DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a Non-Final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 11-12 and 15-16 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16 October 2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 10/16/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment and/or Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and claim cancellation with respect to the Claim Rejections of Claims 7 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as set forth in the office action 15 June 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Rejections of Claims 7 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as set forth in the office action 15 June 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been 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.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Rejections of Claims 1, 8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as set forth in the office action 15 June 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues (pages 6-7 of Applicant’s Remarks filed on 10/16/2025):
PNG
media_image1.png
495
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
447
707
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Examiner’s Response:
The examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees for the following reasons:
Regarding Argument (i.):
Applicant argues that “the Office ignored the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art” and that “a POSTIA will clearly understand the claims subject matter”. The Examiner acknowledges the level of skill in the art; however 35 U.S.C. 112(a) requires that the specification itself demonstrates possession of the claimed invention, not that a POSTIA could supply missing details/information not disclosed in the specification. Knowledge in the art may be used to interpret what is disclosed but it cannot replace disclosure of claim limitation that are absent from the specification. Applicant further argues that co-inventors of multiple applications use similar terminology was not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and prior art references cited by the Examiner uses terms such as virtual fields, repulsive force and attractive force; allegedly rendering the 112(a) rejections less understood. This argument is NOT persuasive because written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is evaluated on the applicant’s own disclosure not on the state of prior art. The presence of similarly terminology in the prior art cannot substitute for a disclosure showing that the inventors themselves possessed the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Regarding Argument (ii.):
Applicant relies on [0084], which states “The one or more virtual forces belong to a virtual physical model. The virtual physical model is a virtual model that may virtually apply rules of physics (for example mechanical rules, electromagnetic rules, optical rules) on the vehicle and/or the objects.” However, this disclosure is NOT sufficient to support the claimed limitation requiring “a virtual physical model that virtually applies electromagnetic rules on the objects and the vehicle”. Paragraph 0084 merely lists electromagnetic rules as one of several optional examples without describing what/which electromagnetic rules are applied, how such electromagnetic rules govern the virtual potential field and further how such electromagnetic rules influence the virtual force and vehicle behavior. A generic statement that electromagnetic rules may be applied does not reasonably convey possession of a claimed system in which electromagnetic rules are affirmatively applied as part of the virtual physical model. Applicant further asserts that the mathematical formulations for calculating the inelastic potential fields at paragraph [0170-0173, 0177-0181] provides written description support for demonstrating possession of claim limitation “determining…a virtual potential field…composed of energy conservative field and of a dissipative directional field…determining the virtual force …associated with the a virtual physical model that virtually applies electromagnetic rules on the object and the vehicle.” The Examiner disagrees. While the specification discloses mathematical functions applied to relative distance, velocity, and angle between the vehicle and object, these equations DO NOT: (i) reference or implement any physical electromagnetic principles (e.g. charge, current, electric/magnetic fields, etc.); (ii) describe a mechanism or demonstrate a working examples by which electromagnetic rules influence the virtual potential field/force; (iii) establish a link between the virtual potential field computation and electromagnetic rules as required by the claim limitation. The mathematical formulation/equations support general virtual force computation but they do NOT demonstrate possession of the claimed combination of a virtual potential field and a virtual physical model that applies electromagnetic rules.
Accordingly, Applicant’s argument regarding (i.)-(ii.) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are NOT persuasive and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections are maintained. See 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections below for details.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Rejections of Claims 1, 8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in the office action 15 June 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues (pages 7-9 of Applicant’s Remarks filed on 10/16/2025):
PNG
media_image3.png
735
673
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Examiner’s Response:
The examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Although claim 1 recites that “the dissipative directional field is determined based on at least a relative velocity of the object in relation to the vehicle” merely identifying an input parameters but does not provide objective boundaries for what constitute (or not) the claimed field, and also does not define how the field is dissipative or directional as required by the claim. The specification’s disclosure of mathematical functions applied to velocity, angle and distance does not cure the indefiniteness, as these example does not define the full scope of the claim. The claim limitation of virtual force use to calculate a desired virtual acceleration defines the force only by its intended outcome without any identifiable characteristics that POSTIA can use to determine whether a given force falls within the scope of the claim. Lastly, the specification provides only a generic reference to electromagnetic rules as one of several possible physical model for the limitation “virtual physical model that virtually applies electromagnetic rules” without identifying which rules are applied (linked with) or how their application constrains the virtual potential field/force, leaving the scope of the limitation unclear. As a result, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is NOT persuasive and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 11-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 (similarly claims 8 and 15), Applicant has apparently not described, in the specification, in sufficient details, by what algorithm(s) or by what steps/procedure, particularly the recited limitation “determining…a virtual potential field, for the object, that is composed of an energy conservative field and of a dissipative directional field, …, wherein the determining of the virtual force solely based on the energy conservative field and on the dissipative directional field; determining, based on the virtual potential field, a virtual force that is associated with the object…wherein the virtual force is associated with a virtual physical model that virtually applies electromagnetic rules on the object and the vehicle…calculating a desired virtual acceleration based on virtual force”. The claim requires that the virtual force be solely based on the energy conservative field and on the dissipative directional field and also links the virtual potential field, virtual force to electromagnetic rules. The specification provides mathematical equations for potential fields and virtual forces (e.g., Uc (xi, vi, thetai)=g1,c(xi) +jc(vi)*lc(thetai)*g2,c(xi)) in [0183]). These equations define functions of distance, velocity, and angle but do NOT describe how these functions generates the virtual force solely from the energy conservative and dissipative fields and further does not describe how such force is connected to electromagnetic rules. The claim requires a virtual physical model that applies electromagnetic rules to the object and vehicle but the specification provides only a general statement (in [0084]) the electromagnetic rules may be applied. The equations do not references charges, fields, or other electromagnetic principles and fails to describe a method/algorithm applying electromagnetic rules to generate the virtual force. The claim further recites calculating a desired virtual acceleration based on the virtual force (e.g. [0084]by Newton’s second law F=ma) but does not provide an algorithm/structure linking the virtual force to acceleration. Accordingly, the specification fails to demonstrate that the inventors possessed the claimed combination of “determining…a virtual potential field, for the object, that is composed of an energy conservative field and of a dissipative directional field, …, wherein the determining of the virtual force solely based on the energy conservative field and on the dissipative directional field; determining, based on the virtual potential field, a virtual force that is associated with the object…wherein the virtual force is associated with a virtual physical model that virtually applies electromagnetic rules on the object and the vehicle…calculating a desired virtual acceleration based on virtual force”. See the 2019 35 U.S.C. 112 Compliance Federal Register Notice (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, Monday, January 7, 2019, pages 57 to 63). See also http://ptoweb.uspto.gov/patents/exTrain/documents/2019-112-guidance-initiative.pptx . Quoting the FR Notice at pages 61 and 62, "The Federal Circuit emphasized that ‘‘[t]he written description requirement is not met if the specification merely describes a ‘desired result.’ ’’ Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682 (quoting Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349). . . . When examining computer-implemented, software-related claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm(s) that achieve the claimed function in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as 'a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.' Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may 'express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.' Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340 (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could theoretically write a program to achieve the claimed function, rather the specification itself must explain how the claimed function is achieved to demonstrate that the applicant had possession of it. See, e.g., Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682–83. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm(s) in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention that achieves the claimed result, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description must be made. See MPEP § 2161.01, subsection I." Accordingly, the Examiner believes that Applicant has not demonstrated to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims 4-5, 11-12 and 16 are dependent upon claims 1 and 8 are also rejected under 112 first paragraph by the fact that they are dependent upon the rejected claims 1 and 8.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 11-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (similarly claims 8 and 15) recites the limitation “determining…a virtual potential field, for the object, that is composed of an energy conservative field and of a dissipative directional field, …, wherein the determining of the virtual force solely based on the energy conservative field and on the dissipative directional field; determining, based on the virtual potential field, a virtual force that is associated with the object…wherein the virtual force is associated with a virtual physical model that virtually applies electromagnetic rules on the object and the vehicle…calculating a desired virtual acceleration based on virtual force” is indefinite for at least the following reasons:
The claim recites “determining a virtual potential…composed of an energy conservative field and a dissipative directional field” but specification does not provide clear boundaries on what might or might not be covered by either claimed dissipative field (e.g. dissipative field as in damping field? Or dissipation in heat, friction, drag, or what kind of dissipation?);
The claim recites “determining a virtual force solely based on the energy conservative field and the dissipative directional field” but the specification does not provide criteria for determining whether other influences/inputs are excluded rendering the meaning of “solely based on” unclear and the claim indefinite.
The claim recites “wherein the virtual force is associated with a virtual physical model that virtually applies electromagnetic rules” without identifying which electromagnetic rules are applied, how they are applied, or their application is related/linked to virtual potential field/force.
Accordingly, the claim limitations renders the claims to be indefinite based on at least the reasons stated above. For purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting the limitation as calculating virtual force an object exerted on a vehicle based on their relative distance/position and relative speed.
Claim 4 (similarly claim 11) recites limitation “calculating gradients of the energy conservative field and of the dissipative directional field” is indefinite because it is unclear and confusing, to the Examiner, for example, i) what kind of gradient is the applicant referring to (e.g. scalar, vector) and what is the gradient with respect to (e.g. time, distance, velocity); ii) how are the gradients of the two fields combined (e.g. are they added?); hence this claim limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
The claims 5-7, 11-14 and 16 are dependent upon claims 1, 8 and 15 are also rejected under 112 second paragraph by the fact that they are dependent upon the rejected claims 1, 8 and 15.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (“Real-time Collision avoidance planning for unmanned surface vessels based on field theory” hereinafter Li) in view of Kozuka et al. (US 2017/0262750 A1 hereinafter Kozuka).
Regarding Claim 1 (similarly claims 8 and 15), Li teaches A method for field related driving (see at least Abstract), the method comprises:
obtaining object information regarding an object located within an environment of the vehicle; (see at least Full Article: (1) Virtual spatial electric field and velocity field theory are utilized to express the dynamic interaction among ships, simulating the situation of multi-vessels navigation; (2) the simplified collision avoidance model and improved Electromagnetism-like mechanism algorithm area designed to optimize the collision avoidance planning for concerning the energy loss and execution complexity. Two kinds of field models are superimposed with each other to form the synthetic field, comprising the field environment of multi-vessels dynamic navigation.)
determining, by using a neural network implemented by a processing circuit, and based on the object information, a virtual potential field, for the object, that is composed of an energy conservative field and of a dissipative directional field, wherein the energy conservative field and the dissipative directional field are determined in relation to the vehicle; the energy conservative field is determined based on a relative distance between the object and the vehicle, the dissipative directional field is determined based on at least a relative velocity of the object in relation to the vehicle, wherein the determining of the virtual force solely based on the energy conservative field and on the dissipative directional field; (see at least Full Article: Two kinds of field models are superimposed with each other to form the synthetic field, comprising the field environment of multi-vessels navigation. The virtual point charge electric field is proposed to reflect the influence of the ship motion, which takes the ship as a point charge, and the ship navigation state is correlated with the field theory. In the complex multi-vessels environment, each ship represents a homogeneous point charge, forming the equipotential surface of the ring structure where the field energy of the same layer is equal, and with the increase of distance from the point charge, the field energy of each layer is decreasing. In accordance with energy strength characteristics of the electric field, the field energy is inversely proportional to the square of distance toward the point charge, and represents the different ship collision levels, where its lowers with the increase of the distance. The virtual electric field produced by each ship changes with the situation of surrounding ships. The velocity field model states the velocity and course information by employing a Gaussian distribution where the variation law of spatial distance, velocity magnitude and direction deviation are indicated in the velocity field model. The virtual electric field decreases with distance (e.g. inverse-square of distance toward the point charge), and the velocity field depends on the relative speed and heading of obstacles; and the two field are superimposed together.)
determining, based on the virtual potential field, a virtual force that is associated with the object and if for use in applying a driving related operation of the vehicle, wherein the virtual force is associated with a virtual physical model that virtually applies electromagnetic rules on the object and the vehicle, and representing an impact of the object on a behavior of the vehicle, the impact resulting in a change in a progress of the vehicle; (see at least Full Article: The collision avoidance planning converts to study a special class of optimization problems with bounded variables. Calculation of the electric quantity and total force, the attraction-repulsive force thinking is used to describe the influence between particles. Suppose the electric quantity of the particle, the total force value of the attraction-repulsive force on each particle is calculated. The computed field generates a vector force applied to the vessel, steering it away from the obstacle. The improved EM algorithm is going on the collision avoidance planning, whose evaluation function is composed of field energy variation and distance correlation, and x represents the angle that the ship need to adjust while avoiding collision. The collision avoidance planning adopts the evaluation function that integrates the ship motion trend and the dynamic influences between ships, and updates iteratively to seek the optimal adjustment angle, that is the best collision avoidance strategy. That is, each vessel is model as a point charge in a virtual electric field and the computed field generates a vector force applied to the vessel, steering it away from obstacles and toward the goal. An EM optimization algorithm adjusts the path iteratively.)
calculating a desired virtual acceleration of the vehicle, based on the virtual force; (see at least Full Article: The virtual force from the synthetic field is translated into steering and speed adjustment. Acceleration is implied by the update in velocity over time. )
determining a driving related operation of the vehicle that (a) once applied causes the vehicle to move according to the desired virtual acceleration, and (b) is selected out of accelerating the vehicle, decelerating the vehicle or changing of direction of a progress of the vehicle; and performing the driving related operation. (see at least Full Article: the vessel executes steering and speed commands derived from the field forces for collision avoidance. The commands could involve acceleration, deceleration or heading change. The vessel executes the computed the navigation commands in real time avoiding collisions.)
it may be alleged that Li does not explicitly teach determining, by using a neural network implemented by a processing circuit, and based on the object information, a virtual potential field, for the object.
Kozuka is directed to risk prediction method capable of predicting risk area having a possibility of causing dangerous situation for a running vehicle, Kozuka teaches determining, by using a neural network implemented by a processing circuit, and based on the object information, a virtual potential field, for the object. (see at least Fig. 14a-17B [0064, 0108-0115]: the risk predictor estimates the acquired input images, by using the convolutional neural network, to detect a risk area and a feature thereof having a possibility that a moving object may appear into a traveling path of the vehicle and if the vehicle simply continues the current traveling, the vehicle may collide with that moving object.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li’s real-time collision avoidance planning for unmanned surface vessels based on field theory to incorporate the technique of determining, using a neural network implemented by a processing circuit, and based on the object information, a virtual potential field, for the object as taught by Kozuka with reasonable expectation of success because CNN are excellent at extracting spatial features from visual data to help the vehicle better detect and localize road users to understand heir positions relative to the host vehicle such that the CNN output can be utilized for path planning and driving assistance system for warning driver of risk zones and/or taking actions for avoiding potential collision and thus improving roadway safety.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, the combination of Li in view of Kozuka teaches The method and the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claims 1 and 8, Li further teaches wherein the determining of the virtual force comprises calculating gradients of the energy conservative field and of the dissipative directional field (see at least Full article: The field energy gradient of Fig. 3 (represented by arrows) is formed after the superposition of the virtual electric field and the velocity field.)
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Li in view of Kozuka teaches The method according to claim 1, Li further teaches wherein the dissipative directional field is determined based the relative velocity of the object to the vehicle and at least two other kinematic variables. (see at least Full article: the velocity field model employs Gaussian distribution. The variation law of spatial distance, velocity magnitude and direction deviation are indicated in the velocity field model. The velocity intensity gradually weakens with the deviation of the direction, and reaches the peak value in the course direction. Besides, the velocity field strength near the center of the ship is becoming greater than that far away from the center of the ship.)
Claim(s) 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kozuka and Saito (JP 2017182563 A).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, the combination of Li in view of Kozuka teaches The method and the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claims 1 and 8, comprising:
the combination of Li in view of Kozuka does not explicitly teach generating a graphical user interface representing the one or more virtual elastic fields and the one or more virtual inelastic fields.
Saito is directed to a peripheral risk display device for display an image of the surroundings of a vehicle, Saito teaches generating a graphical user interface representing the one or more virtual elastic fields and the one or more virtual inelastic fields. (see at least Fig. 4-10).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Li and Kozuka to incorporate the technique of generating a graphical user interface representing the one or more virtual elastic fields and the one or more virtual inelastic fields as taught by Saito with reasonable expectation of success to provide a peripheral risk display device in which a user can appropriately determine the adequacy of an assumed driving locus by automatic driving in order to prevent accidents and improve safety in vehicles (Saito [0001-0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA F ARTIMEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3410. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-3:30 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, Faris S. Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/DANA F ARTIMEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667