¶ [0053]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thode in view of Yamada (US 2024/0231381 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Thode fails to teach but Yamada discloses a human-machine cooperative control system and teaches:
wherein the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further configure the one or more processors to: generate a permitted zone corresponding to an area of the worksite and a restricted zone corresponding to an area of the worksite based on the dynamic boundary output (occupied area 601 and preferential area 602 are determined by exclusion management unit 502 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0035]; i.e., areas not designated as occupied areas or preferential areas may be freely traversed); and perform the machine control based further on the permitted zone and the restricted zone (if an occupied area is determined, then a command to stop is transmitted at S203, while if a preferential area is determined, then the moving body with higher priority is allowed to continue – see at least Fig. 8 and ¶ [0047]-[0051]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined materials handling vehicle path validation and dynamic path modification device of Thode to provide permitted and restricted zones, as taught by Yamada, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide collision avoidance to provide safety (Yamada at ¶ [0003]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thode in view of Burns et al. (US 2002/0143461 A1, “Burns et al.”).
Regarding claim 11, Thode fails to teach but Burns et al. discloses a permission system for controlling interaction between autonomous vehicles and teaches:
wherein the dynamic boundary output further indicates a historical boundary at a location along a historical path of the first mobile machine at the worksite (permission zone assigned to a vehicle remains dedicated until released – see at least Fig. 13 and ¶ [0048]; i.e., an unreleased permission zone that has already been traversed).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the materials handling vehicle path validation and dynamic path modification device of Thode to provide a historical boundary, as taught by Burns et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide collision avoidance to provide safety (Burns et al. at ¶ [0003]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns in view of Yamada.
Regarding claim 17, Burns fails to teach but Yamada discloses a human-machine cooperative control system and teaches:
generating a map of the worksite, the map including a display element indicating the first mobile machine and a display element indicating the dynamic boundary output (occupied area 601 and preferential area 602 are determined by exclusion management unit 502 – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0035]; i.e., areas not designated as occupied areas or preferential areas may be freely traversed); and controlling an interface mechanism to display the map of the worksite (display device or presentation device may display occupied area 601 and preferential area 602– see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0034]-[0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dynamic safety envelope for autonomous-vehicle collision avoidance system of Burns to generate and display a map, as taught by Yamada, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would reduce the risk of another object moving into an occupied area (Yamada at ¶ [0035]).
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns in view of Alalao et al. (US 2022/0410710 A1, “Alalao”).
Regarding claim 21, Burns further teaches:
identifying the interference based on a first traveling speed of the second mobile machine (variable safety envelope 44 may be determined as a function of current speed – see at least 5:50-6:12; determination is made if safety envelope 44 of the vehicle along its trajectory overlaps with the safety envelope of another vehicle along another trajectory – see at least 5:50-6:12; variable safety envelope 44 may be determined as a function of current speed – see at least 5:50-6:12).
Burns fails to teach increasing the ground speed of the second mobile machine from the first traveling speed to a second traveling speed different than the first traveling speed.
However, Alalao discloses performing a maneuver to avoid a collision and teaches:
increasing the ground speed of the second mobile machine from the first traveling speed to a second traveling speed different than the first traveling speed (AV 100 may increase ground speed, slow down, or change lanes to avoid a collision – see at least ¶ [0164]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dynamic safety envelope for autonomous-vehicle collision avoidance system of Burns to increase the ground speed, as taught by Alalao, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide a maneuver that may avoid a collision (Alalao at ¶ [0164]).
Claims 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thode in view of Paschall et al. (US 11,994,874 B1, “Paschall”).
Regarding claim 23, Thode fails to teach but Paschall discloses adaptive safety systems for robots and teaches:
obtain terrain data representing terrain characteristics of the worksite; and generate the dynamic boundary output based on the terrain characteristics (safety zone 107 may be determined based on slope or other characteristics of the environment – see at least 3:62 to 4:19).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the materials handling vehicle path validation and dynamic path modification device of Thode to provide for obtaining terrain data and generating the dynamic boundary based on the terrain data, as taught by Paschall, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide for adjusting the safety zone based on environmental characteristics to ensure that the vehicle may stope without contacting or impacting a detected object (Singh at ¶ [0024]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights