DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This application has been examined. Claims 1-14 are pending.
The prior art submitted on 9/25/24 and 4/24/25 has been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
As per claim 1, claims limitations "a road type recognition unit", and
"a control unit" has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder "unit" coupled with functional language "configured to set….", and "configured to limit a speed...." without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112 six paragraph, the above claim has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the
corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: the specification describes the
road type recognition unit in paragraph [0035]; the control unit in paragraph [0034].
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's
interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the
corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line
number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this
Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend
the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim
recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed
function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary
Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for
Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 inventio(n.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-6, 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.
As per claim 5, line 7, it is unclear what is “the other” means in the sentence in line 7.
As per claim 6, the last 3 lines is unclear, for example line 9, what is “the region other than the course”; and line 10, what is “the other” means in the sentence.
Amendment or verification is required.
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.
Claims 1-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1. A mobile object control device for controlling a mobile object capable of moving both on a roadway and in a predetermined region different from the roadway, the mobile object control device comprising:
a road type recognition unit configured to set a virtual central lane including an assumed course of the mobile object, a virtual right lane located on a right side of the virtual central lane as seen from the mobile object, and a virtual left lane located on a left side of the virtual central lane as seen from the mobile object in an image captured by an external camera configured to perform an imaging process in a movement direction of the mobile object and recognize whether the mobile object is moving on the roadway or in the predetermined region on the basis of results of performing spatial classification processes for the virtual central lane, the virtual right lane, and the virtual left lane; and
a control unit configured to limit a speed of a case where the mobile object moves on the roadway to a first speed and limit a speed of a case where the mobile object moves in the predetermined region to a second speed lower than the first speed.
Claim 13. A mobile object control method to be performed by a mobile object control device for controlling a mobile object capable of moving both on a roadway and in a predetermined region different from the roadway, the mobile object control method including:
setting a virtual central lane including an assumed course of the mobile object, a virtual right lane located on a right side of the virtual central lane as seen from the mobile object, and a virtual left lane located on a left side of the virtual central lane as seen from the mobile object in an image captured by an external camera configured to perform an imaging process in a movement direction of the mobile object;
recognizing whether the mobile object is moving on the roadway or in the predetermined region on the basis of results of performing spatial classification processes for the virtual central lane, the virtual right lane, and the virtual left lane; and
limiting a speed of a case where the mobile object moves on the roadway to a first speed and limiting a speed of a case where the mobile object moves in the predetermined region to a second speed lower than the first speed.
Claim 14. A non-transitory storage medium storing a program for
causing a processor of a mobile object control device for controlling a mobile object capable of moving both on a roadway and in a predetermined region different from the roadway to:
set a virtual central lane including an assumed course of the mobile object, a virtual right lane located on a right side of the virtual central lane as seen from the mobile object, and a virtual left lane located on a left side of the virtual central lane as seen from the mobile object in an image captured by an external camera configured to perform an imaging process in a movement direction of the mobile object;
recognize whether the mobile object is moving on the roadway or in the predetermined region on the basis of results of performing spatial classification processes for the virtual central lane, the virtual right lane, and the virtual left lane; and
limit a speed of a case where the mobile object moves on the roadway to a first speed and limit a speed of a case where the mobile object moves in the predetermined region to a second speed lower than the first speed.
Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a device, a method, a non-transitory storage medium that including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes- Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG),
a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that
falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical
concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing
human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes
judicial exceptions in terms of "mental processes" because under it broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be "performed in the human
mind, or by a human using a pen and paper". See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitations of “setting a virtual central lane including an assumed course of the mobile object, a virtual right lane located on a right side of the virtual central lane as seen from the mobile object, and a virtual left lane located on a left side of the virtual central lane as seen from the mobile object”;
“recognizing whether the mobile object is moving on the roadway or in the predetermined region on the basis of results of performing spatial classification processes for the virtual central lane, the virtual right lane, and the virtual left lane”; and
“limiting a speed of a case where the mobile object moves on the roadway to a first speed and limiting a speed of a case where the mobile object moves in the predetermined region to a second speed lower than the first speed” limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of "a controller". That is, other than reciting "a control device", “an external camera’ nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the "a control device", “an external camera” language, the claim encompasses a user look at a vehicle traveling in a road have central land, right lane and left lane, and indicating whether the vehicle is traveling in a road way or region other than road way (pedestrian lane or walkway), and made a judgment or thinking on a particular set up condition a control program that limit the speed of the vehicle if it is travel on a road other than the road way. The mere nominal recitation of a controller does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Additionally, the setting, recognizing, and limiting steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a process that is practically performed in the human mind. For example, these limitations cover a user standing on a street,
making an observation a vehicle traveling position indicating a travel lane or predetermine region of vehicle, and evaluation, or judgment a limit speed of the vehicle travel on a particular set up condition a control program which are recorded in a memory to control the vehicle speed.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 1019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated
whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a
practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined
whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea
integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes
a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than
a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts
have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to
implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or
generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a
"practical application."
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite
additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a
practical application.
The claim recites the additional element of "a control device" that
performs the estimates steps. The setting, recognizing and limiting steps by a controller is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the estimate steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The controller is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed
to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere
instructions to apply the exception using a computer (the controller).
Regarding the additional limitation of image captured by an external camera configured to perform an imaging process in a movement direction of the mobile object, the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities that amount to mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not
integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not
impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ides.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive Concept: -No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claim (s) is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional
elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the
exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies
here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic
computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at
Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, as discussed above, regarding the additional limitation of “image captured by an external camera configured to perform an imaging process in a movement direction of the mobile object”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities and this additional limitation (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more that what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-12, the claims 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 and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional
elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
For example, claims 2-12 add additional steps to the road type recognition unit. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-14 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 7-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel Ting-Yuan Chen et al. (WO 2020/212808 A1, applicant’s submitted IDS document) in view of Whited et al. (US 2020/0076878 A1).
As per claims 1 and 14, Daniel Ting-Yuan Chen et al. disclose a mobile object control device, and a non-transitory storage medium, for controlling a mobile object capable of moving both on a roadway and in a predetermined region different from the roadway, the mobile object control device comprising: a road type recognition unit configured to set a central lane including an assumed course of the mobile object, a right lane located on a right side of the central lane as seen from the mobile object, and a left lane located on a left side of the central lane as seen from the mobile object in an image captured by an external camera configured to perform an imaging process in a movement direction of the mobile object (see at least [0032], and [0053-0055], all para. disclose image sensors 102 may capture images of infrastructure articles, such as lane markings, centerline markings, edge of roadway or shoulder markings, as well as the general shape of the transportation pathway. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, lane markings, centerline markings, and edge of roadway can defined central lane, left lane and right lane of a road); and recognize whether the mobile object is moving on the roadway or in the predetermined region on the basis of results of performing spatial classification processes for the central lane, the right lane, and the left lane (see at least [0032-0037], and [0053-0055], all para. disclose determines whether the electrically powered scooter 110A is permitted in it current location); and a control unit configured to limit a speed of a case where the mobile object moves on the roadway to a first speed and limit a speed of a case where the mobile object moves in the predetermined region to a second speed lower than the first speed (see at least [0039-0041] disclose computing device 116A may enable the electric motor to drive the wheels at a first speed when electrically powered scooter 110A is located on a vehicle pathway and may enable the electric motor to drive the wheels at a different speed with electrically powered scooter 110A is located on a pedestrian pathway).
Daniel Ting Yuan Chen et al. do not explicitly disclose virtual central lane, virtual left lane, and virtual right lane. However, Whited et al. disclose virtual road segment structure includes configuration of the lanes of the road segment (see at least [0054-0057] disclose analyzes to determine the position coordinates of aspects of the road segment such as, for example, the geo-location of the outer edges of the street, the geo-location of turn lanes, the geo-location of medians, etc.,; also in para. [0057], and [0068-0071], all para. disclose the virtual road segment data generated by cloud server 120, based on the road segment location and configuration metadate received from smart camera 100, describes the locations and dimensions of the various portions of the road segment (e.g., the street width, lane width, crosswalk location and width, bicycle lane location and width, etc.,). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the virtual road segment the defined the geo-location of the outer edges of the street, geo-location of medians, lane width, crosswalk location and width, bicycle lane location and width, as disclose in Whited et al. reference can determine the virtual central lane, virtual left lane and virtual right lane in the road segment structure. It 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 to modify the teach of Daniel Ting-Yuan Chen et al. by combining virtual central lane, virtual left lane, and virtual right lane, in order to determine vehicle position in a roadway accurately for controlling vehicle speed appropriately.
As per claim 3, Daniel Ting-Yuan Chen et al. do not explicitly disclose virtual lane. However, Whited et al. disclose the road type recognition unit recognizes whether each of the virtual left lane and the virtual right lane is a representation of the roadway, the predetermined region, or a region other than the course as the spatial classification process (see at least [0054-0057] disclose analyzes to determine the position coordinates of aspects of the road segment such as, for example, the geo-location of the outer edges of the street, the geo-location of turn lanes, the geo-location of medians, etc.,; also in para. [0057], and [0068-0071], all para. disclose the virtual road segment data generated by cloud server 120, based on the road segment location and configuration metadate received from smart camera 100, describes the locations and dimensions of the various portions of the road segment (e.g., the street width, lane width, crosswalk location and width, bicycle lane location and width, etc.,). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the virtual road segment the defined the geo-location of the outer edges of the street, geo-location of medians, lane width, crosswalk location and width, bicycle lane location and width, as disclose in Whited et al. reference can determine the virtual central lane, virtual left lane and virtual right lane in the road segment structure. It 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 to modify the teach of Daniel Ting-Yuan Chen et al. by combining virtual central lane, virtual left lane, and virtual right lane, in order to determine vehicle position in a roadway accurately for controlling vehicle speed appropriately.
As per claim 4, Daniel Ting-Yuan Chen et al. do not explicitly disclose virtual lane. However, Whited et al. disclose the road type recognition unit recognizes whether the mobile object is moving on the roadway or in the predetermined region on the basis of a combination of results of performing spatial classification processes for the left lane and the right lane (see at least [0054-0057], and [0068-0071]). It 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 to modify the teach of Daniel Ting-Yuan Chen et al. by combining virtual central lane, virtual left lane, and virtual right lane, in order to determine vehicle position in a roadway accurately for controlling vehicle speed appropriately.
As per claim 7, Daniel Ting-Yuan Chen et al. disclose the road type recognition unit obtains a result of recognizing whether the mobile object is moving on the roadway or in the predetermined region by inputting information, which is obtained by adding lane designation information indicating which region corresponds to lane to the captured image, to a trained model (see at least [0053-0055]). Daniel Ting-Yuan Chen et al. do not explicitly disclose virtual lane. However, Whited et al. disclose the road type recognition unit recognizes whether the mobile object is moving on the roadway or in the predetermined region on the basis of a combination of results of performing spatial classification processes for the left lane and the right lane (see at least [0054-0057], and [0068-0071]). It 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 to modify the teach of Daniel Ting-Yuan Chen et al. by combining virtual central lane, virtual left lane, and virtual right lane, in order to determine vehicle position in a roadway accurately for controlling vehicle speed appropriately.
As per claim 8, Daniel Ting-Yuan Chen et al. disclose the road type recognition unit obtains a result of recognizing whether the mobile object is moving on the roadway or in the predetermined region by inputting the captured image to a trained model (see at least [0032-0035]).
As per claim 9, Daniel Ting-Yuan Chen et al. do not explicitly disclose virtual lane. However, Whited et al. disclose the trained model is a trained model in which a parameter of a layer for performing a spatial classification process for each virtual lane and a parameter of a layer for integrating results of spatial classification processes for virtual lanes are simultaneously learned in a backpropagation process using common learning data and training data (see at least [0054-0057], and [0068-0071]). It 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 to modify the teach of Daniel Ting-Yuan Chen et al. by combining virtual lane in order to determine vehicle position in a roadway accurately for controlling vehicle speed appropriately.
As per claim 10, Daniel Ting-Yuan Chen et al. do not explicitly disclose virtual lane. However, Whited et al. disclose the road type recognition unit designates a series of edges as a boundary between two virtual lanes adjacent to each other among a plurality of virtual lanes when the series of edges indicating a course boundary in the captured image can be extracted (see at least [0054-0057] disclose the geo-location of the outer edges of the street; and [0068-0071]). It 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 to modify the teach of Daniel Ting-Yuan Chen et al. by combining virtual central lane, in order to determine vehicle position in a roadway accurately for controlling vehicle speed appropriately.
As per claim 11, Daniel Ting-Yuan Chen et al. do not explicitly disclose virtual lane. However, Whited et al. disclose the road type recognition unit sets a boundary between two virtual lanes adjacent to each other among a plurality of virtual lanes by assuming that at least some of the plurality of virtual lanes are extended by a specified width on a road surface with respect to a region where the series of edges cannot be extracted in the captured image (see at least [0054-0057] disclose the street width, lane width). It 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 to modify the teach of Daniel Ting-Yuan Chen et al. by combining virtual central lane, in order to determine vehicle position in a roadway accurately for controlling vehicle speed appropriately.
As per claim 12, Daniel Ting-Yuan Chen et al. disclose the road type recognition unit performs an iterative process at a predetermined cycle and recognizes whether the mobile object is moving on the roadway or in the predetermined region by taking over previous recognition results for a plurality of lanes (see at least [0053-0055]).
Claim 13, is a method claim corresponding to device claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales set forth as above.
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
. Foster et al. (US 2023/0140569 A1)
. Peake et al. (US 2020/0074266 A1)
. Agosta et al. (US 2014/0355879 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALENA TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-5PM.
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, ADAM MOTT can be reached at 571-270-5376. 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.
/DALENA TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657