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 .
Status of Claims
This is a Non-Final Rejection office action in response to application Serial No. 18/846,007. Claim(s) 1-6,10-11,13-15,18,21,25-30 and 36 have been examined and fully considered.
Claims 12. 16-17, 19-20, 22-24, 31-35, and 37-38 have been cancelled; and claim(s) 2-11, 13-15, 18, 21, 25-27, 29-30, and 36 have been amended.
Claim(s) 1-6,10-11,13-15, 18,21,25-30 and 36 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of PRO 63/319,785 filed 03/15/2022; PRO 63/319,785 filed 09/20/2022; and 371 of PCT/IL2023/050272 03/15/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 09/11/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “high accuracy” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high accuracy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “fast” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fast” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 recites the limitation " data stream ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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(s) 1-6, 10, 13-15, 18, 21, 25-30, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1: Yes, the claims are drawn to one or more statutory categories.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 13-15, 18, 21, 25-30, and 36 are directed to a methods (processes) and systems (machine or manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: Yes, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including those bolded below.
A method for generating and providing an enriched global map to subscribed moving platforms, comprising:
a) collecting data containing detection maps from sensors installed on a plurality of moving platforms in a given area, where each sensor views a target of an object of interest from a different angle;
b) generating an enriched and complete high-resolution global map of said given area by jointly processing and fusing the collected data that unifies the detection capabilities of said moving platforms; and
c) transmitting said complete high-resolution global map to at least one moving platform.
Claim 28 recites similar abstract limitations, including those bolded below.
A system for generating and providing an enriched global map to subscribed moving platforms, comprising:
a) a plurality of sensors installed on a plurality of moving platforms in a given area, where each sensor views a target of an object of interest from a different angle;
b) a data network for collecting data containing detection maps from said sensors;
c) a central processor, connected to said data network, for:
c.1) generating an enriched and complete high-resolution global map of said given area by jointly processing and fusing the collected data;
c.2) unifying the detection capabilities of said moving platforms; and
c.3) transmitting, over said data network, said complete high-resolution global map to at least one moving platform.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, other than reciting that the step is performed by device(s), nothing in the claim limitation precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: No: the claims does not recite additional that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One , the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites additional elements, including those underlined below.
A method for generating and providing an enriched global map to subscribed moving platforms, comprising:
a) collecting data containing detection maps from sensors installed on a plurality of moving platforms in a given area, where each sensor views a target of an object of interest from a different angle;
b) generating an enriched and complete high-resolution global map of said given area by jointly processing and fusing the collected data that unifies the detection capabilities of said moving platforms; and
c) transmitting said complete high-resolution global map to at least one moving platform.
Claim 28 recites similar additional elements, including those underlined below.
A system for generating and providing an enriched global map to subscribed moving platforms, comprising:
a) a plurality of sensors installed on a plurality of moving platforms in a given area, where each sensor views a target of an object of interest from a different angle;
b) a data network for collecting data containing detection maps from said sensors;
c) a central processor, connected to said data network, for:
c.1) generating an enriched and complete high-resolution global map of said given area by jointly processing and fusing the collected data;
c.2) unifying the detection capabilities of said moving platforms; and
c.3) transmitting, over said data network, said complete high-resolution global map to at least one moving platform.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional
limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the functions of the “a data network”, and “a central processor” are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. In addition, each of these additional limitations indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The functions of the “sensor(s)” (collecting, receiving, sending information) are
considered as insignificant extra-solution activity because they are merely generating data. [see
MPEP, 2106.04(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity [R-10.2019], (3) Whether the limitation
amounts to necessary data gathering, calculating and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited
judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101
USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d
1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The characterization of the sensor(s) as being part of the moving platform(s) (e.g., ground or aerial vehicles) during the travel of the moving platform(s) along the path, segment, or trajectory amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding the performing functions of the “collecting data containing detection maps from sensors installed on a plurality of moving platforms in a given area, where each sensor views a target of an object of interest from a different angle” and “transmitting said complete high-resolution global map to at least one moving platform” , examiner submits that these limitations represent extra-solution data-gathering activities. These steps recites at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or
as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements
taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when
considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an
improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial
exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition,
implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that
is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different
state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such
that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
(MPEP § 2106.05).
Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract
idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the data processing functions of the ““a data network”, and “a central processor” amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Use of a computer or
other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, update, or
generate) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to
an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d
1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications
LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer
server and telephone unit). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer
component cannot provide an inventive concept. As discussed above, these elements also amount
to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial
exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. (see MPEP
2106.05(h)).
As discussed above, the collecting data containing detection maps from sensors installed on a plurality of moving platforms in a given area, where each sensor views a target of an object of interest from a different angle” and “transmitting said complete high-resolution global map to at least one moving platform” amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As discussed above, the transmitting/receiving function could be interpreted as a form of extra-solution data gathering. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified
problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the
mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical
application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the
words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119
USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307,
1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Dependent claim(s) 3-6, 12-15, 18, 21, 25, 29-30, and 36 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (e.g., sharing sensed information collected by networked sensors of moving (e.g., an automotive radar) or stationary (e.g., ground radar) platforms) and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements (see analysis above regarding pre and post-solution activity (sending/receiving/displaying data) that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application to improve the localization accuracy and resolution. Therefore, dependent claims 3-6, 12-15, 18, 21, 25, 29-30, and 36 not are patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim(s) 1 and 28.
Claim 2 characterizes multiple processing devices. This limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 10 further characterizes an alert in the form of a visual indication or a voice indication, which appears to be just displaying information. Examiner submits that this limitation represent extra-solution data-gathering activities.
Claim(s) 13, 26, 27 further characterizes specific data collection elements and platforms. These limitations amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 26 further characterizes the types of sensors that are to be selected from the group of: radars; cameras; LiDARs. At this level of breadth, these limitations merely amount to characterizing a field of use, and further recite sensors represents extra-solution activity (collecting/receiving data).
Claim 27 further recites characterizes the types of sensors that are to be selected the moving platforms are selected from the group of: vehicles; bikes; drones; scooters; pedestrians. At this level of breadth, these limitations are extra-solution and represent the information transmitted between the moving platforms which as indicated in the analysis of the independent claims above is well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-6, 10, 13-15, 18, 21, 25-30, and 36 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (Pub . No .: US 2021/0118183), hereinafter, refer to as “Lin”. Regarding [claim 1], Lin discloses a method for generating and providing an enriched global map to subscribed moving platforms (see, Abstract), comprising:
a) collecting data containing detection maps from sensors (see, Figures 1-3; Paragraph [0033]: “a light detection and ranging ( LiDAR ) sensor 11, a camera 12”) installed on a plurality of moving platforms (see, “vehicle devices 10”) in a given area (see, Paragraphs [0032]: “With reference to FIGS. 1 and 2, a system for generating dynamic map information of the present invention comprises vehicle devices 10 each respectively installed in vehicles, multiple relay hosts 20 provided in the environment and preferably being near roads, and a cloud server 30”; and [0033]: “Each vehicle device 10 comprises a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor 11, a camera 12, a vehicle controller 13, a data transmission unit 14, and a human machine interface (HCI) 15. The LiDAR sensor 11 is connected to the vehicle controller 13 and senses an environment around the vehicle to generate point cloud data. The camera 12 is connected to the vehicle controller 13 and captures images around the vehicle to generate image data”), where each sensor views a target of an object of interest from a different angle (see, Figures 1 and 9) ;
b) generating an enriched and complete high-resolution global map (see, Paragraph [0032]: “generating dynamic map information”) of said given area (see, Paragraph [0032]: “in the environment”) by jointly processing and fusing the collected data that unifies the detection capabilities of said moving platforms (see, [0035]: “The cloud server 30 integrates data processed by the relay hosts 20 with the base map in the map database 31 to generate dynamic map information , and then transmits the dynamic map information to the human machine interface 15 of each vehicle device 10”; and [0059]: “When the cloud server 30 receives the 3D coordinates information of the objects calculated by the relay host 20, the cloud server 30 combines the 3D coordinates information with the base map to generate dynamic map information and then transmits the dynamic map information to the human-machine interface 15 of each vehicle.”; and [0061]-[0063]); and
c) transmitting said complete high-resolution global map to at least one moving platform (see, Paragraphs [0033]; and [0035]: “transmits the dynamic map information to the human machine interface 15 of each vehicle device 10”).
As to [claim 2], Lin discloses the method according to claim 1. Liu further discloses wherein joint processing and fusing of the collected data is done by a central processor, a remote server or a computational cloud, being in communication with the plurality of moving platform over a wireless data network (see, Figure 1; and Paragraphs [0032]- [0033]: “The vehicle controller 13 transmits the point cloud data and the image data through the data transmission unit 14, wherein a unique vehicle identification code for the vehicle is pre-stored in the vehicle controller 13 for identifying the vehicle among multiple vehicles. The data transmission unit 14 is a wireless communication unit for data transmission among the vehicle device 10, the relay host 20 and the cloud server 30”).
As to [claim 4], Lin discloses the method according to claim 1. Lin discloses wherein the collected data is in the form of point clouds (see, Paragraphs [0033]: “Each vehicle device 10 comprises a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor 11, a camera 12, a vehicle controller 13, a data transmission unit 14, and a human-machine interface (HCI) 15. The LiDAR sensor 11 is connected to the vehicle controller 13 and senses an environment around the vehicle to generate point cloud data. The camera 12 is connected to the vehicle controller 13 and captures images around the vehicle to generate image data. The vehicle controller 13 transmits the point cloud data and the image data through the data transmission unit 14.”).
As to [claim 26], Lin discloses the method according to claim 1. Lin discloses wherein the sensors are selected from the group of:
radars;
cameras (see, Paragraph [0033]);
LiDARs (see, Paragraph [0033]).
As to [claim 27], Lin discloses the method according to claim 1. Lin discloses wherein the moving platforms are selected from the group of:
vehicles (see, Paragraph [0032]: “vehicle device 10”);
bikes;
drones;
scooters;
pedestrians.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 10-11, 13-15, 18, 21, 25, and 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Lin” in view of McGavran et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024/0056784), hereinafter, referred to as “McGavran”.
As to [claim 3], Lin discloses the method according to claim 2. Lin does not explicitly teach wherein data fusion is done to improve the range resolution and the angular resolution and to provide accurate positioning of moving platforms and objects, based on the construction of global likelihood function of various objects in the area, while considering the accuracy of the GPS-based position and orientation of each moving platform, and the latency of the data transferred from each moving platform to the computational cloud.
However, McGavran teaches
wherein data fusion is done to improve the range resolution and the angular resolution and to provide accurate positioning of moving platforms and objects, based on the construction of global likelihood function of various objects in the area, while considering the accuracy of the GPS-based position and orientation of each moving platform, and the latency of the data transferred from each moving platform to the computational cloud (see, Abstract; Paragraph [0029]; [0040]; and [0070]: “Furthermore, the vehicle map service system can listen to the route and publishes the route ahead in terms of IDs on the local map. This can help to inform map matching. The vehicle map service system can then match the vehicle to the roads on the map, factoring in vehicle pose, pose history, and the route. It publishes a map match data layer using the result. This can provide a map-matched position back to the remote map service system (e.g., the geographic information system), thereby providing improved certainty about the state of local traffic.”; [0072]: “In some embodiments, the vehicle map service system can analyze the sign observations from the vehicle sensors and send the sign observations to the remote map service systems to improve the vehicle map service data. Further, the vehicle map service system can prioritize new and conflicting observations, but might also send confirming observations as a vote of confidence. The new or conflicting sign observations can be sent to the remote map service systems and can be added to the remote map service system model of the world.”; and [0073]: “In some embodiments, the vehicle map service system can utilize positional sensors to determine positional type data including a GPS position, wheel speed, or heading. The positional type data can be shared with other client systems (e.g., vehicle systems) including embedded automotive systems through traditional in-vehicle communications.” [0154]; [0238]; [0252] and [0292]: “The vehicle map service system 906 can fuse the sensor data received from the client system 902 and the vehicle map service data received from the remote map service system 904 into vehicle map service data that includes the fused data 908 which can include the information associated with the sensor data (e.g., the school zone information) from the client system 902 and the vehicle map service data including the satellite imagery of the area from the remote map service system 904. The vehicle map service data including the fused data can be included in the fused data 908 which is sent to the client system 910 which can be a remote computing device that can receive and/or distribute vehicle map service data”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify the method to improve the resolution to provide accurate positioning of moving platforms and objects as taught by McGavran. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey that the one or more attributes of the plurality of layers (e.g., the one or more attributes of the method 1100) can include a confidence attribute and a confidence level corresponding to the confidence attribute that indicates a confidence in the accuracy of the vehicle map service data provided by each of the plurality of layers. For example, the confidence level can be a numerical value associated with the accuracy of vehicle map service data provided by a layer and a higher confidence level can correspond to a higher estimated accuracy of the vehicle map service data provided by a corresponding layer (see, Paragraph [0319]).
As to [claim 5]. Lin discloses the method according to claim 1. Lin discloses wherein the fusion efficiency is increased by measuring the relative location of detected proximal objects (see, Paragraph [0061]: “1. Sensing optlm1zation for dark zone or blind zone: With reference to FIG. 9A, the vehicle A itself can only detect the first object 01 but cannot recognize the second object 02 in the dark zone Z. However, by integrating the point cloud data from different vehicles according to the present invention, for example, integrating the sensing data of vehicle B that can detect the second object 02, the sensing area for vehicle A can be effectively expanded. After providing the integrated point cloud data to each of the vehicles, vehicle A can recognize the second object 02 in the dark zone successfully. For the self-driving vehicle, its sensing ability can be improved to enhance the programming of driving routes.”, and [0062]: “2. Increasing dynamic information of the high definition map: Through the vehicle to infrastructure (V2I) communication, each relay host 20 can receive various kinds of dynamic information such as dark zones, obstacle identification and travelable spaces from different cars. The integrated dynamic map information contains real time information as references for the self-driving vehicle to determine preferable driving routes.”).
Additionally, McGavran teaches
wherein the fusion efficiency is increased by measuring the relative location of detected proximal objects (see, Paragraph [0064]: “the vehicle client systems can continually publish information about the current physical and semantic (segment/lane) location of the vehicle using data fused from sensors and the basemap, which can be updated on each positioning system refresh.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to a fusion technique to measure the relative location of detected proximal objects as taught by McGavran. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey a variety of technical effects and benefits to operation of a vehicle and computing systems associated with the vehicle (e.g., vehicle systems, remote computing systems associated with map providers, and/or remote computing systems associated with providing vehicle information) through use of a computing system that facilitates more efficient exchange of information that can be used to generate a local map of an area traversed by a vehicle (see, Paragraph [0104]).
As to [claim 6], Lin discloses the method according to claim 1. McGavran teaches wherein high accuracy is obtained by measuring the relative location of each moving platform and performing fast synchronization between the signals (see, Paragraph [0042]: “map data and traffic data, synchronized through the vehicle services application into local memory and caches. Some of the map update data may be sent to the vehicle operating system as part of vehicle-internal protocols.”; [0040-[0044] *** Examiner notes that the cited paragraphs teaches determining accuracy measuring the relative location of each moving platform***).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to a fusion technique to measure the relative location of each moving platform as taught by McGavran. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey a variety of technical effects and benefits to operation of a vehicle and computing systems associated with the vehicle (e.g., vehicle systems, remote computing systems associated with map providers, and/or remote computing systems associated with providing vehicle information) through use of a computing system that facilitates more efficient exchange of information that can be used to generate a local map of an area traversed by a vehicle (see, Paragraph [0104]).
As to [claim 10], Lin discloses the method according to claim 1. McGavran teaches wherein the enriched global map includes an alert in the form of a visual indication (see, Paragraphs [0036] and [0039]: “the remote map service systems can include a geographic information system cloud computing system that is used to implement software and services maintained by a geographic information system service provider, such as a geographic information system. The geographic information system can include map data, navigation information, traffic information, and information and services such as destination search, route planning, turn-by-tum navigation, estimated time of arrival (ETA) information, traffic/incident information, voice integration, personalization and integration with voice command search, caching for offline data, software update support, and/or APIs supporting third party navigation applications.”) or a voice indication, to be used for automatic hazard detection on the road (see, Paragraph [0040]: “Example vehicle map service data that can be sent and/or received among the map service systems (e.g., the geographic information system cloud computing system, the vehicle cloud computing system, and/or the vehicle) and/or among individual clients within a map service system can include: dynamic map data (e.g., realtime or near real-time data including locations of other vehicles, traffic speeds, traffic incidents, road and lane blockages, potential hazards, and/or parking information);”; and [0041]: “For instance, the vehicle map service data sent from the vehicle map service system to the remote map service system and/or the remote vehicle service system can include data associated with raw location state (e.g., global positioning system (GPS) location and accuracy, vehicle velocity, vehicle course and heading, and/or other sensor information including gyro information); map-based location state (e.g., map registered position, course, heading, speed, and/or accuracy, lane data, lane registered position, lane accuracy, parking state, and/or parking location); sensor-based map updates (e.g., lane boundaries, sign locations and text, road markings, traffic control device locations and types, and/or hazards); vehicle analytics, and/or other vehicle data. This data can be used, for instance, to provide information for the geographic information system service provide services ( e.g., traffic information) and/or for services implemented at least in part using the vehicle cloud.”; and [0228]: “A hazards layer can include data and/or information associated with annotation of roads and lanes with traffic incidents, hazards, and/or blockages. For example, hazards can include areas undergoing construction, natural hazards ( e.g., flooding, fire, heavy rain, and/or heavy snowfall), and other potentially harmful events that can obstruct or delay the movement of a vehicle.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to a fusion technique to measure the relative location of each moving platform as taught by McGavran. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey a variety of technical effects and benefits to operation of a vehicle and computing systems associated with the vehicle (e.g., vehicle systems, remote computing systems associated with map providers, and/or remote computing systems associated with providing vehicle information) through use of a computing system that facilitates more efficient exchange of information that can be used to generate a local map of an area traversed by a vehicle (see, Paragraph [0104]).
As to [claim 11], Lin discloses the method according to claim 1. McGavran teaches
wherein the alert appears as a blinking icon on the enriched global map, accompanied with a voice alert in the form of a beep or a voice announcement (see, Paragraph [0197]: “The navigation data protocol can provide simple next-turn enumeration and icon to the vehicle. The navigation data protocol can be extended to allow more sophisticated HUD display of the upcoming route state, including lane guidance or ETA information. When an upcoming segment is part of a maneuver, the maneuver information (turn type) can be included as part of this layer (in addition to what is already in the navigation protocol). When moving into fully autonomous driving, the vehicle can also determine relative costs of alternate routes. For example, if a vehicle is unable to safely merge to take an exit for the current route, the cost of continuing on the highway can be determined.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to a fusion technique to measure the relative location of each moving platform as taught by McGavran. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey a variety of technical effects and benefits to operation of a vehicle and computing systems associated with the vehicle (e.g., vehicle systems, remote computing systems associated with map providers, and/or remote computing systems associated with providing vehicle information) through use of a computing system that facilitates more efficient exchange of information that can be used to generate a local map of an area traversed by a vehicle (see, Paragraph [0104]).
As to [claim 13]. Lin discloses the method according to claim 1. As Lin discloses wherein data is collected from automotive radars, infrastructure radars and other moving radars (see, Figure 1; Paragraphs [0032]: “vehicle devices 10 each respectively installed in vehicles, multiple relay hosts 20 provided in the environment and preferably being near roads, and a cloud server 30.”; and [0034]: “The relay hosts 20 are built and distributed around the environment to establish vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communication with the vehicle device 10. Each of the relay hosts 20 has a unique host identification code. The relay hosts 20 also communicate with the cloud server 30.”; and [0061]-[0063]) .
McGavran additionally, teaches wherein data is collected from automotive radars, infrastructure radars and other moving radars (see, Paragraphs [0076]: “one or more sensors ( e.g., camera inputs and/or radar inputs to a vehicle client system) that have been used to generate one or more sensor outputs. For example, each of the machine-learned models can be created using a set of image sensors that capture training data including still images and video from one or more geographic areas over a period of time.”; [0077]: “the machine-learned models in the machine-learned model library can share certain common properties, including: the ability to detect entities in the world based on input from one or more sensors (e.g., one or more sensors including one or more cameras, one or more LIDAR devices, one or more microphones, one or more sonar devices, and/or one or more radar devices); the ability to classify entities into common categories (e.g., to classify an object as a vehicle or a pedestrian, to classify a scene as an urban scene or a rural scene, or to classify an event as a traffic signal state change); the ability to determine critical attributes of an entity that can be used to describe the entity (e.g., classifying a vehicle based on the vehicle's size)”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to a fusion technique to measure the relative location of each moving platform as taught by McGavran. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey a variety of technical effects and benefits to operation of a vehicle and computing systems associated with the vehicle (e.g., vehicle systems, remote computing systems associated with map providers, and/or remote computing systems associated with providing vehicle information) through use of a computing system that facilitates more efficient exchange of information that can be used to generate a local map of an area traversed by a vehicle (see, Paragraph [0104]).
As to [claim 14], Lin discloses the method according to claim 1. McGavran teaches wherein the data stream transmitted from each moving platform to the central processor includes a time stamp with predefined accuracy (see, Paragraphs [0062]; [0093]: “the plurality of layers can include one or more attributes associated with types of information exchanged by each of the plurality of layers. For example, the one or more attributes can include attributes associated with the location of various features of a map ( e.g., the location of traffic signals), speed limits, and/or time stamps associated with certain events (e.g., the time when a vehicle is at a particular location)”; and [0161]: “Attributes of the vehicle location layer can include: a timestamp attribute (e.g., an absolute timestamp associated with a specific point in time). The timestamp attribute can be used to reflect the time that a vehicle location was observed; and a location provider attribute that can include a final determinant of a location estimate. For example, a location associated with the location provider attribute can come from a GPS provider, or can be a map-corrected location based on sensor registration against a three-dimensional map.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to a fusion technique to measure the relative location of each moving platform as taught by McGavran. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey a variety of technical effects and benefits to operation of a vehicle and computing systems associated with the vehicle (e.g., vehicle systems, remote computing systems associated with map providers, and/or remote computing systems associated with providing vehicle information) through use of a computing system that facilitates more efficient exchange of information that can be used to generate a local map of an area traversed by a vehicle (see, Paragraph [0104]).
As to [claim 15], Lin discloses the method according to claim 1. McGavran teaches wherein the data stream further includes one or more of the following:
a list of detected targets;
a confidence level of the detected targets (see, Paragraph [0099]: “the confidence attribute is based at least in part on the number of sensor observations associated with a layer of the plurality of layers (e.g., a greater total number of sensor observations corresponds to a higher confidence level)”);
a GPS position of the sensor (see, Paragraph [0041]: “For instance, the vehicle map service data sent from the vehicle map service system to the remote map service system and/or the remote vehicle service system can include data associated with raw location state (e.g., global positioning system (GPS) location and accuracy, vehicle velocity, vehicle course and heading, and/or other sensor information including gyro information); map-based location state (e.g., map registered position, course, heading, speed, and/or accuracy, lane data, lane registered position, lane accuracy, parking state, and/or parking location)” and [0073]: “the vehicle map service system can utilize positional sensors to determine positional type data including a GPS position, wheel speed, or heading. The positional type data can be shared with other client systems (e.g., vehicle systems) including embedded automotive systems through traditional in-vehicle communications.”);
odometry or other sensors;
the sensor's orientation.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to a fusion technique to measure the relative location of each moving platform as taught by McGavran. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey a variety of technical effects and benefits to operation of a vehicle and computing systems associated with the vehicle (e.g., vehicle systems, remote computing systems associated with map providers, and/or remote computing systems associated with providing vehicle information) through use of a computing system that facilitates more efficient exchange of information that can be used to generate a local map of an area traversed by a vehicle (see, Paragraph [0104]).
As to [claim 18]. Lin discloses the method according to claim 1. McGavran teaches further comprising one or more of the following:
providing traffic information in the resolution of road lanes, for allowing vehicles to autonomously navigate between the lanes (see, Paragraph [0122]: [0123]; and [0217]: “Lane attributes can be used as a point of reference to inform localization or map matching. By comparing visual observations against lane descriptions, the vehicle can better localize its position with relation to the map. By better enabling lane matching, a lane-registered position can be determined which allows features including lane guidance and lane traffic. Flow lines and incline can be used to inform vehicle planning for cruise control and autonomy, especially when there is ambiguity from sensor observations.”) ;
providing immunity of automotive radars against radar cyber-attacks such as jamming and spoofing:
using the fused information to evaluate the confidence level of the radar in the fusion process, by assessing bias and variance for the measurements of each radar regarding range, azimuth, elevation and Doppler estimations.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to a fusion technique to measure the relative location of each moving platform as taught by McGavran. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey a variety of technical effects and benefits to operation of a vehicle and computing systems associated with the vehicle (e.g., vehicle systems, remote computing systems associated with map providers, and/or remote computing systems associated with providing vehicle information) through use of a computing system that facilitates more efficient exchange of information that can be used to generate a local map of an area traversed by a vehicle (see, Paragraph [0104]).
As to [claim 21], Lin discloses the method according to claim 1. McGavran teaches further comprising one or more of the following steps:
providing a performance assessment of the radars over time by comparing the detections from the different radars to the fused information (see, Paragraphs [0099]: “the confidence attribute is based at least in part on the number of sensor observations associated with a layer of the plurality of layers (e.g., a greater total number of sensor observations corresponds to a higher confidence level), the age of sensor observations associated with a layer of the plurality of layers ( e.g., more recent sensor observations within a predefined time period correspond to a higher confidence level), or an amount of sensor observations over time that is associated with a layer of the plurality of layers ( e.g., a greater number of sensor observations within a predefined time period corresponds to a higher confidence level).”; and [0320]: “the confidence attribute can be based at least in part on a number of sensor observations associated with a layer of the plurality of layers, an age of sensor observations associated with a layer of the plurality of layers, or an amount of sensor observations over time that is associated with a layer of the plurality of layers.”);
using the locations and velocities of the crossing vehicles to predict the exact time of the presence of the vehicle in a junction and provide alerts;
evaluating precipitation rates (of rain or snow) at different positions by estimating the propagation loss;
detecting vacant parking slots, along the vehicle's path.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to a fusion technique to measure the relative location of each moving platform as taught by McGavran. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey a variety of technical effects and benefits to operation of a vehicle and computing systems associated with the vehicle (e.g., vehicle systems, remote computing systems associated with map providers, and/or remote computing systems associated with providing vehicle information) through use of a computing system that facilitates more efficient exchange of information that can be used to generate a local map of an area traversed by a vehicle (see, Paragraph [0104]).
As to [claim 25], Lin discloses the method according to claim 1. McGavran teaches further comprising using the information from adjacent vehicles and infrastructure radars, to provide sensing information to all vehicles in the area, including vehicles that do not have sensing capabilities (see, Paragraphs [0121]- [0121]: “The vehicle services can include: a service that provides a user-facing maps application; mobile services that utilize mobile APIs and/or frameworks (e.g., Maps APIs); data services including framework-level management of data caches including maps and/or other data as well as communications with other devices or systems via networks (e.g., the network 102) and/or interconnects in the vehicle 110. Further, the vehicle services can include an embedded version of the vehicle services that can be adopted by vehicles that are otherwise incompatible with the vehicle map service data. The vehicle 110 can also include a real-time operating system that can manage systems closer to the hardware of the vehicle 110”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to a fusion technique to measure the relative location of each moving platform as taught by McGavran. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey a variety of technical effects and benefits to operation of a vehicle and computing systems associated with the vehicle (e.g., vehicle systems, remote computing systems associated with map providers, and/or remote computing systems associated with providing vehicle information) through use of a computing system that facilitates more efficient exchange of information that can be used to generate a local map of an area traversed by a vehicle (see, Paragraph [0104]).
As to [claim 28], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 1, therefore claim 28 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above. Lin discloses a system for generating and providing an enriched global map to subscribed moving platforms (see, Abstract), comprising:
a) a plurality of sensors (see, Paragraph [0033]) installed on a plurality of moving platforms in a given area, where each sensor views a target of an object of interest from a different angle (see, Figures1-2, and 9; Paragraph [0032]-[0033]);
b) a data network (see, “relay host 20”) for collecting data containing detection maps from said sensors (see, Figure 1; Paragraphs [0014]; [0032]);
c) a central processor (see, “cloud server” ), connected to said data network (see, Figures 1-2; Paragraph [0032]), for:
c.1) generating an enriched and complete high-resolution global map of said given area by jointly processing and fusing the collected data (see, Paragraph [0035]: “The cloud server 30 is able to access a map database 31 in which basic environment information used as a base map is stored. The cloud server 30 integrates data processed by the relay hosts 20 with the base map in the map database 31 to generate dynamic map information, and then transmits the dynamic map information to the human-machine interface 15 of each vehicle device 10”);
c.2) unifying the detection capabilities of said moving platforms (see, Paragraph [0035]: “The cloud server 30 is able to access a map database 31 in which basic environment information used as a base map is stored. The cloud server 30 integrates data processed by the relay hosts 20 with the base map in the map database 31 to generate dynamic map information, and then transmits the dynamic map information to the human-machine interface 15 of each vehicle device 10”); and
c.3) transmitting, over said data network, said complete high-resolution global map to at least one moving platform (see, Paragraph [0035]: “The cloud server 30 is able to access a map database 31 in which basic environment information used as a base map is stored. The cloud server 30 integrates data processed by the relay hosts 20 with the base map in the map database 31 to generate dynamic map information, and then transmits the dynamic map information to the human-machine interface 15 of each vehicle device 10”).
Additionally, McGavran teaches
c.3) transmitting, over said data network, said complete high-resolution global map to at least one moving platform (see, Paragraph [0261]: “The map data 616 can be used by the communications manager 618. The communications manager 618 can manage copying map data from a remote system (e.g., the remote vehicle service system and/or the remote map service system) to a local system of a vehicle (e.g., the vehicle map service system). For example, the communications manager 618 can include services associated with determining that the map data for an area ( e.g., an area of interest) has been transmitted from the remote map service system to a client system (e.g., a vehicle) in communication with the remote map service system. In this way, the recipient of the map data does not lack map data.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to a fusion technique to measure the relative location of each moving platform as taught by McGavran. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey a variety of technical effects and benefits to operation of a vehicle and computing systems associated with the vehicle (e.g., vehicle systems, remote computing systems associated with map providers, and/or remote computing systems associated with providing vehicle information) through use of a computing system that facilitates more efficient exchange of information that can be used to generate a local map of an area traversed by a vehicle (see, Paragraph [0104]).
As to [claim 29], Lin in view of McGavran teaches the system according to claim 28. Lin discloses wherein the computerized system is a server (“a cloud server 30”) or a computational cloud (see, Paragraph [0051]: “When the relay host 20 finishes the multi-vehicle data integration, the integrated point cloud data will be transmitted to the cloud server 30 for computation of map information. Since each data point in the point cloud data represents 3D information, the integrated point cloud data may represent the 3D coordinate information of an object.”).
As to [claim 30], Lin in view of McGavran teaches the system according to claim 28. McGavran teaches in which data fusion is done, based on the construction of global likelihood function of various objects in the area, while considering the accuracy of the GPS-based position and orientation of each vehicle, and the latency of the data transferred from each vehicle to the computational cloud (see, Abstract; Paragraph [0029]; [0040]; and [0070]: “Furthermore, the vehicle map service system can listen to the route and publishes the route ahead in terms of IDs on the local map. This can help to inform map matching. The vehicle map service system can then match the vehicle to the roads on the map, factoring in vehicle pose, pose history, and the route. It publishes a map match data layer using the result. This can provide a map-matched position back to the remote map service system (e.g., the geographic information system), thereby providing improved certainty about the state of local traffic.”; [0072]: “In some embodiments, the vehicle map service system can analyze the sign observations from the vehicle sensors and send the sign observations to the remote map service systems to improve the vehicle map service data. Further, the vehicle map service system can prioritize new and conflicting observations, but might also send confirming observations as a vote of confidence. The new or conflicting sign observations can be sent to the remote map service systems and can be added to the remote map service system model of the world.”; and [0073]: “In some embodiments, the vehicle map service system can utilize positional sensors to determine positional type data including a GPS position, wheel speed, or heading. The positional type data can be shared with other client systems (e.g., vehicle systems) including embedded automotive systems through traditional in-vehicle communications.” [0154]; [0238]; [0252] and [0292]: “The vehicle map service system 906 can fuse the sensor data received from the client system 902 and the vehicle map service data received from the remote map service system 904 into vehicle map service data that includes the fused data 908 which can include the information associated with the sensor data (e.g., the school zone information) from the client system 902 and the vehicle map service data including the satellite imagery of the area from the remote map service system 904. The vehicle map service data including the fused data can be included in the fused data 908 which is sent to the client system 910 which can be a remote computing device that can receive and/or distribute vehicle map service data”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify the method to improve the resolution to provide accurate positioning of moving platforms and objects as taught by McGavran. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey that the one or more attributes of the plurality of layers (e.g., the one or more attributes of the method 1100) can include a confidence attribute and a confidence level corresponding to the confidence attribute that indicates a confidence in the accuracy of the vehicle map service data provided by each of the plurality of layers. For example, the confidence level can be a numerical value associated with the accuracy of vehicle map service data provided by a layer and a higher confidence level can correspond to a higher estimated accuracy of the vehicle map service data provided by a corresponding layer (see, Paragraph [0319]).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of McGavran as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Guibene (Pub. No.: US 2021/0287032).
As to [claim 36], Lin in view of McGavran teaches the system according to claim 28. Neither Lin nor McGavran does not explicitly
used for detecting vacant parking slots, along the vehicle's path.
However, Guibene teaches
used for detecting vacant parking slots, along the vehicle's path (see, Paragraph [0089]: “Memory 612 includes a control routine 620 for control operation of the application server 117, an assembly of components 622, e.g., an assembly of software components, e.g., routines, subroutines, software modules, etc., and data/information 624. Data information 624 includes received messages, e.g., received LoRa WAN messages 624. Received messages 624 includes a message 626 conveying a relatively small set of data corresponding to a detected vehicle entry or detected vehicle exit at a parking garage or parking lot, and a plurality of messages, each message conveying a portion of a low resolution license plate image (1st portion of low resolution license plate image 634, . . . , Nth portion of low resolution license plate image) 634. Set of data corresponding to detected vehicle entry or exit includes a license plate number (LPN) 628, a timetag 630, and, in some embodiments, location ID 636, e.g., identifying the particular exit or entrance at the parking lot or parking garage at which the vehicle was detected. Data/information 624 further includes a generated low resolution license plate image 638, e.g., a generated from combining received image portions (634, . . . , 636), a generated request for a high resolution image 640, e.g., to be sent via cellular communications path, a received high resolution image 642, e.g., communicated via a cellular communications path, a determined number of currently open (available) parking slots 644 at the parking garage or parking lot, and a database 119 including a table of stored parking information 648, e.g., exemplary table 500 of FIG. 5.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further implement wireless communications systems , and more particularly , to methods and apparatus for using wide area networks and / or other wireless networks to support parking systems as taught by Guibene by combining generating and providing an enriched global map to subscribed moving platforms as taught by Lin in view of McGavran. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey it should be appreciated that there is a need for improved parking systems and particularly parking systems which have benefits in the amount of hardware that needs to be deployed and maintained and / or the amount of human operators or technicians needed to keep the parking system functioning (see, Paragraph [0005]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAKARI UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-8462. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 TO 4:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571)-272-9855. 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.
/B.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663