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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 12/03/2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 have been amended; claims 4 and 10-20 have been canceled; no claims have been added or withdrawn. Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are now pending and under consideration.
The previous objections to the drawings have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claims and the cancellation of claims 10, 11, 19, and 20.
The previous objections to claims 1, 4, 8, 13, 14, 19, and 20 have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to claims 1 and 8 and the cancellation of claims 8, 13, 14, 19, and 20.
The previous rejections of claims 10, 11, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claims and the cancellation of claims 10, 11, 19, and 20.
The previous rejections of claims 1-7 and 10-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to claims and the cancellation of claims 4 and 10-20.
Applicant generically asserts on pages 12-13 of the remarks that the rejection of independent claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 101 should be withdrawn because the claim integrates the judicial exception into “a practical application of an automated driving system or driving assistance system.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. 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 are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 8 is directed to a method largely composed of contingent limitations which are not necessarily performed as part of the claimed method. As an example, the method of claim 8 can be fully performed via only the steps of: “determining whether or not the mobile object is approaching an intersection; determining whether a complete set of information comprising obstacle information around the mobile object, position information of the mobile object, road information around the mobile object, obstacle information around a roadside, vehicle state information including a control state of the mobile object has been acquired; […] based on the mobile object not approaching the intersection or based on the mobile object approaching the intersection and the set of information being acquired, determining whether abnormality has occurred on the complete set of information,” as the remaining steps of “based on the mobile object approaching the intersection and the complete set of information not being acquired, outputting a vehicle stop request before the mobile object enters the intersection; […] based on occurrence of the abnormality, and a predetermined output condition for an emergency stop request being satisfied, generating a first behavior plan for immediately stopping the mobile object, and based on the occurrence of the abnormality, and the predetermined output condition not being satisfied, generating a second behavior plan for preventing the mobile object from stopping in an area where advancement of another traffic participant is obstructed; and controlling the brake and the steering wheel of the mobile object to according to the first behavior plan or the second behavior plan” are not necessarily performed by virtue of the associated conditions not necessarily being met during performing of the claimed method. Thus, there is no basis for Applicant’s assertion of the claim integrating the judicial exception into “a practical application of an automated driving system or driving assistance system.” The rejection has been maintained and updated in order to address the substantial amendments to the claim.
Applicant's arguments on pages 13-15 of the remarks with respect to the prior art rejections of amended independent claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0163039 to Iwamoto et al. have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant’s remarks present an overly-simplified alternative interpretation of the disclosure of Iwamoto on page 14 and then generically assert on pages 14-15 of the remarks that Iwamoto fails to teach or suggest the substantial amendments to the claims. The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unclear why Applicant believes that Iwamoto fails to teach each of “(1)” through “(6)” on pages 14-15 of the remarks, especially since page 14 of Applicant’s remarks, for example, appear to admit that Iwamoto teaches “(1).” As discussed in detail below throughout the updated prior art rejections of the instant Office Action, Iwamoto teaches each and every limitation of amended independent claims 1 and 8. The examiner also respectfully notes that the claim term “complete set of information” is invention of Applicant’s amendments filed 12/03/2025 and is not a term used by Applicant’s originally-filed disclosure. Therefore, the rejections have been maintained and updated in order to address the substantial amendments to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “abnormality has occurred on the complete set of information” in line 25, which appears to be a misstating of --abnormality has occurred [[on]] in the complete set of information-- (also, note “the abnormality in the complete set of information” in line 13 of claim 5 and in lines 2-3 of claim 6).
Claim 1 should be amended to replace the comma immediately preceding “and” near the end of line 28 with a semicolon.
Claim 8 should be amended to recite --and-- immediately preceding “vehicle state information including a control state of the mobile object has been acquired” in lines 9-10 of the claim.
Claim 8 recites “abnormality has occurred on the complete set of information” in line 16, which appears to be a misstating of --abnormality has occurred [[on]] in the complete set of information--.
Claim 8 should be amended to replace the comma immediately preceding “and” near the end of line 19 with a semicolon and to remove “and” from the end of line 19 in view of “and” being recited at the end of line 22 of the claim.
Claim 8 recites “to according to” in line 26, which appears to be a misstating of --[[to]] according to--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-3 and 5-9 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, as amended, now refers to “the set of information” in line 24; however, the claim fails to previously introduce “a set of information. Amended claim 1 does, however, previously introduce “a complete set of information” in line 10, and it is unclear whether the “set of information” referred to in line 24 is intended to be the same as or different from the “complete set of information” previously introduced in line 10. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 depend from claim 1, and claim 7 fully incorporates claim 1, such that claims 2, 3, and 5-7 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is rejected.
Claim 5, as amended, now recites “based on signals counted at a preset cycle and are received from a roadside device that comprises a camera and is located in a roadside area” in lines 13-15; however, this recitation is nonsensical, and it is unclear what exactly is required by lines 13-15 of amended claim 5.
Claim 8, as amended, now refers to “the set of information” in line 15; however, the claim fails to previously introduce “a set of information. Amended claim 8 does, however, previously introduce “a complete set of information” in line 7, and it is unclear whether the “set of information” referred to in line 15 is intended to be the same as or different from the “complete set of information” previously introduced in line 7. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 8, as amended, now refers to “the brake” in line 26; however, the claim fails to previously introduce “a brake,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the brake” in line 26. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 8, as amended, now refers to “the steering wheel” in line 26; however, the claim fails to previously introduce “a steering wheel,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the steering wheel” in line 26. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 depends from claim 8, such that claim 9 also includes the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 8 and is rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 8 is rejected.
Claim limitation “behavior planning device,” as recited in lines 1-6 of amended claim 1, has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Specifically, lines 6-7 of amended claim 1 now require that the “behavior planning device” comprises “memory storing one or more instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions,” whereas lines 1-6 of amended claim 1 now recite “[a] behavior planning device to receive obstacle information around a mobile object, position information of the mobile object, road information around the mobile object, obstacle information around a roadside, and vehicle state information including a control state of the mobile object” without setting forth the structure that performs each of the functions “receive obstacle information around a mobile object,” “position information of the mobile object,” “road information around the mobile object,” “obstacle information around a roadside,” and “vehicle state information including a control state of the mobile object,” and claim 1 fails to establish that the memory and/or the processor of the “behavior planning device” is/are the structure that performs any/all of the aforementioned functions of lines 1-6 of claim 1, such that it is unclear whether these limitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because: “[a] behavior planning device to receive obstacle information around a mobile object” amounts to nothing more than means for receiving obstacle information around a mobile object, “[a] behavior planning device to receive […] position information of the mobile object” amounts to nothing more than means for receiving position information of the mobile object, “[a] behavior planning device to receive […] road information around the mobile object” amounts to nothing more than means for receiving road information around the mobile object, “[a] behavior planning device to receive […] obstacle information around a roadside” amounts to nothing more than means for receiving obstacle information around the mobile object, and “[a] behavior planning device to receive […] vehicle state information including a control state of the mobile object” amounts to nothing more than means for receiving vehicle state information including a control state of the mobile object. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
In response to this rejection, Applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding Applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 depend from claim 1, and claim 7 fully incorporates claim 1, such that claims 2, 3, and 5-7 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 8 is directed to a behavior plan generation method (e.g., a method). Claim 9 depends from claim 8. Therefore, claims 8 and 9 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 8 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
Claim 8 recites:
A vehicle control method executed using a behavior planning device memory storing one or more instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to perform a behavior planning generation method, and using a vehicle controller that controls actuators for driving a mobile object, the vehicle control method comprising:
determining whether or not the mobile object is approaching an intersection;
determining whether a complete set of information comprising obstacle information around the mobile object, position information of the mobile object, road information around the mobile object, obstacle information around a roadside, vehicle state information including a control state of the mobile object has been acquired;
based on the mobile object approaching the intersection and the complete set of information not being acquired, outputting a vehicle stop request before the mobile object enters the intersection;
based on the mobile object not approaching the intersection or based on the mobile object approaching the intersection and the set of information being acquired, determining whether abnormality has occurred on the complete set of information;
based on occurrence of the abnormality, and a predetermined output condition for an emergency stop request being satisfied, generating a first behavior plan for immediately stopping the mobile object, and
based on the occurrence of the abnormality, and the predetermined output condition not being satisfied, generating a second behavior plan for preventing the mobile object from stopping in an area where advancement of another traffic participant is obstructed; and
controlling the brake and the steering wheel of the mobile object to according to the first behavior plan or the second behavior plan.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, each instance of “determining…” and “generating…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming simple judgments. Accordingly, claim 8 recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are the underlined portions provided above while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea.”
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II).
In claim 8, “outputting a vehicle stop request before the mobile object enters the intersection” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” at times including at least one of the conditions “the mobile object approaching the intersection” and “the complete set of information not being acquired” is not met during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” [e.g., when “determining whether a complete set of information comprising obstacle information around the mobile object, position information of the mobile object, road information around the mobile object, obstacle information around a roadside, vehicle state information including a control state of the mobile object has been acquired” (emphasis added) results in a determination that the complete set of information has been acquired during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” and/or when the complete set of information has been acquired during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” and/or when “determining whether or not the mobile object is approaching an intersection” (emphasis added) does not result in a determination that the mobile object is approaching the intersection during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” and/or when the mobile object is not approaching the intersection during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method”], such that “based on the mobile object approaching the intersection and the complete set of information not being acquired, outputting a vehicle stop request before the mobile object enters the intersection” is not necessarily performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” and therefore does not necessarily further limit the claimed “vehicle control method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
In claim 8, because based on the mobile object not approaching the intersection and based on the mobile object approaching the intersection and the set of information being acquired are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives. In claim 8, for example, in a first interpretation, “determining whether abnormality has occurred on the complete set of information” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” at times including when the alternatively-recited condition “the mobile object not approaching the intersection” is not met during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” [e.g., when “determining whether or not the mobile object is approaching an intersection” (emphasis added) results in a determination that the mobile object is approaching the intersection during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” and/or when the mobile object approaches the intersection during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method”], such that “based on the mobile object not approaching the intersection or based on the mobile object approaching the intersection and the set of information being acquired, determining whether abnormality has occurred on the complete set of information” is not necessarily performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” and therefore does not necessarily further limit the claimed “vehicle control method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above). Alternatively, for example, in a second interpretation of claim 8, “determining whether abnormality has occurred on the complete set of information” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” at times including when at least one of the alternatively-recited conditions “the mobile object approaching the intersection” and “the set of information being acquired” is not met during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” [e.g., when “determining whether a complete set of information comprising obstacle information around the mobile object, position information of the mobile object, road information around the mobile object, obstacle information around a roadside, vehicle state information including a control state of the mobile object has been acquired” (emphasis added) does not result in a determination that the complete set of information has been acquired during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” and/or when the complete set of information has not been acquired during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” and/or when “determining whether or not the mobile object is approaching an intersection” (emphasis added) results in a determination that the mobile object is not approaching the intersection during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” and/or when the mobile object does not approach the intersection during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method”], such that “based on the mobile object not approaching the intersection or based on the mobile object approaching the intersection and the set of information being acquired, determining whether abnormality has occurred on the complete set of information” is not necessarily performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” and therefore does not necessarily further limit the claimed “vehicle control method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above).
In claim 8, “generating a first behavior plan for immediately stopping the mobile object” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” at times including when at least one of the conditions “occurrence of the abnormality” and “a predetermined output condition for an emergency stop request being satisfied” is not met during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” [e.g., when “determining whether abnormality has occurred on the complete set of information” (emphasis added) is not performed or results in a determination that the abnormality has not occurred during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” and/or when the abnormality has not occurred during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” and/or when the predetermined output condition for the emergency stop request is not satisfied during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method”], such that “based on occurrence of the abnormality, and a predetermined output condition for an emergency stop request being satisfied, generating a first behavior plan for immediately stopping the mobile object” is not necessarily performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” and therefore does not necessarily further limit the claimed “vehicle control method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above).
In claim 8, “generating a second behavior plan for preventing the mobile object from stopping in an area where advancement of another traffic participant is obstructed” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” at times including when at least one of the conditions “occurrence of the abnormality” and “the predetermined output condition not being satisfied” is not met during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” [e.g., when “determining whether abnormality has occurred on the complete set of information” (emphasis added) is not performed or results in a determination that the abnormality has not occurred during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” and/or when the abnormality has not occurred during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” and/or when the predetermined output condition for the emergency stop request is satisfied during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method”], such that “based on the occurrence of the abnormality, and the predetermined output condition not being satisfied, generating a second behavior plan for preventing the mobile object from stopping in an area where advancement of another traffic participant is obstructed” is not necessarily performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” and therefore does not necessarily further limit the claimed “vehicle control method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above).
Additionally, in claim 8, because controlling the brake and the steering wheel of the mobile object to according to the first behavior plan and controlling the brake and the steering wheel of the mobile object to according to the second behavior plan are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives. In claim 8, for example, in a first interpretation, “controlling the brake and the steering wheel of the mobile object to according to the first behavior plan” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” at times including when the contingent limitation “based on occurrence of the abnormality, and a predetermined output condition for an emergency stop request being satisfied, generating a first behavior plan for immediately stopping the mobile object” is not performed during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method,” such that “controlling the brake and the steering wheel of the mobile object to according to the first behavior plan or the second behavior plan” is not necessarily performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” and therefore does not necessarily further limit the claimed “vehicle control method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above); alternatively, for example, in a second interpretation of claim 8, “controlling the brake and the steering wheel of the mobile object to according to … the second behavior plan” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” at times including when the contingent limitation “based on the occurrence of the abnormality, and the predetermined output condition not being satisfied, generating a second behavior plan for preventing the mobile object from stopping in an area where advancement of another traffic participant is obstructed” is not performed during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method,” such that “controlling the brake and the steering wheel of the mobile object to according to the first behavior plan or the second behavior plan” is not necessarily performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” and therefore does not necessarily further limit the claimed “vehicle control method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above).
From the above instances of contingent limitations in claim 8, it is clear that neither of “outputting a vehicle stop request before the mobile object enters the intersection” and “controlling the brake and the steering wheel of the mobile object to according to the first behavior plan or the second behavior plan” would necessarily performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” at times including when none of the conditions “the mobile object approaching the intersection and the complete set of information not being acquired,” “occurrence of the abnormality, and a predetermined output condition for an emergency stop request being satisfied,” and “the occurrence of the abnormality, and the predetermined output condition not being satisfied,” is met during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method,” such as when one of the conditions “the mobile object not approaching the intersection or … the mobile object approaching the intersection and the set of information being acquired” is met during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” without “occurrence of the abnormality” being met during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method.”
Also, the preamble recitation of “executed using a behavior planning device memory storing one or more instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to perform a behavior planning generation method, and using a vehicle controller that controls actuators for driving a mobile object” in claim 8 amounts to nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity that merely defines use of computing device(s) [e.g., computer(s)] to support performing of the associated process, all recited at a high level of generality.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 8 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The examiner takes Official Notice (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.03) that use of the computing limitations and data gathering steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the art, and are acknowledged as such by at least MPEP 2106, and are established as being well-known and conventional by the “background information” section of Applicant’s originally-filed specification—because Applicants’ remarks filed 12/03/2025 & 12/11/2025 failed to adequately traverse the finding based on Official Notice by the non-final Office Action mailed 09/30/2025, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.03_C). The examiner also takes Official Notice (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.03) that use of the steering wheel and the brake of claimed “mobile object” (e.g., a vehicle) are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the art for steering and braking the vehicle to enable controlling the vehicle. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 9, which depends from claim 8, further defines contingent limitations and does not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Thus, claim 9 is also ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0163039 to Iwamoto et al. (hereinafter: “Iwamoto”).
With respect to claim 1, Iwamoto teaches a behavior planning device (apparent from at least Fig. 6) to receive obstacle information around a mobile object, position information of the mobile object, road information around the mobile object, obstacle information around a roadside, and vehicle state information including a control state of the mobile object [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 6 & 7 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0093 & 0098-0108, a control device 100 includes structure and function to receive driving environment information 200, where the received and acquired driving environment information 200 includes: surrounding situation information 220, based on a recognition sensor 22, including information indicating relative positions of a surrounding vehicle (e.g., “obstacle information around a mobile object”), a white line (e.g., “road information around the mobile vehicle”), and a roadside structure (e.g., “obstacle information around a roadside”) around a vehicle 1 (e.g., “mobile object”), vehicle position information 210, based on a position sensor 21, including information indicating a position of the vehicle 1 (e.g., “position information of the mobile object”), and vehicle state information 230, based on a vehicle state sensor 23, where the vehicle state information 230 includes information indicating a steering angle of the vehicle 1 (e.g., “control state of the mobile object”)], the behavior planning device comprising memory (120) storing one or more instructions (as discussed by at least ¶ 0098), and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to: determine whether or not the mobile object is approaching an intersection (as discussed by at least ¶ 0100, 0105, 0125-0127, 0131 & 0142-0146); determine whether a complete set of information comprising: the obstacle information around the mobile object, the position information of the mobile object, the road information around the mobile object, the obstacle information around the roadside, and the vehicle state information has been acquired [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 6-8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0099-0124, the control device 100 is structured to perform functions to determine whether a failure of one or more of the position sensor 21, the recognition sensor 22, and the vehicle state sensor 23 occurs in the vehicle 1 during automated driving when the control device 100 acquires the driving environment information 200]; based on the mobile object approaching the intersection and the complete set of information not being acquired, output a vehicle stop request before the mobile object enters the intersection [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 6 & 8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0106-0131, the control device 100 is structured to perform functions to execute a definable stop control prior to the vehicle 1 entering an intersection, at times including when there is a no-stopping area AX overlapping an effective stop area AEF in which the no-stopping area AX corresponds to the intersection and when the failure of the one or more of the position sensor 21, the recognition sensor 22, and the vehicle state sensor 23 (e.g., the recognition sensor 22) occurs during the automated driving (e.g., “based on the mobile object approaching the intersection and the complete set of information not being acquired”), including when a stop candidate area AC overlaps the effective stop area AEF and precedes the no-stopping area AX corresponding to the intersection]; based on the mobile object not approaching the intersection or based on the mobile object approaching the intersection and the set of information being acquired, determine whether abnormality has occurred on the complete set of information [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 6-8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0099-0124, the control device 100 is structured to perform functions to determine whether the failure (e.g., “abnormality”) of the one or more of the position sensor 21, the recognition sensor 22, and the vehicle state sensor 23 occurs in the vehicle 1 during the automated driving when the control device 100 acquires the driving environment information 200 (e.g., “based on … the set of information being acquired”), regardless of whether the vehicle 1 is approaching the intersection (e.g., “based on the mobile object not approaching the intersection or based on the mobile object approaching the intersection”); because based on the mobile object not approaching the intersection and based on the mobile object approaching the intersection and the set of information being acquired are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives]; based on occurrence of the abnormality, and a predetermined output condition for an emergency stop request being satisfied, generate a first behavior plan for immediately stopping the mobile object [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 6 & 8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0106-0131, the control device 100 is structured to perform functions to determine a first target stop position and/or a first target trajectory (e.g., “first behavior plan for immediately stopping the mobile object”) for the vehicle 1 during the automated driving, at times including when an emergency stop control is executed, such as when there is no no-stopping area AX overlapping the effective stop area AEF, and when the failure of the one or more of the position sensor 21, the recognition sensor 22, and the vehicle state sensor 23 (e.g., the recognition sensor 22) occurs during the automated driving (e.g., “based on occurrence of the abnormality, and a predetermined output condition for an emergency stop request being satisfied”)], and based on the occurrence of the abnormality, and a predetermined output condition not being satisfied, generate a second behavior plan for preventing the mobile object from stopping in an area where advancement of another traffic participant is obstructed [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 6 & 8 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0106-0131, the control device 100 is structured to perform functions to determine a second target stop position and/or a second target trajectory (e.g., “second behavior plan for preventing the mobile object from stopping in an area where advancement of another traffic participant is obstructed”) for the vehicle 1 during the automated driving, at times including when the stop control is executed, such as when there is the no-stopping area AX overlapping the effective stop area AEF, such as when the no-stopping area AX corresponds to the intersection (e.g., “an area where advancement of another traffic participant is obstructed”), and when the failure of the one or more of the position sensor 21, the recognition sensor 22, and the vehicle state sensor 23 (e.g., the recognition sensor 22) occurs during the automated driving (e.g., “based on the occurrence of the abnormality, and a predetermined output condition not being satisfied”), to prevent the vehicle 1 from being stopped in the no-stopping area AX].
With respect to claim 2, Iwamoto teaches the behavior planning device according to claim 1, wherein when having determined that the abnormality has occurred, the at least one processor is further configured to output the emergency stop request in a case where it is impossible to prevent the mobile object from stopping in the area when the mobile object continues to travel (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 3, Iwamoto teaches the behavior planning device according to claim 1, wherein when having determined that the abnormality has occurred, the at least one processor is further configured to output the emergency stop request, in a case where a position at which the mobile object will stop in emergency is in a stop permitted area included in the road information (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 5, Iwamoto teaches the behavior planning device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to detect the occurrence of the abnormality in the complete set of information, based on signals counted at a preset cycle (apparent from at least Fig. 8 in view of at least ¶ 0109-0113) and are received from a roadside device that comprises a camera and is located in a roadside area [as discussed by at least ¶ 0078, 0080, 0089, 0094, 0096 & 0102; the recitation “that comprises a camera” appears to only define something other than the claimed “behavior planning device” and does not appear to necessarily define structure or function of the claimed “behavior planning device” or the recited “signals” (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2114_II)].
With respect to claim 6, Iwamoto teaches the behavior planning device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to detect the occurrence of the abnormality in the complete set of information, based on a reduction in a detection range of the obstacle information around the roadside to a predetermined threshold for a predetermined period (apparent from at least Fig. 8 in view of at least ¶ 0079-0080, 0094, 0109-0113, 0115 & 0117).
With respect to claim 7, Iwamoto teaches a vehicle control system (10) comprising: the behavior planning device according to claim 1 (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1); and a vehicle controller to control the mobile object [it is apparent from at least Fig. 6 in view of at least ¶ 0093-0099 that the control device 100 is structured to control a travel device 30 of the vehicle 1, such that the control device 100 includes structure and function that is the same as (or equivalent to) a “vehicle controller”].
With respect to claim 8, Iwamoto teaches a vehicle control method executed using a behavior planning device memory storing one or more instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to perform a behavior planning generation method (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1), and using a vehicle controller that controls actuators for driving a mobile object (apparent from at least Figs. 6 & 8), the vehicle control method comprising: determining whether or not the mobile object is approaching an intersection (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1); determining whether a complete set of information comprising obstacle information around the mobile object, position information of the mobile object, road information around the mobile object, obstacle information around a roadside, vehicle state information including a control state of the mobile object has been acquired (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1); based on the mobile object approaching the intersection and the complete set of information not being acquired, outputting a vehicle stop request before the mobile object enters the intersection {claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II), and “outputting a vehicle stop request before the mobile object enters the intersection” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” at times including at least one of the conditions “the mobile object approaching the intersection” and “the complete set of information not being acquired” is not met during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” [e.g., when “determining whether a complete set of information comprising obstacle information around the mobile object, position information of the mobile object, road information around the mobile object, obstacle information around a roadside, vehicle state information including a control state of the mobile object has been acquired” (emphasis added) results in a determination that the complete set of information has been acquired during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” and/or when the complete set of information has been acquired during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” and/or when “determining whether or not the mobile object is approaching an intersection” (emphasis added) does not result in a determination that the mobile object is approaching the intersection during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” and/or when the mobile object is not approaching the intersection during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method”], such that “based on the mobile object approaching the intersection and the complete set of information not being acquired, outputting a vehicle stop request before the mobile object enters the intersection” is not necessarily performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” and therefore does not necessarily further limit the claimed “vehicle control method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation; even so, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1}; based on the mobile object not approaching the intersection or based on the mobile object approaching the intersection and the set of information being acquired, determining whether abnormality has occurred on the complete set of information {because based on the mobile object not approaching the intersection and based on the mobile object approaching the intersection and the set of information being acquired are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives; for example, in a first interpretation, “determining whether abnormality has occurred on the complete set of information” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” at times including when the alternatively-recited condition “the mobile object not approaching the intersection” is not met during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” [e.g., when “determining whether or not the mobile object is approaching an intersection” (emphasis added) results in a determination that the mobile object is approaching the intersection during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” and/or when the mobile object approaches the intersection during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method”], such that “based on the mobile object not approaching the intersection or based on the mobile object approaching the intersection and the set of information being acquired, determining whether abnormality has occurred on the complete set of information” is not necessarily performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” and therefore does not necessarily further limit the claimed “vehicle control method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above); alternatively, for example, in a second interpretation, “determining whether abnormality has occurred on the complete set of information” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” at times including when at least one of the alternatively-recited conditions “the mobile object approaching the intersection” and “the set of information being acquired” is not met during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” [e.g., when “determining whether a complete set of information comprising obstacle information around the mobile object, position information of the mobile object, road information around the mobile object, obstacle information around a roadside, vehicle state information including a control state of the mobile object has been acquired” (emphasis added) does not result in a determination that the complete set of information has been acquired during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” and/or when the complete set of information has not been acquired during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” and/or when “determining whether or not the mobile object is approaching an intersection” (emphasis added) results in a determination that the mobile object is not approaching the intersection during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” and/or when the mobile object does not approach the intersection during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method”], such that “based on the mobile object not approaching the intersection or based on the mobile object approaching the intersection and the set of information being acquired, determining whether abnormality has occurred on the complete set of information” is not necessarily performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” and therefore does not necessarily further limit the claimed “vehicle control method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above); even so, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1}; based on occurrence of the abnormality, and a predetermined output condition for an emergency stop request being satisfied, generating a first behavior plan for immediately stopping the mobile object {“generating a first behavior plan for immediately stopping the mobile object” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” at times including when at least one of the conditions “occurrence of the abnormality” and “a predetermined output condition for an emergency stop request being satisfied” is not met during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” [e.g., when “determining whether abnormality has occurred on the complete set of information” (emphasis added) is not performed or results in a determination that the abnormality has not occurred during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” and/or when the abnormality has not occurred during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” and/or when the predetermined output condition for the emergency stop request is not satisfied during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method”], such that “based on occurrence of the abnormality, and a predetermined output condition for an emergency stop request being satisfied, generating a first behavior plan for immediately stopping the mobile object” is not necessarily performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” and therefore does not necessarily further limit the claimed “vehicle control method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above); even so, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1}, and based on the occurrence of the abnormality, and the predetermined output condition not being satisfied, generating a second behavior plan for preventing the mobile object from stopping in an area where advancement of another traffic participant is obstructed {“generating a second behavior plan for preventing the mobile object from stopping in an area where advancement of another traffic participant is obstructed” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” at times including when at least one of the conditions “occurrence of the abnormality” and “the predetermined output condition not being satisfied” is not met during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” [e.g., when “determining whether abnormality has occurred on the complete set of information” (emphasis added) is not performed or results in a determination that the abnormality has not occurred during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” and/or when the abnormality has not occurred during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method” and/or when the predetermined output condition for the emergency stop request is satisfied during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method”], such that “based on the occurrence of the abnormality, and the predetermined output condition not being satisfied, generating a second behavior plan for preventing the mobile object from stopping in an area where advancement of another traffic participant is obstructed” is not necessarily performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” and therefore does not necessarily further limit the claimed “vehicle control method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above); even so, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1}; and controlling the brake and the steering wheel of the mobile object to according to the first behavior plan or the second behavior plan {because controlling the brake and the steering wheel of the mobile object to according to the first behavior plan and controlling the brake and the steering wheel of the mobile object to according to the second behavior plan are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives; for example, in a first interpretation, “controlling the brake and the steering wheel of the mobile object to according to the first behavior plan” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” at times including when the contingent limitation “based on occurrence of the abnormality, and a predetermined output condition for an emergency stop request being satisfied, generating a first behavior plan for immediately stopping the mobile object” is not performed during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method,” such that “controlling the brake and the steering wheel of the mobile object to according to the first behavior plan or the second behavior plan” is not necessarily performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” and therefore does not necessarily further limit the claimed “vehicle control method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above); alternatively, for example, in a second interpretation, “controlling the brake and the steering wheel of the mobile object to according to … the second behavior plan” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” at times including when the contingent limitation “based on the occurrence of the abnormality, and the predetermined output condition not being satisfied, generating a second behavior plan for preventing the mobile object from stopping in an area where advancement of another traffic participant is obstructed” is not performed during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method,” such that “controlling the brake and the steering wheel of the mobile object to according to the first behavior plan or the second behavior plan” is not necessarily performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” and therefore does not necessarily further limit the claimed “vehicle control method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above); even so, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1}.
With respect to claim 9, Iwamoto teaches the vehicle control method according to claim 8, wherein the predetermined output condition for the emergency stop request is that it is impossible to prevent the mobile object from stopping in the area when the mobile object continues to travel (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 2), and when it is determined that the abnormality has occurred, in a case where it is impossible to prevent the mobile object from stopping in the area when the mobile object continues to travel, the emergency stop request is outputted [ “the emergency stop request is outputted” (which is not a step) would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed “vehicle control method” at times including when one or both of the conditions “it is determined that the abnormality has occurred” and “a case where it is impossible to prevent the mobile object from stopping in the area when the mobile object continues to travel” is/are not met during performing of the claimed “vehicle control method,” such that “when it is determined that the abnormality has occurred, in a case where it is impossible to prevent the mobile object from stopping in the area when the mobile object continues to travel, the emergency stop request is outputted” does not necessarily further limit the claimed “vehicle control method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 8); even so, as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 2 and 8].
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 JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747