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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 4, 14, and 17 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 limitations are: “recognition unit”, “ image processing unit”, “ intermediary unit”, “accident section setting unit”, “learning unit”, “ intervention unit” and “training data generation unit” in claims 1, 4, 14, and 17.
Because these claims limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 20 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to a computer program per se which does not fall into either a process, machine, manufacture and/or composition of matter. The claim is instead directed to software per se which is mere information in the form of data and makes it ineligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ozaki (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0029255).
Regarding claim 1, Ozaki discloses an information processing device comprising [Ozaki: 0003 “a monitoring apparatus”]: a recognition unit that extracts a caution-needed region, which is a region requiring caution around each of a plurality of systems, on a basis of a plurality of captured images captured at different positions by the plurality of systems (interpreted as a component that analyzes images to identify something, extracts a caution needed region meaning it detects a region in an image data that should be highlighted as requiring caution)[Ozaki: 0006 “a plurality of cameras 3 are attached to arbitrary positions of a moving body 2”][Ozaki: 0042 “The image-recognition device 39 recognizes a caution-needed area during driving”](teaches multiple cameras attached at different positions and further teaches the image recognition device performs image recognition to recognize a caution needed area); and an image processing unit that generates a first bird's-eye view image on a basis of the plurality of captured images including a plurality of the caution-needed regions (interpreted as a component that creates output images and generates a bird’s eye view image, including the caution needed region)(Ozaki: 60n; Fig. 6 “BIRD'S EYE VIEW IMAGE PROCESSING SECTION”)[Ozaki: 0044 “inform the caution-needed area in the bird’s-eye view image”](teaches birds eye view from multiple cameras capturing the caution needed area that is processed).
Regarding claim 12, Ozaki discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the image processing unit generates the first bird's-eye view image which illustrates a distribution of a point including the caution-needed region on a map [Ozaki: 0042 “image-recognition method using image-data Signals Sd (Sd1 to Sdn) obtained from bird’s-eye view image creation device 37. In this case, more preferably, the image-recognition device 39 may also use the obstacle-identifying data Signal Sc2. Upon having recognized the caution-needed area, the image-recognition device 39 generates a caution-needed area data Signal”](teaches obtaining a birds eye view to recognize a caution needed area).
Regarding claim 13, Ozaki discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the caution-needed region includes at least one of a dangerous object or an object that needs to be checked [Ozaki: 0041 “If there is, for example, a Solid body around the vehicle acting as an obstacle hindering the travelling of the vehicle, the Signal-processing device 38 generates an obstacle-identifying data Signal Sc2 to Supply it to an image-recognition device 39.”](teaches a obstacle hindering the vehicle which is a dangerous object) by one of the plurality of systems or a user who uses the one of the plurality of systems (Ozaki: 39; Fig. 3 “Image Recognition Device”).
Claims 19 and 20 are method and program claims corresponding to claim 1 without any additional limitations. Thus, claims 19 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0029255), in view of Hiroshi (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0220190).
Regarding claim 2, Ozaki discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the image processing unit generates the first bird's-eye view image by combining a plurality of caution-needed region images indicating a plurality of the caution-needed regions, respectively.
However, Hiroshi discloses wherein the image processing unit generates the first bird's-eye view image by combining a plurality of caution-needed region images indicating a plurality of the caution-needed regions, respectively [Hiroshi: 0070 “displayed as a Sum of the three-dimensional obstacle images 26 and 27”] (teaches obstacle images (corresponding to caution need region images) are displayed as a sum which is interpreted as combining them images).
Ozaki and Hiroshi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of camera monitoring systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ozaki to incorporate Hiroshi teachings of combining images. The motivation for such a combination would provide the benefit of improving usability and safety.
Regarding claim 3, Ozaki in view of Hiroshi disclose the information processing device according to claim 2, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the image processing unit arranges each of the plurality of caution-needed region images at a position in the first bird's-eye view image, the position corresponding to a position in a corresponding one of the plurality of captured images, which are original captured images.
However, Hiroshi discloses wherein the image processing unit arranges each of the plurality of caution-needed region images at a position in the first bird's-eye view image, the position corresponding to a position in a corresponding one of the plurality of captured images, which are original captured images (interpreted as places each caution region image into a specific location in the birds eye view where that location is determined by the regions location in its corresponding original captured image)[Hiroshi: 0061 “converting original images photographed by four (4) cameras 11a to 11d”][Hiroshi: 0080 “the three-dimensional obstacle images 27 and 26 appear on the left and front road images 53 and 51 after view point conversion, and are suitably partially included in the display areas 63 and 61, respectively”][Hiroshi: 0083 “the positions of respective pixels on the ground level become identical with those of the display areas 63 and 61”](teaches starting from original images from multiple cameras, performs viewpoint conversion, and then arranges the resulting images in the birds eye view. The obstacle images (caution regions) are respectively included in specific display areas and pixel positions are made identical which is positional correspondence between the placed region image and its location derived from the corresponding original captured image).
Ozaki and Hiroshi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of camera monitoring systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ozaki to incorporate Hiroshi teachings of arranging each obstacle image at a position in the bird’s eye view that corresponds to its position derived from the corresponding original captured image. The motivation for such a combination would provide the benefit of improving accuracy and reducing confusion.
Regarding claim 6, Ozaki in view of Hiroshi disclose the information processing device according to claim 2, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of caution-needed region images is an image extracted from a corresponding one of the plurality of captured images.
However, Hiroshi discloses wherein each of the plurality of caution-needed region images is an image extracted from a corresponding one of the plurality of captured images [Hiroshi: 0069 “illustrates related images that are suitably extracted when the three-dimensional obstacle”].
Ozaki and Hiroshi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of camera monitoring systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ozaki to incorporate Hiroshi teachings of extracting images. The motivation for such a combination would provide the benefit of improving efficiency and clarity.
Regarding claim 7, Ozaki in view of Hiroshi disclose the information processing device according to claim 2, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of caution-needed region images is a two-dimensional model or a three-dimensional model of an object existing in a corresponding one of the plurality of caution-needed regions.
However, Hiroshi discloses wherein each of the plurality of caution-needed region images is a two-dimensional model or a three-dimensional model of an object existing in a corresponding one of the plurality of caution-needed regions [Hiroshi: 0005 “a three-dimensional obstacle adjacent to the vehicle is displayed as a “completely-fallen image' on a bird's eye view”][Hiroshi: 0069 “a three-dimensional obstacle is suitably placed in a different position, and also in the case of a three dimensional body other than one which is column-shaped, particularly, a human”].
Ozaki and Hiroshi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of camera monitoring systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ozaki to incorporate Hiroshi teachings of utilizing 3D objects. The motivation for such a combination would provide the benefit of improving safety and operator comprehension.
Regarding claim 9, Ozaki and Hiroshi disclose the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the image processing unit generates a second bird's-eye view image which illustrates a distribution of points including the plurality of caution-needed regions on a map [Ozaki: 0053 “second procedure for creating a bird’s-eye view image”][Ozaki: 0042 “caution-needed area, the image-recognition device 39 generates a caution-needed area data signal”](teaches a second birds eye view image and we already know that Ozaki teaches taking into account caution needed areas).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0029255), in view of Hiroshi (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0220190), in further view of Ross et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0334229).
Regarding claim 4, Ozaki in view of Hiroshi disclose the information processing device according to claim 3, but fail to explicitly disclose further comprising: an intermediary unit that mediates intervention by an operator in one of the plurality of systems that has captured one of the plurality of captured images including one of the plurality of caution-needed regions designated by the operator among the plurality of caution-needed regions in the first bird's-eye view image.
However, Ross discloses further comprising: an intermediary unit (interpreted as a middle component between operator and system) that mediates intervention (interpreted as receive/relay operator input and enable the operator to intervene in a system) by an operator in one of the plurality of systems [Ross: 0149 “the remote service identifies the vehicle that is the source of the transmission and then forwards the alert to a human interface component”][Ross: 0151 “The selection is communicated back to the autonomous vehicle 101 which signaled the alert 413 (1430).”] that has captured one of the plurality of captured images [Ross: 0143 “image data from one or more multiple cameras of the autonomous vehicle 101 can be used to communicate information to the remote service”](teaches that the system/vehicle captures image data using multiple cameras and provides those images to support remote human intervention) including one of the plurality of caution-needed regions designated by the operator among the plurality of caution-needed regions in the first bird's-eye view image (interpreted as the captured image includes a caution requiring region, multiple caution regions exist in the birds eye view and the operator designates/selects one of them)[Ross: 0150 “options from which the human operator can make selection (1420)”](teaches the operator having the ability to make a selection and the rest of the elements in the limitation are previously disclosed by Ozaki and Hiroshi).
Ozaki, Hiroshi, and Ross are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of camera monitoring systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ozaki and Hiroshi to incorporate Ross’s teachings of remote intervention. The motivation for such a combination would provide the benefit of improving operational safety.
Regarding claim 5, Ozaki in view of Hiroshi disclose the information processing device according to claim 4, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein at least one of visual intervention, auditory intervention, physical intervention, or operational intervention is used as intervention by the operator.
However, Ross discloses wherein at least one of visual intervention, auditory intervention, physical intervention, or operational intervention is used as intervention by the operator [Ross: 0150 “The presentation provided to the human operator can also include a feature to enable the human operator to request more information from the autonomous vehicle 101 (1422). For example, the operator can request more images, images from different cameras or cameras which are oriented differently, or map information for the vehicle. Still further, in some variations, the information presented to the human operator can identify an amount of time remaining for the human operator to provide a response”](teaches visual or operational interventional by the operator).
Ozaki, Hiroshi, and Ross are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of camera monitoring systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ozaki and Hiroshi to incorporate Ross’s teachings of visual or operational intervention. The motivation for such a combination would provide the benefit of improving utility and usability.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0029255), in view of Hiroshi (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0220190), in further view of Ikeda et al. (EP 2 528 330).
Regarding claim 8, Ozaki and Hiroshi disclose the information processing device according to claim 2, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the recognition unit estimates a risk level of each of the plurality of caution-needed regions, and the image processing unit changes a display mode of each of the plurality of caution-needed region images on a basis of the risk level of a corresponding one of the plurality of caution-needed regions.
However, Ikeda discloses wherein the recognition unit estimates a risk level of each of the plurality of caution-needed regions (interpreted as determine a risk level (degree of danger) for each caution needed region)[Ikeda: 0002 “The way of displaying the obstacle is changed depending on a degree of risk determined by an attribute or a moving direction of the obstacle to allow the driver to recognize a positional relationship between their vehicle and the obstacle or a degree of the risk”](teaches determined risk degree), and the image processing unit changes a display mode of each of the plurality of caution-needed region images on a basis of the risk level of a corresponding one of the plurality of caution-needed regions (interpreted as changes how each region image is displayed depending on the risk level)[Ikeda: 0047 “it is suggested to color the contour 55 with a specific color, flash the contour 55 on and off or display the contour 55 in bold line”](teaches changing the way of displaying the obstacle based on degree of risk).
Ozaki, Hiroshi, and Ikeda are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of camera monitoring systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ozaki and Hiroshi to incorporate Ikeda’s teachings of determining risk. The motivation for such a combination would provide the benefit of improving safety.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0029255), in view of Hiroshi (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0220190), in view of Rubin et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0278442), in further view of Okumura et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0139594).
Regarding claim 10, Ozaki in view of Hiroshi discloses the information processing device according to claim 9, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the recognition unit estimates a risk level of each of the points, and selects one of the first bird's-eye view image and the second bird's-eye view image on a basis of the risk level of the each of the points, and transmits the one of the first bird's-eye view image and the second bird's-eye view image to an operation terminal used by an operator.
However, Rubin discloses wherein the recognition unit estimates a risk level of each of the points [Rubin: 0436 “historical risk for an area of a road, such as an intersection, a turn on a mountain road, or an entire length of road, is ranked on a scale of Zero to five”](teaches assigning a risk level by a rank, meaning the system can estimate a risk level), and selects one of the first bird's-eye view image and the second bird's-eye view image on a basis of the risk level of the each of the points (interpreted as the system chooses which of two images to use based on risk levels)[Rubin: 0738 “is to select among multiple vehicles is to select the vehicle with the highest risk”](teaches selecting from multiple vehicles view points, the vehicle with the highest risk).
However, Okumura teaches and transmits the one of the first bird's-eye view image and the second bird's-eye view image to an operation terminal used by an operator [Okumura: 0003 “The captured data can be sent to a remote operator”].
Ozaki, Hiroshi, Rubin, and Okumura are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of camera monitoring systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ozaki and Hiroshi to incorporate Rubin and Okumura’s teachings of determining and making a selection based on risk. The motivation for such a combination would provide the benefit of improving safety.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0029255), in view of Rust et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0192423), in further view of Ross et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0060129).
Regarding claim 14, Ozaki discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose further comprising: an accident section setting unit that sets a first accident section including an occurrence point of a first accident on a basis of a section in which an operator has performed operation intervention on a vehicle that is one of the plurality of systems in order to avoid the first accident; a learning unit that generates a learning model by learning an operation of the operator on the vehicle in the first accident section; and an intervention unit that uses the learning model to perform operation intervention on another vehicle in the first accident section.
However, Rust discloses further comprising: an accident section setting unit that sets a first accident section including an occurrence point of a first accident on a basis of a section in which an operator has performed operation intervention on a vehicle that is one of the plurality of systems in order to avoid the first accident [Rust: 0017 “These type of assistance-desired scenarios may require that the autonomous vehicle traverse across a double yellow line and into opposing traffic possibly to avoid an accident or a double parked vehicle or the like”][Rust: 0018 “may take control of the autonomous vehicle in order to traverse the double yellow lines remotely”][Rust: 0110 “The global server 330 would obtain the blacklist data from the remote assistance server 320 and/or directly from the human expert interface 120 and disseminate the blacklist data to a plurality of the autonomous vehicles 310 thereby causing each of the vehicles to be updated in order to avoid the obstruction and/or accident at the blacklisted lane or path.”](teaches operator operation intervention performed to avoid accidents and setting a section by blacklisting a lane), and an intervention unit that uses the learning model to perform operation intervention on another vehicle in the first accident section [Rust: 0110 “disseminate the blacklist data to a plurality of the autonomous vehicles 310 thereby causing each of the vehicles to be updated in order to avoid the obstruction and/or accident at the blacklisted lane or path”](teaches providing updates to have other vehicles avoid an accident).
However, Ross discloses a learning unit (interpreted as a component that trains/updates a model) that generates a learning model (interpreted as produces a trained model) by learning an operation of the operator on the vehicle in the first accident section [Ross: 0083 “with a remote human operator and use the answer to update the training model”][Ross: 0091 “the menu of response options 455 can specify a set of actions which specify a specific steering and/or pace control action”](teaches a training model that is updated using remote human operator input).
Ozaki, Rust, and Ross are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of camera monitoring systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ozaki to incorporate Rust and Ross’s teachings of updating the models to avoid accidents. The motivation for such a combination would provide the benefit of improving safety.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0029255), in view of Welinder et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0188879).
Regarding claim 17, Ozaki discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose further comprising: a training data generation unit that generates training data by assigning a ground truth label to data used for training a learning model used by the recognition unit, the ground truth label having been determined on a basis of labels assigned to the data by a plurality of evaluators.
However, Welinder discloses further comprising: a training data generation unit that generates training data by assigning a ground truth label to data used for training a learning model used by the recognition unit, the ground truth label having been determined on a basis of labels assigned to the data by a plurality of evaluators (interpreted as a component generates training data by attaching a ground truth label (the correct label) to data items, where those labeled items are used to train a learning model that the recognition unit uses and the ground truth is decided on labels provided by multiple evaluators)[Welinder: 0046 “the annotations applied to a piece of Source data include a label describing the ground truth of the content contained in the piece of Source data”][Welinder: 0045 “collecting several annotations for each piece of Source data and determining the correct annotation based upon the most commonly occurring annotation”](teaches applying a label describing the ground truth to source data and using it for training a learning model, further teaches obtaining several annotations (labels) for the same data item and then determining the correct annotation (ground truth) based on those multiple labels).
Ozaki and Welinder are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of monitoring systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ozaki to incorporate Welinder’s teachings of utilizing ground truth labels. The motivation for such a combination would provide the benefit of improving training quality and reliability.
Regarding claim 18, Ozaki in view of Hiroshi disclose the information processing device according to claim 17, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the training data generation unit gives a reward to one of the plurality of evaluators who has assigned the ground truth label among the plurality of evaluators.
However, Welinder discloses wherein the training data generation unit gives a reward to one of the plurality of evaluators who has assigned the ground truth label among the plurality of evaluators (interpreted as the system provides some reward to at least one evaluator whose label matches the ground truth label) [Welinder: 0045 “a correct annotation for a piece of source data corresponds to the ground truth for the information represented in the piece of Source data”][Welinder: 0064 “creating (314) an annotation task includes determining a reward to be paid for completing the annotation task. The reward can be determined based on the annotator to which the annotation task is assigned and/or the piece of Source data contained in the annotation task.”](teaches paying a reward for annotation tasks and a correct annotation corresponds to the ground truth).
Ozaki and Welinder are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of monitoring systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ozaki to incorporate Welinder’s teachings of utilizing rewards. The motivation for such a combination would provide the benefit of improving training quality and efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 15, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED TAHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6805. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5 pm, Mon - Fri.
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, XIAO WU can be reached at (571)272-7761. 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.
/AHMED TAHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2613
/XIAO M WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights