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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 03/13/2026. Claims 1-29 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “remote databased” and should be changed to --remote database--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendment to claim 24 overcomes the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Viente et al. (U.S. 2019/0272389 A1).
Claim 21, Viente teaches:
A method of limiting exchange of road surface information between a vehicle, traveling along a route of travel, and a remote database (Viente, Paragraph [0084], The uploaded data is based on a privacy level setting. Data communicated from the wireless transceiver 172 is via a standard, e.g. Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, to one or more remotely located servers (see Viente, Paragraph [0065]).), the method comprising:
based on data from at least one sensor onboard the vehicle, collecting road surface information while traveling along the travel route with the vehicle (Viente, Paragraph [0083], Data uploaded by wireless transceiver 172 includes data received by position sensor 130 or other sensors. The term “road surface information” is interpreted as any information measured by at least one sensor that is related to the road surface with which the vehicle is traveling, e.g. position data, acceleration data (see Viente, Paragraph [0061]).); and
limiting an upload of at least a portion of road surface information collected while traveling along a predetermined first portion of the travel route (Viente, Paragraphs [0085-0086], While the vehicle is traveling along a route, it may upload data according to a “high”, “intermediate”, or “low” privacy level, wherein a “high” privacy level limits the information being transmitted, e.g. does not include a vehicle identification number (VIN). The location/position of the vehicle when the information is uploaded is thus a first portion of the travel route.), wherein the predetermined first portion of the travel route is within a data protection zone (Viente, Paragraphs [0085-0086], A data protection zone is interpreted as the area that encompasses the route of the vehicle, because the vehicle can operate in a specific privacy level when it is driving along the route, i.e. within the data protection zone. Therefore, when a vehicle operates in a “high”, “intermediate”, or “low” privacy level along its route, the vehicle is within and operating in a data protection zone.).
Claim 25, Viente further teaches:
The method of claim 21, further comprising storing at least a portion of road surface information collected while traveling along the predetermined first portion of the travel route in a local database onboard the vehicle (Viente, Paragraphs [0083] and [0117], The system 100 of each vehicle collects data from a plurality of components, e.g. image acquisition unit 120, position sensor 130, and other sensors, and the collecting of data at the vehicle is functionally equivalent to a local database onboard the vehicle.).
Claim 26, Viente further teaches:
The method of claim 25, further comprising, during subsequent travel by the vehicle along the predetermined portion, operating at least one system onboard the vehicle based on the road surface information stored in the local database (Viente, Paragraphs [0083] and [0117], When the system 100 determines that the vehicle should take action, based on the collected data, the vehicle navigates without human intervention, e.g. braking, acceleration, and steering system.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-4, 6-10, 13-20, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Ashoori et al. (U.S. 2016/0291588 A1) in view of Viente et al. (U.S. 2019/0272389 A1).
Claim 1, Ashoori teaches:
A method of operating a vehicle, on a road surface, while exchanging vehicle specific information with a remote database (Ashoori, Paragraph [0060], The UGVs communicates the information from a set of sensors to a human operator at a different location, wherein the system utilizes a computer system/server implemented as a distributed cloud computing environment (see Ashoori, Paragraph [0046]).), the method comprising:
collecting data based on measurements with a sensor onboard the vehicle traveling on a road surface (Ashoori, Paragraph [0060], The UGV includes a set of sensors to observe the environment.);
determining a location of the vehicle when the data is being collected (Ashoori, Paragraph [0078], The UV determines its relative location in order to decide whether it needs to make a maneuver, e.g. to land.);
determining whether the location is within a predetermined data protection zone (Ashoori, Paragraph [0078], The UV can determine whether it is within or about to be within a restricted zone.).
Ashoori does not specifically teach:
Uploading the collected data to a remote database if the location is not in the data protection zone.
Viente teaches:
Uploading the collected data to a remote database if the location is not in the data protection zone (Viente, Paragraphs [0085-0086], While the vehicle is traveling along a route, it may upload data according to a “high”, “intermediate”, or “low” privacy level, wherein a “high” privacy level limits the information being transmitted, e.g. does not include a vehicle identification number (VIN). The location/position of the vehicle when the information is uploaded is thus a first portion of the travel route.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Ashoori by integrating the teaching of a system and vehicle as taught by Viente.
The motivation would be to enable protecting privacy data while simultaneously enabling vehicle tracking (see Viente, Paragraphs [0085-0086]).
Claim 2, Ashoori in view of Viente further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising storing the collected data in a local database onboard the vehicle if the location is in the data protection zone (Viente, Paragraphs [0083] and [0117], The system 100 of each vehicle collects data from a plurality of components, e.g. image acquisition unit 120, position sensor 130, and other sensors, and the collecting of data at the vehicle is functionally equivalent to a local database onboard the vehicle. It is within the scope of the combination of Ashoori in view of Viente for the UV to collect its data while simultaneously operating in the restricted zone.).
Claim 3, Ashoori in view of Viente further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the collected data includes information related to the road surface (Viente, Paragraph [0083], Data uploaded by wireless transceiver 172 includes data received by position sensor 130 or other sensors. The term “road surface information” is interpreted as any information measured by at least one sensor that is related to the road surface with which the vehicle is traveling, e.g. position data, acceleration data (see Viente, Paragraph [0061]).).
Claim 4, Ashoori in view of Viente further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the collected data includes information that may be used to determine the location of the vehicle (Viente, Paragraph [0083], Data uploaded by wireless transceiver 172 includes data received by position sensor 130 or other sensors. The term “may be used” is interpreted as being equivalent to “usable”.).
Claim 6, Ashoori in view of Viente further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the data protection zone is established based on parameters received via a user interface (Ashoori, Paragraph [0064], The restricted operation region is defined by a user.).
Claim 7, Ashoori in view of Viente further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the location of the vehicle inside the data protection zone is at least partially based on information received from GNSS receiver onboard the vehicle (Viente, Paragraph [0185]).
Claim 8, Ashoori in view of Viente further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the location of the vehicle outside the data protection zone is at least partially based on information about the road received from the remote database (Ashoori, Paragraphs [0075-0077], The vehicle receives transmissions or direct communications with remote computer/storage means or cloud, which includes data regarding restricted-operation region data.).
Claim 9, Ashoori in view of Viente further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the remote database is in the cloud (Ashoori, Paragraphs [0075-0077], The vehicle receives transmissions or direct communications with remote computer/storage means or cloud.).
Claim 10, Ashoori in view of Viente further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising controlling at least one system onboard the vehicle based on information about the road received from the remote database when the vehicle is outside the data protection zone (Viente, Paragraphs [0083] and [0117], When the system 100 determines that the vehicle should take action, based on the collected data, the vehicle navigates without human intervention, e.g. braking, acceleration, and steering system.).
Claim 13, Ashoori teaches:
A method of limiting exchange of information between a vehicle traveling on a road surface and a remote database (Ashoori, Paragraph [0060], The UGVs communicates the information from a set of sensors to a human operator at a different location, wherein the system utilizes a computer system/server implemented as a distributed cloud computing environment (see Ashoori, Paragraph [0046]).), the method comprising:
receiving information from a user interface (Ashoori, Fig. 2: 54A, Paragraph [0053], A plurality of cloud computing nodes 10 may be utilized that communicate with one another.);
establishing a first data protection zone associated with the vehicle (Ashoori, Paragraph [0078], The UV can determine whether it is within or about to be within a restricted zone.).
Ashoori does not specifically teach:
When the vehicle is in the first data protection zone, limiting the exchange of information, with the remote database, related to a position of the vehicle and/or to data collected by the vehicle in the first data protection zone.
Viente teaches:
Limiting the exchange of information, with the remote database, related to a position of the vehicle and/or to data collected by the vehicle in the first data protection zone (Viente, Paragraphs [0085-0086], While the vehicle is traveling along a route, it may upload data according to a “high”, “intermediate”, or “low” privacy level, wherein a “high” privacy level limits the information being transmitted, e.g. does not include a vehicle identification number (VIN). The location/position of the vehicle when the information is uploaded is thus a first portion of the travel route.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Ashoori by integrating the teaching of a system and vehicle as taught by Viente.
The motivation would be to enable protecting privacy data while simultaneously enabling vehicle tracking (see Viente, Paragraphs [0085-0086]).
As per the limitation of when the vehicle is in the first data protection zone, limiting the exchange of information, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the vehicle to be capable of operating according to a privacy level (see Viente, Paragraphs [0085-0086]), thereby limiting exchange of information, while the vehicle is traveling within a restricted zone, i.e. a first data protection zone (see Ashoori, Paragraph [0078]).
Claim 14, Ashoori in view of Viente further teaches:
The method of claim 13, wherein the user interface is on board the vehicle (Viente, Fig. 1: 170, Paragraph [0075]).
Claim 15, Ashoori in view of Viente further teaches:
The method of claim 14, wherein the user interface is a cellphone application (Ashoori, Fig. 2: 54A, Paragraph [0053], The cloud computing nodes 10 include PDAs and/or cellular telephones.).
Claim 16, Ashoori in view of Viente further teaches:
The method of claim 14, wherein the user interface is a computer application.
Claim 17, Ashoori in view of Viente further teaches:
The method of claim 13, wherein the information from the user interface includes a geocoordinate of a position in the first data protection zone or on a boundary of the data protection zone (Ashoori, Paragraph [0092], The system determines specific GPS coordinates in a 3D and/or 4D volume that is determined to establish different regions.).
Claim 18, Ashoori in view of Viente further teaches:
The method of claim 17, wherein the first data protection zone is a circle, wherein the position is a center of the circle, and wherein the information from the user interface also includes a radius of the circle (Ashoori, Figs. 5A-5B, Paragraph [0064], Because the system operates in a 3D and/or 4D space, the restricted regions are multi-dimensional. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the shape of the restricted regions to be circular, as a matter of design/engineering choice, i.e. as desired by the user of the system. Such a modification would not render the invention inoperable for its intended purpose, and would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04.).
Claim 19, Ashoori in view of Viente further teaches:
The method of claim 13, further comprising:
receiving additional information from the user interface (Ashoori, Figs. 5A-5B, Paragraph [0064], An example of additional information includes a user-defined restricted-operation region.),
establishing a second data protection zone associated with the vehicle (Ashoori, Figs. 5A-5B, Paragraph [0077], The plurality of sub-regions are equivalent to data protection zones.); and
limiting the exchange of information, with the remote database, related to a position of the vehicle and/or data collected by the vehicle in the second data protection zone (Viente, Paragraphs [0085-0086], While the vehicle is traveling along a route, it may upload data according to a “high”, “intermediate”, or “low” privacy level, wherein a “high” privacy level limits the information being transmitted, e.g. does not include a vehicle identification number (VIN). The location/position of the vehicle when the information is uploaded is thus a first portion of the travel route.).
Claim 20, Ashoori in view of Viente further teaches:
The method of claim 13, wherein the limiting of the exchange of information includes preventing uploading of road vehicle position and/or surface information collected by the vehicle in a data protection zone (Viente, Paragraphs [0085-0086], While the vehicle is traveling along a route, it may upload data according to a “high”, “intermediate”, or “low” privacy level, wherein a “high” privacy level limits the information being transmitted, e.g. does not include a vehicle identification number (VIN). The location/position of the vehicle when the information is uploaded is thus a first portion of the travel route.).
Claim 29, Ashoori teaches:
A method of operating a vehicle, on a road surface, while exchanging vehicle specific information with a remote database (Ashoori, Paragraph [0060], The UGVs communicates the information from a set of sensors to a human operator at a different location, wherein the system utilizes a computer system/server implemented as a distributed cloud computing environment (see Ashoori, Paragraph [0046]).), the method comprising:
determining whether the approximate location is in a predetermined data protection zone or on a data protection road segment (Ashoori, Paragraph [0078], The UV can determine whether it is within or about to be within a restricted zone.); and
providing the approximate location of the vehicle to the remote database if the vehicle is not in the predetermined data protection zone or on a data protection road segment (Ashoori, Paragraph [0078], The UV may also sense and transmit its position to a central server.).
Ashoori does not specifically teach:
Using GNSS to determine an approximate location of the vehicle; and
limiting an upload of at least a portion of data collected if the vehicle is in the predetermined data protection zone or on a data protection road segment.
Viente teaches:
Using GNSS to determine an approximate location of the vehicle (Viente, Paragraph [0185]); and
limiting an upload of at least a portion of data collected if the vehicle (Viente, Paragraphs [0085-0086], While the vehicle is traveling along a route, it may upload data according to a “high”, “intermediate”, or “low” privacy level, wherein a “high” privacy level limits the information being transmitted, e.g. does not include a vehicle identification number (VIN). The location/position of the vehicle when the information is uploaded is thus a first portion of the travel route.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Ashoori by integrating the teaching of a system and vehicle as taught by Viente.
The motivation would be to enable protecting privacy data while simultaneously enabling vehicle tracking (see Viente, Paragraphs [0085-0086]).
As per the limitation of limiting an upload of at least a portion of data collected if the vehicle is in the predetermined data protection zone or on a data protection road segment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the vehicle to be capable of operating according to a privacy level (see Viente, Paragraphs [0085-0086]), thereby limiting uploading of information, while the vehicle is traveling within a restricted zone, i.e. a first data protection zone (see Ashoori, Paragraph [0078])
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashoori et al. (U.S. 2016/0291588 A1) in view of Viente et al. (U.S. 2019/0272389 A1), in view of Kim et al. (U.S. 2020/0168080 A1).
Claim 5, Ashoori in view of Viente further teaches:
The method of claim 1.
Ashoori in view of Viente does not specifically teach:
Further comprising using geofencing to specify the data protection zone.
Kim teaches:
Further comprising using geofencing to specify the data protection zone (Kim, Paragraphs [0090-0095], Data may be transmitted to vehicles in a first or second geofence regarding other vehicles that may have entered a first or second geofence.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Ashoori in view of Viente by integrating the teaching of geofencing, as taught by Kim.
The motivation would be to accurately transmit data while simultaneously preventing unnecessary transmission of data to passengers of vehicles (see Kim, Paragraph [0039]).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashoori et al. (U.S. 2016/0291588 A1) in view of Viente et al. (U.S. 2019/0272389 A1), in view of Anderson et al. (U.S. 2017/0136842 A1).
Claim 11, Ashoori in view of Viente teaches:
The method of claim 10.
Ashoori in view of Viente does not specifically teach:
Wherein the at least one system is a suspension system.
Anderson teaches:
Wherein the at least one system is a suspension system (Anderson, Paragraph [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Viente by integrating the teaching of an autonomous/semi-autonomous vehicle having an active suspension, as taught by Anderson.
The motivation would be to provide cues to vehicle occupants of specific situations and/or expected maneuvers of the vehicle in order to enhance situational awareness and/or help mitigate motion sickness (see Anderson, Paragraph [0082]).
Claim 12, Ashoori in view of Viente, in view of Anderson further teaches:
The method of claim 11, wherein the at least one system is an active suspension system (Anderson, Paragraph [0082]).
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viente et al. (U.S. 2019/0272389 A1).
Claim 22, Viente teaches:
The method of claim 21.
Viente does not specifically teach:
Wherein the first portion of the travel route is a portion at a beginning of the route.
Viente, however, teaches that a route may be traveled multiple times (see Viente, Paragraph [0239]) wherein each route may have a plurality of road sections/segments (see Viente, Paragraph [0312]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for each traveled route to have a beginning portion of a route, i.e. a road section/segment, especially if the routes are traveled a plurality of times. Such an aspect of the invention would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.
Claim 23, Viente teaches:
The method of claim 21.
Viente does not specifically teach:
Wherein the first portion of the travel route is a portion at an end of the route.
Viente, however, teaches that a route may be traveled multiple times (see Viente, Paragraph [0239]) wherein each route may have a plurality of road sections/segments (see Viente, Paragraph [0312]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for each traveled route to have an end portion of a route, i.e. a road section/segment, especially if the routes are traveled a plurality of times. Such an aspect of the invention would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.
Claim 24, Viente teaches:
The method claim 21, further comprising:
receiving information about the route of travel from a navigation system associated with the vehicle (Viente, Paragraph [0183], The vehicle accesses a sparse map 800 that is stored on a storage device included in a navigation system.).
Viente does not specifically teach:
Determining the first portion of the travel route at least partially based on the information received from the navigation system.
However, the data that is uploaded by the vehicle includes, for example, location information related to a route (see Viente, Paragraphs [0085-0086]), even when the uploaded data is based on a “high” privacy level. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for data from the navigation system to provide the location information related to a route. Such a modification would not render the invention inoperable for its intended function and would yield predictable results.
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viente et al. (U.S. 2019/0272389 A1) in view of Anderson et al. (U.S. 2017/0136842 A1).
Claim 27, Viente teaches:
The method of claim 26.
Viente does not specifically teach:
Wherein the at least one system is a suspension system.
Anderson teaches:
Wherein the at least one system is a suspension system (Anderson, Paragraph [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Viente by integrating the teaching of an autonomous/semi-autonomous vehicle having an active suspension, as taught by Anderson.
The motivation would be to provide cues to vehicle occupants of specific situations and/or expected maneuvers of the vehicle in order to enhance situational awareness and/or help mitigate motion sickness (see Anderson, Paragraph [0082]).
Claim 28, Viente in view of Anderson further teaches:
The method of claim 27, wherein the suspension system is an active suspension system (Anderson, Paragraph [0082]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s argument regarding claim 21, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant argues that claim 21 recites “determining whether the location is within a predetermined data protection zone; and uploading the collected data to a remote database if the location is not in the data protection zone”, however, claim 21, as currently amended, recites “limiting an upload of at least a portion of road surface information collected while traveling along a predetermined first portion of the travel route, wherein the predetermined first portion of the travel route is within a data protection zone”. It is unclear as to whether the Applicant’s argument is based on another version of claim 21. Additionally, please see the rejection and corresponding explanation above.
In response to applicant's arguments regarding claim 1 against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As previously disclosed, Ashoori discloses a restricted zone, i.e. a data protection zone (see Ashoori, Paragraph [0078]) and Viente discloses uploading the collected data to a remote database (see Viente, Paragraphs [0085-0086]), wherein the combination of Ashoori in view of Viente would be capable of uploading data whether the vehicle is within or not within the restricted zone of Ashoori.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments regarding amended claims 13 and 29, the Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons set forth in the rejection above.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “data protection zone”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5170. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00p M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/JAMES J YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights