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 .
Election/Restrictions
Examiner notes that Applicant elects Group I, corresponding to Claims 12-20 without traversal. Examiner correspondingly examines Group I (Claims 12-20).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/29/2023 and 06/04/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 122. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the length of the abstract is greater than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 12-20 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 12 line 8 recites “the at least first model coefficient”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 lines 9 and 21, Claim 13 line 3, Claim 14 lines 5-6 recite “the footprint length” even though Claim 12 line 5 recites “footprint length” and Claim 12 line 6 recites “a footprint length”. It is unclear which footprint length is “the footprint length”. Therefore Claim 12 and further dependent claims 13-20 are indefinite.
Claim 12 line 9 recites “the vertical load” even though Claim 12 line 4 recites “vertical load” twice. It is unclear which vertical load is “the vertical load”. Therefore Claim 12 and further dependent claims 13-20 are indefinite.
Claim 12 line 20 recites “the load acting upon the first tire”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 line 20, Claim 14 line 5, and Claim 15 line 2 recites “the linear model” even though Claim 12 line 4 recites “one or more linear models” and Claim 12 line 17 recites “a linear model”. It is unclear which linear model is “the linear model”. Therefore Claim 12 and further dependent claims 13-20 are indefinite.
Claim 12 line 21 recites “the at least first model coefficient” even though Claim 12 line 8 recites “the at least first model coefficient” and Claim 12 line 18 recites “a first model coefficient”. It is unclear which first model coefficient is recited in “the at least first model coefficient”. Therefore Claim 12 and further dependent claims 13-20 are indefinite.
Claim 13 line 2 recites “the sensor” even though Claim 12 line 6 recites “a sensor” and Claim 12 lines 14-15 recites “a sensor”. It is unclear which sensor is “the sensor”. Therefore Claim 13 is indefinite.
Claim 13 lines 2 and 3 recite “the tire” even though Claim 12 line 1 recites “a tire”, Claim 12 line 7 recites “a tire”, and Claim 12 lines 12-13 recite “a first tire”. It is unclear which tire is “the tire”. Therefore Claim 13 is indefinite.
Claim 14 line 2 recites “the at least first model coefficient” even though Claim 12 line 8 recites “the at least first model coefficient” and Claim 12 line 18 recites “a first model coefficient”. It is unclear which first model coefficient is recited in “the at least first model coefficient”. Therefore Claim 14 and further dependent claim 15 are indefinite.
Claim 14 line 5 and Claim 15 line 1 recite “the load acting upon the tire” even though Claim 12 line 1 recites “a tire”, Claim 12 line 7 recites “a tire”, and Claim 12 lines 12-13 recite “a first tire”. It is unclear which tire is the load acting upon. Therefore Claim 14 and further dependent claim 15 are indefinite.
Claim 14 line 6 recites “the first model coefficient” even though Claim 12 line 8 recites “the at least first model coefficient” and Claim 12 line 18 recites “a first model coefficient”. It is unclear which first model coefficient is recited in “the at least first model coefficient”. Therefore Claim 14 and further dependent claim 15 are indefinite.
Claim 18 line 1, Claim 19 lines 1 and 2, and Claim 20 line 2 recite “the estimated load” even though Claim 12 line 1 recites “estimating at least a load acting upon a tire” and Claim 12 line 20 recites “estimating the load acting upon the first tire”. It is unclear for which tire is “the estimated load” acting upon. Therefore Claim 18 and further dependent claims 19-20 are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garbelli (US 20200041297 A1).
With regards to Claim 12, Garbelli teaches
during respective test operations comprising known input values for tire inflation pressure, vertical load, and velocity (See Para[0095] “A, B, C are calibration parameters depending on the tire pressure P, whose values can be obtained by a calibration performed for the tire model to which the tire monitoring unit is to be associated. Calibration can be performed by using conventional testing machines on which a tire inflated at a controlled pressure and temperature is rotated (i.e. during respective test operations, as each test operation consists of calibrating A, B, and C for each rotation angle) over a conveyor belt under controlled conditions of exerted load and rotation speed (i.e. comprising known input values for tire inflation pressure, vertical load, and velocity).”), generating one or more linear models correlating vertical load and footprint length by (See Para[0095], equation ii)):
monitoring input signals representative of a footprint length from a sensor mounted on a tire corresponding to the test operation (See Para[0095] “A, B, C are calibration parameters depending on the tire pressure P, whose values can be obtained by a calibration performed for the tire model to which the tire monitoring unit is to be associated (i.e. a sensor corresponding to the test operation, which corresponds to each degree rotation of the tire, see Para[0095] “Calibration can be performed by using conventional testing machines on which a tire inflated at a controlled pressure and temperature is rotated”).” The tire monitoring unit contains sensors to measure quantities to obtain the footprint length, see Abstract “a tire monitoring unit to at least one tire fitted to the vehicle (i.e. a sensor mounted on a tire). The monitoring unit has a sensing element to generate a sensing signal descriptive of deformations undergone by the tire. The deformations form a contact area between the tire and a rolling surface on which the tire rotates. During rotation of the tire, the sensing signal, including the sensing signal generated in correspondence of passages of the sensing element through the contact area, is undersampled for a number of passages sufficient to obtain an estimated length of the contact area (i.e. monitoring input signals, via the sensing signals, representative of a footprint length from a sensor, which is an estimated length of the contact area).” );
calculating the at least first model coefficient in accordance with a linear correlation between the vertical load and the footprint length at the known tire inflation pressure (See Para[0095], equation ii), where A(P) is the at least first model coefficient which is in accordance with the linear correlation established in equation ii) between the vertical load Fz and the footprint length PL at the known tire inflation pressure P); and
the at least first model coefficient as a function of the known tire inflation pressure (See Para[0095], equation ii), where A(P) is the at least first model coefficient as a function of the known tire inflation pressure P);
wherein the method further comprises, during an actual operation (See Fig. 7, the entire Figure) including at least a first tire mounted on the vehicle (See Fig. 5, the vehicle (100) contains a first tire, which is any one of the four tires (1)):
obtaining at least signals representative of a sensed tire inflation pressure from a sensor mounted on the first tire (see Abstract “a tire monitoring unit to at least one tire fitted to the vehicle (i.e. a sensor mounted on the first tire, where the first tire is any one of the four tires (1) with a tire monitoring unit (2) , see Fig. 5).” and see Para[0017] “Tire monitoring units typically comprise an electronic unit and a securing device for securing the electronic unit inside the tire. The electronic unit comprises at least one sensor (for example a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor (i.e. obtaining at least signals representative of a sensed tire inflation pressure from a sensor)”);
determining a footprint length associated with the first tire (see Abstract “a tire monitoring unit to at least one tire fitted to the vehicle (i.e. the first tire, where the first tire is any one of the four tires (1) with a tire monitoring unit (2) , see Fig. 5). The monitoring unit has a sensing element to generate a sensing signal descriptive of deformations undergone by the tire. The deformations form a contact area between the tire and a rolling surface on which the tire rotates. During rotation of the tire, the sensing signal, including the sensing signal generated in correspondence of passages of the sensing element through the contact area, is undersampled for a number of passages sufficient to obtain an estimated length of the contact area (i.e. determining a footprint length associated with the first tire, which is an estimated length of the contact area);
a linear model corresponding to the determined footprint length for the first tire, and at least a first model coefficient as a function of the sensed tire inflation pressure (See Para[0095], equation ii), which is a linear model corresponding to the determined footprint length for the first tire, where the first tire is any one of the four tires (1) with a tire monitoring unit (2) , see Fig. 5, and the vertical load Fz at the known tire inflation pressure P using A(P), which is at least a first model coefficient as a function of the sensed tire inflation pressure P);
estimating the load acting upon the first tire from the linear model, based on at least the footprint length, the sensed tire inflation pressure, and the at least first model coefficient
as a function of the sensed tire inflation pressure (See Para[0095], equation ii), where the first tire is any one of the four tires (1) with a tire monitoring unit (2) , see Fig. 5 ); and
generating an output signal corresponding to the estimated load acting on the first tire (See Fig. 5, each of the tire monitoring units (2) is connected to the controlling unit (11), see also Para[0129] “The tire monitoring units (2) in the tires (1) are in communication with a controlling unit (11). The controlling unit (11) is in communication with a vehicle control system (12).”. Therefore, the output signal from the controlling unit (11) is generated via the tire monitoring unit, which corresponds to the information about the estimated load (See Fig. 4, which details the tire monitoring unit with CPU (2), see also Para[0125] “The CPU (6) is further configured, via suitable software/firmware modules, to process the data received from said accelerometer and sensors (3, 4, 5) in order to estimate, from said data, tire-related parameters, particularly the length of the tire contact area and/or the load exerted on the tire by a vehicle to which the tire is fitted.”) acting on the first tire (See Fig. 5, one of the four tires (1)), is used to control the vehicle via the controlling unit (11).).
Garbelli is silent to the language of
retrievably storing and retrieving from data storage.
Garbelli teaches
retrievably storing and retrieving from data storage (See Para[0140] “Each tire monitoring unit (2) comprised within a tire (1) is preferably paired with said tire, i.e., identifying information of the tire (e.g., tire identifier, tire size, tire model, tire radius etc.) is stored within the memory associated with the CPU (6) of the respective tire monitoring unit (2).” The memory is data storage from where the information of the tire is stored and retrieved for identification.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Garbelli wherein retrievably storing and retrieving from data storage is done like in Garbelli in order to have a secure method to store and obtain relevant information about the tire analysis.
With regards to Claim 13, Garbelli teaches the limitations of Claim 12. Garbelli further teaches
further comprising obtaining at least signals representative of a radial acceleration from the sensor mounted on the tire, and calculating the footprint length associated with the tire based at least in part on the signals representative of the radial acceleration (See Para[0123] “The sensing section (10) comprises a radial accelerometer (3) oriented within the monitoring unit (2) so as to have an axis substantially orthogonal to the inner surface of the tire. The radial accelerometer (3) is a sensing element configured to generate a sensing signal descriptive of deformations in radial direction (i.e. further comprising obtaining at least signals representative of a radial acceleration from the sensor, via the tire monitoring unit which contains the radial accelerometer, mounted on the tire (See Fig. 5 where each tire monitoring unit (2) is attached or mounted on each tire (1))) which said tire (1) undergoes during rolling on a rolling surface (e.g., a road surface).” Since the radial accelerometer generates a sensing signal for the deformations of the tire, these sensing signals are used to calculate the footprint length associated with the tire, see the Abstract “During rotation of the tire, the sensing signal, including the sensing signal generated in correspondence of passages of the sensing element through the contact area, is undersampled for a number of passages sufficient to obtain an estimated length of the contact area.” ).
With regards to Claim 14, Garbelli teaches the limitations of Claim 12. Garbelli further teaches
the at least first model coefficient comprises a first model coefficient as an offset coefficient
as a function of the sensed tire inflation pressure (See Para[0095], equation ii), where A(P) is the at least first model coefficient which acts as an offset coefficient as it sets an offset in the P-Fz plane, and A(P) is a function of the sensed tire inflation pressure P, where the tire monitoring unit has pressure sensors, see Para[0017] “Tire monitoring units typically comprise an electronic unit and a securing device for securing the electronic unit inside the tire. The electronic unit comprises at least one sensor (for example a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor”), and a second model coefficient as a slope coefficient as a function of the sensed tire inflation pressure (See Para[0095], equation ii), where B(P) is the second model coefficient as a slope coefficient as a function of the sensed tire inflation pressure, as B(P) is a slope of the tire load versus the footprint length PL and B(P) is a function of the sensed tire inflation pressure), and
the load acting upon the tire is estimated from the linear model based on at least the
footprint length, the sensed tire inflation pressure, the first model coefficient, and the second model
coefficient (See Para[0095], equation ii)).
With regards to Claim 15, Garbelli teaches the limitations of Claim 14. Garbelli further teaches
wherein the load acting upon the tire is estimated from the linear model (See Para[0095] equation ii)) further based on a third model coefficient as a slope coefficient relating footprint length to tire load at a nominal tire inflation pressure (See Para[0095], equation ii), where C(P) is the third model coefficient as a slope coefficient relating footprint length to tire load at a nominal tire inflation pressure, as B(P) is a slope of the tire load versus the footprint length PL (therefore relating footprint length to tire load) and B(P) is a function of the nominal tire inflation pressure, where the nominal pressure is any pressure value that is very small, which is sensed by the pressure sensors see Para[0017] “Tire monitoring units typically comprise an electronic unit and a securing device for securing the electronic unit inside the tire. The electronic unit comprises at least one sensor (for example a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor”).
With regards to Claim 16, Garbelli teaches the limitations of Claim 12. Garbelli further teaches
wherein the output signal is provided to a user interface associated with the vehicle for display to a user of the vehicle (See Para[0129] “The tire monitoring units (2) in the tires (1) are in communication with a controlling unit (11). The controlling unit (11) is in communication with a vehicle control system (12). The vehicle control system (12) can be adjusted to send messages recommending the best route to select.” See also Para[0129] "The vehicle control system (12) includes a user interface (15) comprising for example user input means and a display (16); the user interface (15) can be a touch screen of the display (16).” Therefore, the output signal from the controlling unit (11) is provided to the vehicle control system (12) which contains a user interface (15) associated with the vehicle (See Fig. 5, where the vehicle control system (12) is inside vehicle (100)) for display, via the display (16) to a user of the vehicle).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garbelli (US 20200041297 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Winkler (US 20020107873 A1).
With regards to Claim 17, Garbelli teaches the limitations of Claim 12. Garbelli further teaches
wherein the output signal is provided to a user interface (See Para[0129] “The tire monitoring units (2) in the tires (1) are in communication with a controlling unit (11). The controlling unit (11) is in communication with a vehicle control system (12). The vehicle control system (12) can be adjusted to send messages recommending the best route to select.” See also Para[0129] "The vehicle control system (12) includes a user interface (15) comprising for example user input means and a display (16); the user interface (15) can be a touch screen of the display (16).” Therefore the output signal from the controlling unit (11) is provided to the vehicle control system (12) which contains a user interface (15) associated with the vehicle (See Fig. 5, where (12) is inside vehicle (100)) for display, via the display (16) to a user of the vehicle)
Garbelli is silent to the language of
a user interface associated with a remote computing device via a fleet management telematics platform.
Winkler teaches
a user interface associated with a remote computing device via a fleet management telematics platform (See Para[0016] “ These steps stored on the computer-readable medium comprise storing fleet profile information in a local database and displaying a user interface screen having a plurality of data entry fields. The steps of connecting to a web-based fleet information management server, and uploading the data input from the local database to the fleet information management server (i.e. a remote computing device via a fleet management telematics platform, where the fleet information management server is a remote computing device that is also a fleet management telematics platform as the web-based server is part of a computer or cloud-based server, which would require remote computing as it is web-based) are also included in this embodiment.” Therefore, the user interface is associated with the fleet information management server, which is the fleet management telematics platform, as the user interface displays data that is also sent to the fleet information management server.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Garbelli wherein a user interface associated with a remote computing device via a fleet management telematics platform is used like in Winkler in order to have more efficient data management.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garbelli (US 20200041297 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Schick (US 20050150283 A1).
With regards to Claim 18, Garbelli teaches the limitations of Claim 12. Garbelli is silent to the language of
wherein the estimated load is utilized as an input to a tire wear detection model.
Schick teaches
wherein the estimated load is utilized as an input to a tire wear detection model (See Para[0037] “A diagnostic model that directly calculates tire wear and/or damage thereto and/or is used to calculate variables that are significant for the tire damage, such as the temperature of the belt edge, temperature of the tread, average tire temperature, thermal power dissipation in the tire, dynamically adjusting air pressure and expansion in the tire or mechanical loading of the tire (i.e. wherein the estimated load is utilized as an input to a tire wear detection model, as the mechanical loading affects the wear and damage to the tire, which is also calculated by the diagnostic model)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Garbelli wherein the estimated load is utilized as an input to a tire wear detection model like in Schick in order to determine the health of the tire after analyzing the data.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garbelli (US 20200041297 A1) and Schick (US 20050150283 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Singh (US 20200164703 A1).
With regards to Claim 19, Garbelli and Schick teach the limitations of Claim 18. Garbelli and Schick are silent to the language of
wherein the estimated load and/or an estimated tire wear based at least in part on the estimated load is utilized as an input to a tire traction detection model.
Singh (US 20200164703 A1) teaches
wherein the estimated load and/or an estimated tire wear based at least in part on the estimated load is utilized as an input to a tire traction detection model (See Para[0002] “Measurement or estimation of the load on a tire (i.e. wherein the estimated load) during the operation of a vehicle is often used by vehicle control systems such as braking, traction (i.e. is utilized as an input to a tire traction detection model), stability, and suspension systems.” Optional limitations via “and/or” are considered non-limiting. For purposes of examination, Examiner opts for the estimated load.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Garbelli and Schick wherein the estimated load and/or an estimated tire wear based at least in part on the estimated load is utilized as an input to a tire traction detection model like in Singh (US 20200164703 A1) in order to provide a more informed safety system via the traction detection model in Singh (US 20200164703 A1).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garbelli (US 20200041297 A1), Schick (US 20050150283 A1), and Singh (US 20200164703 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Singh (US 20190001757 A1).
With regards to Claim 20, Garbelli, Schick, and Singh (US 20200164703 A1) teach the limitations of Claim 19. Garbelli is silent to the language of
wherein the estimated tire wear based at least in part on the estimated load and/or an estimated tire traction based at least in part on the estimated tire wear is provided to a vehicle control unit.
Schick teaches
wherein the estimated tire wear based at least in part on the estimated load (See Para[0037] “A diagnostic model that directly calculates tire wear and/or damage thereto and/or is used to calculate variables that are significant for the tire damage, such as the temperature of the belt edge, temperature of the tread, average tire temperature, thermal power dissipation in the tire, dynamically adjusting air pressure and expansion in the tire or mechanical loading of the tire (i.e. wherein the estimated tire wear based at least in part on the estimated load, as the mechanical loading affects the wear and damage to the tire, which is also calculated by the diagnostic model)”. Optional limitations via “and/or” are considered non-limiting. For purposes of examination, Examiner opts for the estimated tire wear based at least in part on the estimated load.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Garbelli wherein the estimated tire wear based at least in part on the estimated load is used like in Schick in order to determine the health of the tire after analyzing the data.
Garbelli, Schick, and Singh (US 20200164703 A1) are silent to the language of
is provided to a vehicle control unit.
Singh (US 20190001757 A1) teaches
the estimated tire wear is provided to a vehicle control unit (See Para[0064] “The tire wear state estimation system 50 outputs the wear state (i.e. the estimated tire wear) of the tire 12 to the CAN-bus system 52. Through electronic communication with the CAN-bus system 52, the wear state may be communicated to other control systems on the vehicle 10 (i.e. is provided to a vehicle control unit, where the set of control systems on the vehicle 10 is the vehicle control unit), a user of the vehicle, a technician, or a central location for analysis.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Garbelli, Schick, and Singh (US 20200164703 A1) wherein the estimated tire wear is provided to a vehicle control unit like in Singh (US 20190001757 A1) in order to have a more informed control system about the health of the tire when making safety-related decisions regarding traction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 a.m. - 4 p.m. ET.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
