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 .
Response to Arguments
The applicant respectfully argues
Yamamoto fails to apply only the additional braking force responsive to determined vehicle movement and determining a challenging parking environment.
The combination of the sleep/wake state change via sensor suite determination of Stoehr and the application of additional braking force of Yamamoto would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Stoehr fails to disclose preemptive application of additional braking after detection of potential vehicle movement and prior to full confirmation of vehicle movement, let alone basing the preemptive application on determination of a challenging parking environment.
Yamamoto fails to disclose separate sensor suite engagement responsive to vehicle sleep status, let alone preemptive application of additional braking between uses of the separate sensor suites.
Both Yamamoto and Stoehr lack the necessary structures to perform the operation sequence individually or jointly, the references would not be obvious to use in combination by a person of ordinary skill in the art to disclose the present claim language.
Yamamoto and Stoehr fail to disclose the operation sequencing of claims 1 and 19, Horigome, Mujica, and Lewandowski also fail to cure the deficiencies of Yamamoto and Stoehr.
The examiner respectfully argues
Claims 1 and 19, as filed on 02/02/2026 fail to specifically recite “apply only the additional braking force responsive to determined vehicle movement and determining a challenging parking environment”. Additionally, the claims filed 08/12/2024, also fail to specifically recite “apply only the additional braking force responsive to determined vehicle movement and determining a challenging parking environment”. Since these additional features are not explicitly recited within the claims, they have not been searched nor fully considered. If the applicant would like these additional, newly recited features, to be subjected to further searching and consideration, then they should be amended into the claims. 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).
Yamamoto is in the automotive art, and more specifically, Yamamoto is directed towards a brake system for a vehicle, and applies a hydraulic braking force to a wheel of the vehicle (abstract) and also uses an electric actuator to apply a braking force to a wheel of the vehicle. Stoehr is also in the automotive art, and more specifically, Stoehr is directed towards a brake system for a vehicle, and applies a braking force to a wheel of the vehicle (actuator motor is preferably an electric brake motor in a vehicle parking brake, via which a brake piston which carries a brake lining is pressed against a brake disc when parking the vehicle; [0005]). This being the case, it seems that both Yamamoto and Stoehr are in the automotive art, more specifically, directed towards a vehicular brake system using a controller and are both directed towards applying vehicle brakes. This being the case, it seems that one having an ordinary level of skill in the art would naturally want to combine the sleep/wake state change via sensor suite determination of Stoehr, to the teachings of Yamamoto, to gain the additional benefit of reduced power consumption ([0009]) and monitoring of safety-critical functions, despite deactivation of the controller/control device ([0010]).
The limitation of “preemptive application of additional braking after detection of potential vehicle movement and prior to full confirmation of vehicle movement” is not explicitly recited within either claim 1 or claim 19, as filed on 02/02/2026. The claims, as filed on 02/02/2026, also fail to explicitly recite the limitation of “basing the preemptive application on determination of a challenging parking environment”. However, the claims as filed on 02/02/2026, do recite, inter alia, the limitation of “…wherein responsive to determining the vehicle is in the challenging parking environment, the controller is configured to preemptively apply brake force from the second brake assembly…”, and this limitation is met by Yamamoto, which states in [0136] that “the ECU 84 can detect whether or not the stopping state (parking) can be ensured by the electric parking brake devices, which perform two-wheel braking, by making a transition from the hydraulic braking force control of four wheels to the hydraulic braking force control of two wheels. The braking force generated by the brake device is determined by the friction coefficient of the road and a ground contact load. Therefore, where the road is a low-μ slope, the stopping state sometimes can be maintained by braking using four wheels, but cannot be maintained by two-wheel braking”. Here, specifically, the limitation of “where the road is a low-μ slope, the stopping state sometimes can be maintained by braking using four wheels, but cannot be maintained by two-wheel braking” indicates that the vehicle is in a challenging parking environment (via. the road is a low-μ slope, the stopping state… cannot be maintained by two-wheel braking). Further, Yamamoto teaches that the stopping state sometimes can be maintained by braking using four wheels, which is an application of brake force in response to the challenging parking environment.
The examiner agrees with the applicant in that Yamamoto fails to disclose separate sensor suite engagement responsive to vehicle sleep status. However, Yamamoto is also not relied upon to teach the limitations of “separate sensor suite engagement responsive to vehicle sleep status” or “preemptive application of additional braking between uses of the separate sensor suites”. Further, the claims also do not explicitly recite the limitations of “separate sensor suite engagement responsive to vehicle sleep status” or “preemptive application of additional braking between uses of the separate sensor suites”. Stoehr, as explained below, is relied upon to teach both a first sensor suite and also a second sensor suite (sensors other than the at least one monitoring sensor) that is disabled in response to the vehicle being in the sleep state (In the sleep state of the control unit at least one monitoring sensor is active, with which a state change in the assembly or in the environment of the assembly is monitored and recorded; [0015]; Here, it is suggested that the non-monitoring sensors are in a sleep state/disabled). Stoehr is also relied upon to teach the controller further configured to: transition the vehicle to an awake state to activate the second sensor suite in response to determining potential vehicle movement (For the monitoring sensor which is assigned to the control unit and via which the control unit is transferred from the sleep state into the waking state on detection of a corresponding sensor signal, in the case of a parking brake, in addition to or as an alternative to the wheel speed sensor described above, an acceleration sensor can also be considered, in particular a longitudinal acceleration sensor, via which an unintentional movement of the vehicle can be registered after the vehicle has been parked; [0020]),
It is presumed that Yamamoto posses the necessary structures to perform the operations that Yamamoto is relied upon to teach. It is further presumed that Stoehr posses the necessary structures to perform the operations that Stoehr is relied upon to teach. Therefore, it is also presumed that Yamamoto as modified by Stoehr also posses the necessary structures to perform the operations, as explained in the 10/02/2025 office action and again, in the rejection below. Further, the examiner also believes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it rather obvious to modify Yamamoto with Stoehr, since it seems that both Yamamoto and Stoehr are in the same automotive art, more specifically, directed towards a vehicular brake system using a controller and are both directed towards applying vehicle brakes. This being the case, it seems that one having an ordinary level of skill in the art would naturally want to combine the sleep/wake state change via sensor suite determination of Stoehr, to the teachings of Yamamoto, to gain the additional benefit of reduced power consumption ([0009]) and monitoring of safety-critical functions, despite deactivation of the controller/control device ([0010]).
As explained both above, and also in the rejection below, the examiner believes that Yamamoto as modified by Stoehr disclose the required limitations of claims 1 and 19. Further, Horigome is not relied upon for the rejections of claims 1 and 19, but is instead relied upon to further modify Yamamoto, in the rejection of claims 7-9 and 19-20, as explained below. Further, Mujica, and Lewandowski are also not relied upon to modify Yamamoto. However, Mujica, and Lewandowski were cited in the interview summary as being relevant to proposed claim amendments, that were presented for discussion purposes (see interview summary dated 02/04/2026).
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 1-6, 10 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (U.S. 20160052494) in view of Stoehr et al. (U.S. 20200238962).
In re claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a vehicle control system (fig. 1; brake system 10; [0071]) of a vehicle, the vehicle control system comprising:
a first brake assembly (as shown in fig. 2; parking brake device; [0073; 0077]) to secure the vehicle in a stationary position while parked (the disk rotor 104 is squeezed by the pair of brake pads 106a, 106b, whereby the wheels are fixed and the parking brake function is demonstrated; [0082]; an electric parking brake device is integrated with a disk brake unit and which can be used in the brake system 10 shown in FIG. 1. The disk brake unit 100 has a function of actuating the piston by the hydraulic pressure generated from the master cylinder 14 and generating the hydraulic braking force and a function of actuating the piston by an electric motor 102 and generating the parking braking force.; [0073]),
a first sensor suite (monitoring the running state of the vehicle on the basis of the signals from the sensors connected to the ECU 84; [0072]; Here, the first sensor suite comprises the sensors connected to the ECU, that are monitoring the running state of the vehicle)
the first brake assembly being actuated and (the running state of the vehicle ahead, is recognized with a laser or radar, and adaptive running and braking are executed automatically in the entire speed range. In addition, the so-called brake hold (BH) in which the braking state reached when the vehicle is stopped is maintained is also included in the automatic braking force control. Those types of control are commonly used and detailed explanation thereof is herein omitted; [0072]; fig. 6);
; and
a controller (fig. 1; ECU 84; [0066]) configured to
monitor first sensor suite data received from the first sensor suite to determine potential vehicle movement (ECU 84 also inputs signals indicating the wheel speed of the wheels from the wheel speed sensor 80, a signal indicating a yaw rate from a yaw rate sensor, a signal indicating the steering angle of a steering wheel from a steering angle sensor, and a signal indicating the running speed of the vehicle from a vehicle speed sensor; [0069]; note: vehicle speed indicates movement of the vehicle, as is generally known),
the controller further configured to:
,
, and
apply brake force from a second brake assembly (service brakes, as indicated via. fig. 13) in response to confirming that the vehicle is moving (fig. 14; yes at S302; [0115]),
wherein responsive to the vehicle being in an awake state prior to transitioning to the sleep state, the controller is configured to
utilize the second sensor suite (on the basis of signals from the wheel speed sensors 80FL to 80RR or yaw rate sensor; [0136]) to determine if the vehicle is in a challenging parking environment (where the road is a low-μ slope, the stopping state sometimes can be maintained by braking using four wheels, but cannot be maintained by two-wheel braking; [0136]), and
wherein responsive to determining the vehicle is in the challenging parking environment, the controller is configured to
preemptively apply brake force from the second brake assembly (hydraulic braking force control of four wheels) prior to the confirming the vehicle is moving via second sensor suite data (the ECU 84 can detect whether or not the stopping state (parking) can be ensured by the electric parking brake devices, which perform two-wheel braking, by making a transition from the hydraulic braking force control of four wheels to the hydraulic braking force control of two wheels. The braking force generated by the brake device is determined by the friction coefficient of the road and a ground contact load. Therefore, where the road is a low-μ slope, the stopping state sometimes can be maintained by braking using four wheels, but cannot be maintained by two-wheel braking; [0136]).
Yamamoto lacks
a first sensor suite to monitor an environment outside the vehicle in response to
the vehicle being in a sleep state
a second sensor suite that is disabled in response to
the vehicle being in the sleep state
the controller further configured to:
transition the vehicle to an awake state to activate the second sensor suite in response to determining potential vehicle movement,
confirm the vehicle is moving via second sensor suite data received from the second sensor suite in response to the vehicle transitioning to the awake state.
Stoehr teaches an analogous vehicle braking system (fig. 1-2) wherein the movement of the vehicle can also be detected using another type of sensor, for example via an environment sensor for monitoring an environment, such as a camera ([0020]) and further teaches
a first sensor suite to monitor an environment outside the vehicle in response to
the vehicle being in a sleep state (the control unit can be transferred back into the waking state by means of a sensor signal of at least one monitoring sensor, in which the control unit is active and the electrical assembly can be controlled by the control unit. Thus, the control unit can occupy at least three different states: a waking state, a sleep state and a powered-off state.; [0008]; in the sleep state a monitoring function can be implemented, in which in the event of a corresponding sensor signal of the monitoring sensor, the control device is awoken from the sleep state and transferred into the waking state, in which the full functionality of the control unit and ability to control the electrically activatable assembly is available; [0009])
a second sensor suite (sensors other than the at least one monitoring sensor) that is disabled in response to
the vehicle being in the sleep state (In the sleep state of the control unit at least one monitoring sensor is active, with which a state change in the assembly or in the environment of the assembly is monitored and recorded; [0015]; Here, it is suggested that the non-monitoring sensors are in a sleep state/disabled)
the controller further configured to:
transition the vehicle to an awake state to activate the second sensor suite in response to determining potential vehicle movement (For the monitoring sensor which is assigned to the control unit and via which the control unit is transferred from the sleep state into the waking state on detection of a corresponding sensor signal, in the case of a parking brake, in addition to or as an alternative to the wheel speed sensor described above, an acceleration sensor can also be considered, in particular a longitudinal acceleration sensor, via which an unintentional movement of the vehicle can be registered after the vehicle has been parked; [0020]),
confirm the vehicle is moving via second sensor suite data received from the second sensor suite in response to the vehicle transitioning to the awake state (in the case of a parking brake with electric brake motor it may be expedient to check whether the vehicle has been set in motion within a limited period of, for example, three minutes after the beginning of the follow-on condition, whereupon the parking brake is activated again to keep the vehicle stationary for a long period. The follow-on state may also last for a longer period of, for example, up to 50 minutes; [0018]).
Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Yamamoto, to incorporate a first sensor suite to monitor an environment outside the vehicle in response to the vehicle being in a sleep state; a second sensor suite that is disabled in response to the vehicle being in the sleep state, and the controller further configured to: transition the vehicle to an awake state to activate the second sensor suite in response to determining potential vehicle movement, and confirm the vehicle is moving via second sensor suite data received from the second sensor suite in response to the vehicle transitioning to the awake state, as clearly suggested and taught by Stoehr, in order to have the advantage that in the sleep state the power consumption is significantly reduced due to the deactivated control unit ([0009]) and to have the advantage that in the sleep state, despite the deactivation of the control device, safety-critical functions can still be monitored ([0010]).
In re claim 2, Yamamoto as modified by Stoehr teaches the vehicle control system of claim 1, and Yamamoto further teaches wherein
the first brake assembly applies brake torque to two wheels of the vehicle when actuated (Where a predetermined period of time elapses after the vehicle has been stopped, the electric parking brake devices are automatically actuated and switched to parking brake control. In this case, for example, the switching is performed from four-wheel braking to two-wheel braking of the wheels on which the electric parking brake devices have been mounted; [0085]), and
the second brake assembly applies brake torque to all wheels of the vehicle when applied (the usual ACC is performed, brake control is executed with respect to all wheels; [0085]).
In re claim 3, Yamamoto as modified by Stoehr teaches the vehicle control system of claim 1, and Yamamoto further teaches wherein
the first sensor suite (sensors connected to the ECU 84; [0072]) includes a proximity detection sensor (radar; [0072]), and wherein
the proximity detection sensor is
a radar sensor (the running state of the vehicle ahead, is recognized with a laser or radar, and adaptive running and braking are executed automatically in the entire speed range; [0072]),
a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) sensor, or
a Time-of-Flight sensor (laser; [0072]; note: lasers and LEDs are commonly used as time-of-flight sensors, as would be the case to determine the running state of the preceding vehicle).
In re claim 4, Yamamoto as modified by Stoehr teaches the vehicle control system of claim 1, and Stoehr further teaches wherein
the second sensor suite includes one or more cameras disposed around the vehicle to provide image data of the environment (the movement of the vehicle can also be detected using another type of sensor, for example via an environment sensor for monitoring an environment, such as a camera; [0020]).
In re claim 5, Yamamoto as modified by Stoehr teaches the vehicle control system of claim 4, but fail to explicitly state wherein
the one or more cameras are disposed around the vehicle include
a dash camera,
a backup camera, or
a canopy camera.
However, the terms, dash, backup and canopy, as used to describe a dash camera, backup camera, and canopy camera are all modifiers that indicate the placement of the camera. Stoehr discloses that a camera can be used to monitor the environment around the vehicle, the locations of dash, backup and canopy, are common areas within the art that cameras are employed. This being the case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place a camera on the dash, to be used as a dashcam or at the rearview mirror location, or generally around the rear license plate, to be used as a backup camera, or placed around the canopy, to be used as a canopy camera since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
In re claim 6, Yamamoto as modified by Stoehr teaches the vehicle control system of claim 4, and Stoehr further teaches wherein
the controller utilizes the one or more cameras to confirm the vehicle is moving via a frame-to-frame comparison of image data of the environment to detect movement of the vehicle relative to the environment (the movement of the vehicle can also be detected using another type of sensor, for example via an environment sensor for monitoring an environment, such as a camera; [0020]; note: this is typically how motion/movement are detected/determined using a camera, and is known as frame-based processing, as is known in the art).
In re claim 10, Yamamoto as modified by Stoehr teaches the vehicle control system of claim 1, and Stoehr further teaches wherein
the second sensor suite includes
a camera,
parking surface angle sensor,
wheel speed sensor (wheel speed sensor; [0020]),
weather sensor, or
location sensor.
In re claim 13, Yamamoto as modified by Stoehr teaches the vehicle control system of claim 1, and Yamamoto further teaches wherein
responsive to determining the vehicle in in the challenging parking environment,
the controller is configured to
apply a preemptive action to decrease a likelihood of vehicle movement while parked (hydraulic braking force control of four wheels; [0136]).
In re claim 14, Yamamoto as modified by Stoehr teaches the vehicle control system of claim 13, and Yamamoto further teaches wherein
the preemptive action includes
rotating wheels a specific direction prior to parking (low-μ slope; [0136]; note: it is standard driving practice (and generally known by those with ordinary skill in the art) in the United States to angle the wheels when parking on a slope, such that, in the case of brake failure, the vehicle rolls away from traffic and towards a curb or edge of the road; Here, parking on a low-μ slope is considered to necessarily include rotating or angling the vehicle wheels such that such that, in the case of brake failure, the vehicle rolls away from traffic and towards a curb or edge of the road) or
applying external wheel locking mechanisms.
In re claim 15, Yamamoto as modified by Stoehr teaches the vehicle control system of claim 1, and Stoehr further teaches wherein
responsive to confirming the vehicle is moving via the second sensor suite data ([0018]), and
Yamamoto further teaches wherein
the controller is configured to send a notification (The “vehicle instability warning” is issued, for example, by lighting up a warning light on the instrument panel on the driver's seat side, or displaying a message, such as “vehicle slides down” and “automatic parking impossible”, on a display. A warning sound or a warning message may be also outputted by a voice. In this case, the driver takes appropriate measures by manually increasing the parking brake force or changing the stopping position. The warning message may notify the driver of a specific appropriate measure; [0133]).
In re claim 16, Yamamoto as modified by Stoehr teaches the vehicle control system of claim 15, and Yamamoto further teaches wherein
the notification is
a local notification at the vehicle (as indicated in [0133]) or
remote notification to an external device.
In re claim 17, Yamamoto as modified by Stoehr teach the vehicle control system of claim 16, and Yamamoto further teaches wherein
the local notification is an auditory (A warning sound or a warning message may be also outputted by a voice; [0133]) or
visual notification (“vehicle instability warning” is issued, for example, by lighting up a warning light on the instrument panel on the driver's seat side, or displaying a message, such as “vehicle slides down” and “automatic parking impossible”, on a display; [0133]) generated at the vehicle.
Claims 7-9 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (U.S. 20160052494) in view of Stoehr et al. (U.S. 20200238962) and in further view of Horigome et al. (U.S. 20220153299).
In re claim 7, Yamamoto as modified by Stoehr teaches the vehicle control system of claim 6, but lacks wherein
the controller is configured to determine a classification of an object in the environment as movable or non-moveable based on the frame-to-frame comparison.
Horigome teaches
the controller is configured to determine a classification of an object in the environment as movable or non-moveable based on the frame-to-frame comparison (Specifically, in this process, (1) surroundings of the own-vehicle are divided into a plurality of regions (e.g., a forward region, a left-right region, and a rearward region), (2) object information perceived by the cameras 50 and object information perceived by the radars 51 are integrated in each region, and (3) classification information on a moving object and a stationary object for each region; [0126]; note: frame-based processing is a known technique in the art).
Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Yamamoto, to incorporate wherein the controller is configured to determine a classification of an object in the environment as movable or non-moveable based on the frame-to-frame comparison, as clearly suggested and taught by Horigome, in order to enhance safety and convenience ([0021]).
In re claim 8, Yamamoto as modified by Stoehr and further modified by Horigome teach the vehicle control system of claim 7, and Horigome further teaches wherein
the object is classified as stationary when a relative position of the object has not changed after a threshold number of frames or a threshold amount of time (vehicle speed information; [0126]; note: speed is the magnitude of the velocity vector, which is defined as a change in position with respect to time).
In re claim 9, Yamamoto as modified by Stoehr and further modified by Horigome teach the vehicle control system of claim 8, and Horigome further teaches wherein
the controller is configured to utilize the classification of the object to determine if the vehicle is moving (as indicated in [0126]).
In re claim 19, see claims 1 and 7-9 above, mutatis mutandis.
In re claim 20, see claims 15-16 and 19 above.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (U.S. 20160052494) in view of Stoehr et al. (U.S. 20200238962) and in further view of Kim (U.S. 20200062308).
In re claim 18, Yamamoto as modified by Stoehr teach the vehicle control system of claim 16, but lack wherein
the remote notification includes current vehicle state information transmitted to the external device.
Kim teaches an analogous vehicle parking system and further teaches
a remote notification includes current vehicle state information transmitted to the external device (a remote parking assist system includes: a communication device in wireless communication with a remote control device; a vehicle sensor that detects information about surroundings of a vehicle; a vehicle controller that controls behavior of the vehicle; and a processor that transmits notification of an immovable state of the vehicle to the remote control device and controls the behavior of the vehicle according to a control signal transmitted from the remote control device when the vehicle is immovable during autonomous parking based on the information about the surroundings; [0016]).
Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Yamamoto, to incorporate wherein the remote notification includes current vehicle state information transmitted to the external device, as clearly suggested and taught by Kim, in order to enables a driver to park the vehicle simply by operating a smart key outside the vehicle ([0003]).
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 JOHN D BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5692. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/JOHN D BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747