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 .
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of IN202341042929 filed 6/27/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Claim 1. A device comprising:
a memory that includes a first portion and a second portion;
memory control circuitry structured to: receive a first set of data associated with a first radar chirp.
receive a second set of data associated with a second radar chirp;
store a first subset of the first set of data in the first portion of the memory;
store a first subset of the second set of data in the first portion of the memory adjacent to the first subset of the first set of data.
store a second subset of the first set of data and a second subset of the second set of data in the second portion of the memory.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a apparatus including at least one structure. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes.
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of receive a first set of data associated with a first radar chirp; receive a second set of data associated with a second radar chirp; store a first subset of the first set of data in the first portion of the memory; store a first subset of the second set of data in the first portion of the memory adjacent to the first subset of the first set of data; and store a second subset of the first set of data and a second subset of the second set of data in the second portion of the memory.
These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at information and making a simple judgement of visually determining, or using a pen and paper, to determine a storing data in different portion of memory.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of a device comprising: a memory that includes a first portion and a second portion; and memory control circuitry structured to: receive.
The detecting an indication of a position and receiving the indication are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of collecting information), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “a memory that includes a first portion and a second portion” and “memory control circuitry structured to: receive” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using generic or general-purpose vehicle components and generic computer components.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the device is a Radar System on a Chi[ mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 11
Claim 11. A system comprising:
transmit circuitry structured to produce a first radar chirp and a second radar chirp;
receive circuitry structured to: receive a first response to the first radar chirp and a second response to the second radar chirp; and
generate first and second sets of sample data corresponding to respective ones of the received first response and second response;
memory; and
memory control circuitry structured to: store a first portion of the first set of sample data in a first bank of the memory; and
store a first portion of the second set of sample data in the first bank of the memory, the first portion of the second set of sample data adjacent to the first portion of the first set of sample data.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of receive a first response to the first radar chirp and a second response to the second radar chirp; generate first and second sets of sample data corresponding to respective ones of the received first response and second response; store a first portion of the first set of sample data in a first bank of the memory; and store a first portion of the second set of sample data in the first bank of the memory, the first portion of the second set of sample data adjacent to the first portion of the first set of sample data.
These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “transmit circuitry structured to produce a first radar chirp and a second radar chirp”, “receive circuitry structured to: receive”, “memory; and memory control circuitry structured to: store”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the recitation of “receive”, ‘store” the claim encompasses a person looking at information and making a simple judgement of visually determining and mentally estimating, or using a pen and paper, to determine a storing data in different portion of memory.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of transmit circuitry structured to produce a first radar chirp and a second radar chirp”, “receive circuitry structured to: receive”, “memory; and memory control circuitry structured to: store;
The receiving a position is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of collecting information), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “transmit circuitry”, “receive circuitry”, “memory control circuitry” of the system merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using generic or general-purpose vehicle components and generic computer components. The data processing system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the determining steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the transmitting, receiving steps and the storing step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the device is a Radar System on a Chip mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 18
Claim 18. A method, comprising:
receiving radar chirps, respective ones of the radar chirps initially stored as first samples adjacent to second samples;
storing a first one of the samples corresponding to a first one of the respective ones of the radar chirps in a first memory portion adjacent to a first one of the samples corresponding to a second one of the respective ones of the radar chirps; and
storing a second one of the samples corresponding to the first one of the respective ones of the radar chirps in a second memory location adjacent to a second one of the radar data samples corresponding to the second one of the respective ones of the radar chirps.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of receiving radar chirps, respective ones of the radar chirps initially stored as first samples adjacent to second samples; storing a first one of the samples corresponding to a first one of the respective ones of the radar chirps in a first memory portion adjacent to a first one of the samples corresponding to a second one of the respective ones of the radar chirps; storing a second one of the samples corresponding to the first one of the respective ones of the radar chirps in a second memory location adjacent to a second one of the radar data samples corresponding to the second one of the respective ones of the radar chirps.
These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “receiving”, “storing”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at information and making a simple judgement of visually determining mentally estimating, or using a pen and paper, to store in particular order. The mere nominal recitation of “receiving” and “storing” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of receiving, storing.
The receiving radar chirp is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of collecting information), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The radar of the vehicle merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using generic or general-purpose vehicle components and generic computer components. The data processing system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the determining steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the storing step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the device is a Radar System on a Chip mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-17 and 19-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claims.
Therefore, claims 1-17 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is allowed if corresponding 101 rejection is overcome.
Allowable subject matter:
“store a first subset of the first set of data in the first portion of the memory; store a first subset of the second set of data in the first portion of the memory adjacent to the first subset of the first set of data; and store a second subset of the first set of data and a second subset of the second set of data in the second portion of the memory
Closet Prior Art found to be.”
Claims 2-10 depends on allowable claim 1 and therefore are also objected to be allowable.
Claim 11 is allowed if corresponding 101 rejection is overcome.
Allowable subject matter:
“store a first portion of the first set of sample data in a first bank of the memory; and store a first portion of the second set of sample data in the first bank of the memory, the first portion of the second set of sample data adjacent to the first portion of the first set of sample data.”
Claims 12-17 depends on allowable claim 11 and therefore are also objected to be allowable.
Claim 18 is allowed if corresponding 101 rejection is overcome.
Allowable subject matter:
“storing a first one of the samples corresponding to a first one of the respective ones of the radar chirps in a first memory portion adjacent to a first one of the samples corresponding to a second one of the respective ones of the radar chirps; and storing a second one of the samples corresponding to the first one of the respective ones of the radar chirps in a second memory location adjacent to a second one of the radar data samples corresponding to the second one of the respective ones of the radar chirps.”
Claims 19-20 depends on allowable claim 18 and therefore are also objected to be allowable.
Closet Prior art found to be:
Kozdan et al. (US 2025/0231283 A1) describes (paragraph 11: the machine learning model may be limited to the evaluation data of the first subset of (M) range bins and the calculated data for the second subset of (N) range bins).
Thompson (US 2019/0346535 A1) describes a method of operating a radar apparatus of the kind comprising an antenna array of N antennas, a processing unit which receives data captured from the antenna array and includes an area of local storage memory and a larger area of remote burst access memory, the method comprising for a single cycle of the radar comprising two or more chirps of transmitted radar frequency signal: (a) capturing a first chirp of data in the cycle which generates D data samples from each of N antennas and storing the data in a local storage memory, (b) processing the captured data using a Fourier Transform to generate a set of range bin data, one for each antenna, where each set comprises R range bins, (c) transferring in a sequence of bursts the range bin data for the chirp from the local storage memory to a remote burst access memory where the data is arranged in a grid pattern, the grid pattern comprising data filled rows containing two or more unique range bins of data for the chirp held in a continuous strip of the remote burst access memory, the data filled rows being separated vertically from adjacent data filled rows by multiple rows which do not contain any bursts of data associated with the chirp, (d) repeating the steps (a) and (b) for each subsequent chirp of data in the cycle, (e) repeating step (c) after the range bin data for each subsequent chirp has been stored in the local storage memory so as to transfer in a sequence of bursts the range bin data for each subsequent chirp of data from the local storage memory to the remote burst access memory where the data is arranged in the same grid pattern used for step (c) but offset vertically by one or more rows to fit within the rows in the column that have not been written with data for any previously processed chirp in the cycle,(f) transferring from the remote burst access memory into the local storage memory, in one or more bursts, at least one continuous vertical block of data from the remote block that has a length equal to the number of different range bins, (g) process the data transferred into the local storage memory using a Fourier Transform to generate a set of velocity data comprising a set of velocity bins where each velocity-bin is generated from the values of the corresponding range bin for every antenna of the array, and repeating steps (f) and (g) until all of the data in the remote burst access memory block of data has been processed by the second FFT (paragraph 14).
Nayyar et al. (US 2016/008511 A1) describes radar signal processing for one radar frame across multiple receive antennas…the term “fast time” refers to time samples within a single chirp and the term “slow time” refers to the number of chirps in the chirp sequence…for each receive antenna, a range Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) is performed on the digitized samples of each reflected chirp to convert the data to the frequency domain…peak values correspond to ranges (distances) of objects…this processing is usually performed in-line, meaning that the range FFT is performed on the digitized samples of a previous chirp while samples are being collected for the current chirp…the results of the range FFTs are saved in memory for further processing…there will be one set of range FFT results for each receive antenna…if there are N time samples in a chirp, N range results are stored for the chirp…logically, if there are M chirps in the chirp sequence, an array of M×N range values is generated by the range FFTs…in this array, which may be referred to as the range-time array, the N columns are the range values for samples at the same relative time across the M chirps (paragraph 26: Figure 2).
Achatz et al. (US 2025/0341634 A1) describes that the MMIC 401 is for example part of the receiver 106. The MMIC 401 is coupled with a plurality of antennas and is supplied with received signals from the respective plurality of antennas (paragraph 8); a first diagram 801, it is assumed that the AI decompressing 602 is only provided with a sample 802, 803, 804, 805, 806 for sampling times #1, #4, #5, #7 and #8 of a uniform sequence of chirps (#1 to #8) (paragraph 110); the machine learning model fills up the samples by interpolation to “full” range FFT input data 807 for the range FFT 704, i.e. generates samples 808, 809, 810 for sampling times #2, #3, and #6. This may be seen as a restoration of samples (generally as calculation of missing samples (paragraph 111); a second diagram 811, it is assumed that the first device provides samples for sampling times corresponding to a sampling frequency f.sub.0 and the AI decompressing 602 calculates additional samples such that there are samples for sampling times according to a higher sampling frequency, e.g. f.sub.s=2*f.sub.0. So, in this example, the AI decompressing 602 is only provided with four samples 812, 813, 814, 815 (paragraph 112); the machine learning model fills up these data by interpolation and extrapolation to samples for each of sampling times #1 to #8, i.e. “full” range FFT input data 816 by generating samples 817, 818, 819, 820. For the input of the AI decompressing 602, the received sequence of samples may for example be zeroed (by the signal processing unit performing the AI decompressing 602 such as a microcontroller) such that there are gaps for the samples which the AI decompressing 602 should insert into the sequence of samples (paragraph 113).
Govinda Kammath et al. (US 2024/0302519 A1) describes that the radar sensor may, in some cases, be a multi-channel radar sensor, i.e., it may comprise a plurality of channels (antennas) to transmit or receive radar signals, e.g., simultaneously...ach channel may operate independently from other channels and may have its own transmitter, receiver, and signal processing components. The use of multiple channels may provide improved accuracy, increased range, improved resolution and increased data rate…the plurality of chirps may be from the plurality of channels of the radar sensor…the processing circuitry 120 may then be configured to determine a combined set of chirps by combining the plurality of chirps over the plurality of channels and determine the covariance by determining a covariance of the combined set of chirps…any method may be chosen to combine the chirps, such as STAP (Space-Time Adaptive Processing), PCA (Principal Component Analysis) or ICA (Independent Component Analysis). For instance, the respective data of the receivers may be summed to combine their information to a single signal (paragraph 49).
The closest prior art, Kozdan et al. (US 2025/0231283 A1), Thompson (US 2019/0346535 A1), Nayyar et al. (US 2016/008511 A1), Achatz et al. (US 2025/0341634 A1) and Govinda Kammath et al. (US 2024/0302519 A1) disclose conventional systems, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render the above claimed features obvious, and therefore the claims are allowable over the prior art.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NUZHAT PERVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, William J Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
/NUZHAT PERVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648