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 .
2. The following is a Non-Final Office action in response to Applicant submission received on 11/13/2023.
3. Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
Foreign Priority
4. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Oath/Declaration
5. The applicant's oath/declaration filed on 11/13/2023 has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Drawings
6. The applicant’s drawings submitted on 11/13/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
7. The information disclosure statement submitted by Applicant is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Interpretation
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first communication unit”, “a second communication unit”, “a communication unit”, “a processing unit” in claims 9 and 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: paragraphs 61-65, 76-77.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
11. 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.
12. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 11 and 12 disclose, respectively, “a computer program” and “a computer-readable medium”. Specification recites “the working, advantages and embodiments of the Relay UE, the UE as well as the working, advantages, and embodiments of the computer program and computer-readable medium, correspond with the working, advantages and embodiments of the methods as described in this document, mutatis mutandis” (paragraphs 67, 68). In other words, the specification only provides mere example of computer readable medium, which is not a definition. In plain meaning, the computer program and computer-readable medium cover transitory-signal as well as non-transitory medium. The broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification encompasses that “computer program” and “computer-readable medium” can be “signal per se" since it does not exclude transitory “signal” which stores the non-transitory software code of the computer program within relatively short amount of time. Thus, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Objections
13. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites “A rely UE” which appears to be a typographical error. The examiner believes that the applicant meant to claim “A relay UE”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
14. 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.
15. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
16. Claim(s) 1, 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Patil et al. (US 20150081840 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Patil discloses Method for Service Relaying in a Relay UE:
receiving, by a Relay UE, a Service Catalogue (SC) of a Remote Service Provider (Patil, Fig. 3, para. 45-47, 70-74: Service Provider STA 304 transmits to the Proxy STA 302 (e.g., considered as the relay UE) a Service Advertisement message. Moreover, paragraph 62 discloses the Service Advertisement message is used to inform other devices about the list of available services. That is, said Service Advertisement message is considered as a Service Catalogue),
establishing, by the Relay UE, a connection between the Relay UE and a UE, wherein the Remote Service Provider is arranged for providing services to a UE (Patil, Fig. 3, para. 70-74: Seeker STA 306 (considered as a UE) establishes a connection with the Proxy STA 302. Moreover, paragraph 72 discloses that the Seeker STA can establish a connection with the Proxy STA before having received the Service Advertisement message from the Proxy STA);
wherein the Service Catalogue comprises information about the services (Patil, Fig. 3, para. 62: the Service Advertisement message is used to inform other devices about the list of available services. That is, said Service Advertisement message is considered as a Service Catalogue); wherein the Relay UE is arranged for relaying one or more of the services from the Remote Service Provider to the UE (Patil, Fig. 3, para. 72: the Service Provider STA transmits service data to the Proxy STA, relays the same service data to the Seeker STA, i.e., the Remote Service Provider is arranged for providing services to the UE);
generating, by the Relay UE, meta-data, wherein the meta-data comprises additional information about the services for the UE (Patil, Fig. 3, para. 69-74: Service Provider STA 304 transmits to the Proxy STA a Service Advertisement message that is considered as a Service Catalogue (para. 62). Moreover, paragraphs 100, 106 disclose that the Service Advertisement message includes additional parameters providing additional information as shown in Fig. 4C wherein said additional parameters are considered as meta-data);
providing, by the Relay UE, information about the Service Catalogue and about the meta-data to the UE (Patil, Fig. 3, para. 69-74: the Proxy STA, i.e., the Relay UE, transmits to the Seeker STA the Service Advertisement message. Paragraph 62 discloses that the Service Advertisement message is used to inform other devices about the list of available services. That is, said Service Advertisement message is considered as a Service Catalogue. Moreover, paragraph 100 discloses that the Service Advertisement message includes additional parameters providing additional information as shown in Fig. 4C wherein said additional parameters are considered as meta-data); and,
when the UE selects one of the services based on the provided information (Patil, Fig. 3, para. 69-74: step 312: the Proxy STA retransmits to the Seeker STA the Service Advertisement message so that the Seeker STA receives the Service Advertisement message and the meta-data. Paragraph 103 further discloses the Seeker STA can use the metadata for deciding whether to select a particular service, for example, by selecting a service only if said service is available in the mesh network where the Seeker STA is currently associated), relaying the selected service from the Remote Service Provider to the UE (Patil, Fig. 3, para. 69-74: the Service Provider STA, i.e., the Remote Service Provider, transmits service data to the to the Proxy STA, i.e., the Relay UE, and that, relays the same service data to the Seeker STA, i.e., the UE. Patil further discloses that the Relay UE is arranged for relaying said selected services from the Remote Service Provider to said UE).
Regarding claim 4, Patil discloses Method according to claim 1, wherein the Service Catalogue is received from at least one of a group comprising: a cloud system; a V2X server; a Remote Service Provider; and another UE (Patil, Fig. 3, para. 69-74: Service Provider STA 304 as the Remote Service Provider).
Regarding claim 5, Patil discloses Method according to claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the Relay UE another Service Catalogue from another Remote Service Provider (Patil, Fig. 3, para. 45-47, 70-74: Service Provider STA 304 transmits to the Proxy STA 302 (e.g., considered as the relay UE) a Service Advertisement message. Moreover, paragraph 62 discloses the Service Advertisement message is used to inform other devices about the list of available services. That is, said Service Advertisement message is considered as a Service Catalogue), wherein the other Remote Service Provider is arranged for providing other services to said the UE (Patil, Fig. 3, para. 70-74: Seeker STA 306 (considered as a UE) establishes a connection with the Proxy STA 302. Moreover, paragraph 72 discloses that the Seeker STA can establish a connection with the Proxy STA before having received the Service Advertisement message from the Proxy STA); wherein the other Service Catalogue comprises information about the other services (Patil, Fig. 3, para. 62: the Service Advertisement message is used to inform other devices about the list of available services. That is, said Service Advertisement message is considered as a Service Catalogue); wherein the Relay UE is arranged for relaying one or more of the other services from the other Remote Service Provider to the UE (Patil, Fig. 3, para. 72: the Service Provider STA transmits service data to the Proxy STA, relays the same service data to the Seeker STA, i.e., the Remote Service Provider is arranged for providing services to the UE); generating, by the Relay UE, other meta-data, wherein the other meta-data comprises additional information about the other services for the UE (Patil, Fig. 3, para. 69-74: Service Provider STA 304 transmits to the Proxy STA a Service Advertisement message that is considered as a Service Catalogue (para. 62). Moreover, paragraphs 100, 106 disclose that the Service Advertisement message includes additional parameters providing additional information as shown in Fig. 4C wherein said additional parameters are considered as meta-data); and providing, by the Relay UE, information about the other Service Catalogue and about the other meta-data to the UE (Patil, Fig. 3, para. 69-74: the Proxy STA, i.e., the Relay UE, transmits to the Seeker STA the Service Advertisement message. Paragraph 62 discloses that the Service Advertisement message is used to inform other devices about the list of available services. That is, said Service Advertisement message is considered as a Service Catalogue. Moreover, paragraph 100 discloses that the Service Advertisement message includes additional parameters providing additional information as shown in Fig. 4C wherein said additional parameters are considered as meta-data).
Regarding claim 6, Patil discloses Method according to claim 5, further comprising: creating, by the Relay UE, one or more further services based on at least one of a selection or combination of at least one of services provided by the Remote Service Provider or the other services provided by the other Remote Service Provider (Patil, Fig. 3, para. 45-47, 70-74: Service Provider STA 304 transmits to the Proxy STA 302 (e.g., considered as the relay UE) a Service Advertisement message. Moreover, paragraph 62 discloses the Service Advertisement message is used to inform other devices about the list of available services. Patil further discloses the Service Provider STA transmits service data to the Proxy STA, relays the same service data to the Seeker STA, i.e., the Remote Service Provider is arranged for providing services to the UE), generating, by the Relay UE, a further Service Catalogue comprising information about the further services (Patil, Fig. 3, para. 62: the Service Advertisement message is used to inform other devices about the list of available services. That is, said Service Advertisement message is considered as a Service Catalogue); generating, by the Relay UE, further meta-data, wherein the further meta-data comprises additional information about the further services for the UE (Patil, Fig. 3, para. 69-74: Service Provider STA 304 transmits to the Proxy STA a Service Advertisement message that is considered as a Service Catalogue (para. 62). Moreover, paragraphs 100, 106 disclose that the Service Advertisement message includes additional parameters providing additional information as shown in Fig. 4C wherein said additional parameters are considered as meta-data); and providing, by the Relay UE, information about the further Service Catalogue and about the further meta-data to the UE (Patil, Fig. 3, para. 69-74: the Proxy STA, i.e., the Relay UE, transmits to the Seeker STA the Service Advertisement message. Paragraph 62 discloses that the Service Advertisement message is used to inform other devices about the list of available services. That is, said Service Advertisement message is considered as a Service Catalogue. Moreover, paragraph 100 discloses that the Service Advertisement message includes additional parameters providing additional information as shown in Fig. 4C wherein said additional parameters are considered as meta-data).
Regarding claim 7, Patil discloses Method according to claim 1, further comprising generating, by the Relay UE, the information about at least one of services, other services or further services, in which the information is at least one of logically structured or provided with a hierarchy (Patil, Fig. 4C, para. 100-111: the Service Advertisement message and the additional parameters, i.e., the metadata, are logically structured and/or provided with a hierarchy).
Regarding claim 8, Patil discloses Method for selecting a relayed Service in UE, comprising: establishing, by a UE, a connection between the UE and a Relay UE (Patil, Fig. 3, para. 70-74: Seeker STA 306 (considered as a UE) establishes a connection with the Proxy STA 302. Moreover, paragraph 72 discloses that the Seeker STA can establish a connection with the Proxy STA before having received the Service Advertisement message from the Proxy STA); receiving, by the UE, information about a Service Catalogue of a Remote Service Provider and about meta-data from a Relay UE (Patil, Fig. 3, para. 45-47, 70-74: Service Provider STA 304 transmits to the Proxy STA 302 (e.g., considered as the relay UE) a Service Advertisement message. Moreover, paragraph 62 discloses the Service Advertisement message is used to inform other devices about the list of available services. That is, said Service Advertisement message is considered as a Service Catalogue); wherein the Service Catalogue comprises information about services provided by the Remote Service Provider and wherein the meta-data is generated by the Relay UE and comprises additional information about the services (Patil, Fig. 3, para. 72: the Service Provider STA transmits service data to the Proxy STA, relays the same service data to the Seeker STA, i.e., the Remote Service Provider is arranged for providing services to the UE. Moreover, Patil, Fig. 3, para. 69-74: discloses Service Provider STA 304 transmits to the Proxy STA a Service Advertisement message that is considered as a Service Catalogue (para. 62). Moreover, paragraphs 100, 106 disclose that the Service Advertisement message includes additional parameters providing additional information as shown in Fig. 4C wherein said additional parameters are considered as meta-data); selecting, by the UE, one of the services based on the provided information (Patil, Fig. 3, para. 69-74: step 312: the Proxy STA retransmits to the Seeker STA the Service Advertisement message so that the Seeker STA receives the Service Advertisement message and the meta-data. Paragraph 103 further discloses the Seeker STA can use the metadata for deciding whether to select a particular service, for example, by selecting a service only if said service is available in the mesh network where the Seeker STA is currently associated); and, receiving, by the UE, the selected service from the Remote Service Provider relayed by the Relay UE (Patil, Fig. 3, para. 69-74: the Service Provider STA, i.e., the Remote Service Provider, transmits service data to the to the Proxy STA, i.e., the Relay UE, and that, relays the same service data to the Seeker STA, i.e., the UE. Patil further discloses that the Relay UE is arranged for relaying said selected services from the Remote Service Provider to said UE).
Regarding claim 9, Patil discloses a Rely UE for Service Relaying, comprising: a first communication unit comprising electronic hardware for communication with a Remote Service Provider and a second communication unit comprising electronic hardware for communicating with a UE; a processing unit comprising electronic hardware connected to the first and second communication units and arranged for carry out the method of claim 1 (Patil, para. 33-36: disclose different communication networks that can carry out the method of claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Patil discloses a UE for receiving a relayed Service, comprising: a communication unit comprising electronic hardware for communicating with a Relay UE; a processing unit comprising electronic hardware connected to the communication unit and arranged for carry out the method of claim 8 (Patil, para. 62: the communication system 100 to carry out the method of claim 8).
Regarding claim 11, Patil discloses a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1 (Patil, para. 11: a computer program to carry out the method of claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Patil discloses a computer-readable medium having stored thereon the computer program of claim 11 (Patil, para. 11: a computer readable medium to carry out the computer program of claim 11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
17. 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.
18. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
19. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
20. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
21. Claim(s) 2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 20150081840 A1) in view of Russell et al. (US 20190037518 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Patil discloses all the subject matter of the Method according to claim 1 with the exception wherein the meta-data comprises additional information regarding at least one of a group comprising: Quality of Service of a respective service; estimated processing load of the Relay UE; estimated use of a network bandwidth; estimated energy consumption; battery status of the Relay UE; costs of a respective service; and, rating of the Remote Service Provider.
In the same field of endeavor, Patil discloses wherein the meta-data comprises additional information regarding at least one of a group comprising: Quality of Service of a respective service; estimated processing load of the Relay UE; estimated use of a network bandwidth; estimated energy consumption (Russell, para. 432: energy management devices); battery status of the Relay UE (Russell, para. 454: charging a battery on the user equipment); costs of a respective service; and, rating of the Remote Service Provider.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Patil with the teaching of Russell by using the above features into the system of Patil such that the meta-data comprises additional information regarding estimated energy consumption and/or battery status of the Relay UE as taught by Russell. The motivation for doing so would have been to implement a system for providing connectivity through the relay user equipment.
Regarding claim 3, Patil discloses all the subject matter of the Method according to claim 1 with the exception wherein the services comprise at least one of services at a connection layer or services at an application layer, wherein the services at an application-layer comprise at least one of a group comprising: remote computing, for Artificial Intelligence calculations or Machine Learning calculations; remote storage of data; and infotainment.
In the similar field of endeavor, Russell discloses wherein the services comprise at least one of services at a connection layer or services at an application layer, wherein the services at an application-layer comprise at least one of a group comprising: remote computing, for Artificial Intelligence calculations or Machine Learning calculations; remote storage of data (Russell, para. 207, 214, 219: The relay UE may store the received remote UE user identity against the remote UE local connection ID address); and infotainment (Patil, para. 117, 136: an infotainment system may be associated with the relay UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Patil with the teaching of Russell by using the above features into the system of Patil such that the services at an application-layer comprise a remote storage of data and infotainment as taught by Russell. The motivation for doing so would have been to implement a system for providing connectivity through the relay user equipment.
Conclusion
22. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Palwe et al. (US 20130219333 A1) discloses a data service provider and/or a telecommunications provider (e.g., cellular service provider, wireless internet service provider, etc.) that provides communication network may allow users to purchase or otherwise download applications on demand. These applications may have associated keywords or other metadata accessible to the mobile assistant for use in generating a list of suggested commands. For example, relay station and/or a data service provider may provide a listing of keywords or other metadata to the mobile assistant in response to a query from the mobile assistant for potential commands to provide to a user or push such data to the mobile assistant for ready use when needed.
b) Vau et al. (US 20060203104 A1) discloses providing the message transmission between the user of the mobile imaging equipment and the image management services provider.
23. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN F VOLTAIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-3953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:45 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, FARUK HAMZA can be reached at (571)272-7969. 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.
/JEAN F VOLTAIRE/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466