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 is a Non-Final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 11-30 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made that the present application is a national stage entry of PCT/EP2023/054490 filed on 02/23/2023 which claims foreign priority to patent application DE102022111771.5 filed on 05/11/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 12/09/2024 is being considered 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.
Claims 11-30 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.
Regarding Claim 11, the recited limitation “multiple x-by-wire control devices…controls the drive device and/or the control devices based on the overall status” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the control devices refers to all of the multiple x-by-wire control devices or only a subset of the multiple control devices. Further, the use of the term and/or renders the scope of the claim ambiguous as it is unclear whether the method requires controlling the drive device alone, the control devices alone, or both, and whether control of the control devices requires control of all or fewer than all of the control devices. Accordingly, the claim limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the control device states and/or the power supply device state…the residual running variables…the further residual running variable" in Lines 2-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 (similarly claims 24-26) recites the limitation "the overall state… the control device states…the power supply device state" in Lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 (similarly claims 27-30) recites the limitation "the overall residual running…the smallest value…the residual… the further residual" in Lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the self-diagnosis…the determined overall state…the first overall… the overall residual running…the second overall state" in Lines 1, 3-4 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the power supply device state…the residual running variable and/or the further residual" in Lines 2-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the control device states…the power supply device state… the residual running variable and/or the further residual" in Lines 2-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The dependent claims that dependent upon independent claims are also rejected under 112 second paragraph by the fact that they are dependent upon the rejected independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 11-12, 14-15,17-18, 20, 22, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bergholz (DE 19735015A1_English Translation).
Regarding claim 11 (similarly claim 20), Bergholz teaches A method for operating a motor vehicle (see at least Abstract), wherein the motor vehicle has a drive device and multiple X-by-wire control devices (see at least Abstract Fig. 1 [0008-0012]: clutch-by-wire system (1-3), brake-by-wire system (4-6), drive-by-wire system (7-9), and steer-by-wire system (10-12) wherein all control devices (2, 5, 8, 11) of each x-by-wire systems are connected to a central unit via a bidirectional bus 13. Control signal controls the control unit 8 in the case of an engine and control signals generated by control unit control electric actuating motor), wherein a central computer of the motor vehicle determines an overall status from status messages transmitted by the control devices and controls the drive device and/or the control devices based on the overall status. (see at least Abstract Fig. 1 [0008-0012]: each x-by-wire system cyclically transmits its functional state to the central unit 14, in which, for example, by comparing test patterns, it is checked whether all system components of the x-by-wire system operate satisfactorily. On the basis of the comparison, the type and severity of the defect can be inferred and a scheduled associated with the defect can be activated as a safety strategy by the central unit. If, for example, a defect in the steer-by-wire system is detected, which defect results in a restriction of the steering behavior, the central unit can, in a first step, convert the motor vehicle in a speed range by influencing the control devices 5, 8 of the brake-by-wire system and/or of the drive-by-wire system, in which speed range of the limitation of the steering capability can be justified.)
Regarding claim 12, Bergholz teaches The method according to claim 11, Bergholz further teaches wherein each of the control devices carries out a self-diagnosis and, based on a result of the self-diagnosis, determines a control device state and/or a residual running variable of the motor vehicle, which is transmitted to the central computer as part of the respective status message. (see at least Abstract Fig. 1 [0008-0012]: each x-by-wire system cyclically transmits its functional state to the central unit 14, in which, for example, by comparing test patterns, it is checked whether all system components of the x-by-wire system operate satisfactorily. On the basis of the comparison, the type and severity of the defect can be inferred and a scheduled associated with the defect can be activated as a safety strategy by the central unit.)
Regarding claim 14, Bergholz teaches The method according to claim 11, Bergholz further teaches wherein the overall status comprises an overall state which is determined on the basis of the control device states and/or the power supply device state, and/or in that the overall status comprises an overall residual running variable which is determined on the basis of the residual running variables and/or the further residual running variable. (see at least Abstract Fig. 1 [0008-0012]: each x-by-wire system cyclically transmits its functional state to the central unit 14, in which, for example, by comparing test patterns, it is checked whether all system components of the x-by-wire system operate satisfactorily. On the basis of the comparison, the type and severity of the defect can be inferred and a scheduled associated with the defect can be activated as a safety strategy by the central unit. Note: The applicant has elected to use “and/or” in the claims, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies, i.e., wherein the overall status comprises an overall state which is determined on the basis of the control device states. )
Regarding claim 15, Bergholz teaches The method according to claim 11, Bergholz further teaches wherein the overall state is set to a first overall state value if the control device states have values that correspond to functional control devices and/or the power supply device state has a value that corresponds to a functional power supply device and/or in that the overall state is set to a second overall state value if one of the control device states has a value that corresponds to a non-functional control device and/or the power supply device state has a value that corresponds to a non-functional power supply device. (see at least Abstract Fig. 1 [0008-0012]: As a result of the connection of the individual x-by-wire systems to one another, these can be checked for operability and, if a defect of a x-by-wire system is detected by combinatorial use of the remaining x-by-wire systems, the motor vehicle can be converted back into a safe system state. Each x-by-wire system cyclically transmits its functional state to the central unit 14, in which, for example, by comparing test patterns, it is checked whether all system components of the x-by-wire system operate satisfactorily. On the basis of the comparison, the type and severity of the defect can be inferred and a scheduled associated with the defect can be activated as a safety strategy by the central unit. In the case, of heavy defects, the sequence can provide to put the motor vehicle out of operation as quickly as possible. Note: The applicant has elected to use “and/or” in the claims, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies, i.e., wherein the overall state is set to a first overall state value if the control device states have values that correspond to functional control devices or in that the overall state is set to a second overall state value if one of the control device states has a value that corresponds to a non-functional control device. )
Regarding claim 17, Bergholz teaches The method according to claim 11, Bergholz further teaches wherein the self-diagnosis of the control devices and the transmission of the status messages to the central computer take place when the drive device is deactivated and activation of the drive device is only permitted if the determined overall state has the first overall state value and/or the overall residual running variable has not yet expired, and/or in that the self-diagnosis of the control devices and the transmission of the status messages to the central computer take place when the drive device is activated and the drive device and/or the control devices are controlled to stop the motor vehicle if the determined overall state has the second overall state value and/or the overall residual running variable has expired. (see at least Abstract Fig. 1 [0008-0012]: Each x-by-wire system cyclically transmits its functional state to the central unit 14, in which, for example, by comparing test patterns, it is checked whether all system components of the x-by-wire system operate satisfactorily. On the basis of the comparison, the type and severity of the defect can be inferred and a scheduled associated with the defect can be activated as a safety strategy by the central unit. In the case, of heavy defects, the sequence can provide to put the motor vehicle out of operation as quickly as possible. Note: The applicant has elected to use “and/or” in the claims, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies, i.e., in that the self-diagnosis of the control devices and the transmission of the status messages to the central computer take place when the drive device is activated and the drive device or the control devices are controlled to stop the motor vehicle if the determined overall state has the second overall state value.)
Regarding claim 18, Bergholz teaches The method according to claim 11, Bergholz further teaches wherein a plurality of the following devices are used as control devices: brake-by-wire control device, steer-by-wire control device and shift-by-wire control device. (see at least Abstract Fig. 1 [0008-0012]: clutch-by-wire system (1-3), brake-by-wire system (4-6), drive-by-wire system (7-9), and steer-by-wire system (10-12) wherein all control devices (2, 5, 8, 11) of each x-by-wire systems are connected to a central unit via a bidirectional bus 13. Control signal controls the control unit 8 in the case of an engine and control signals generated by control unit control electric actuating motor)
Regarding claim 22, Bergholz teaches The method according to claim 12, Bergholz further teaches wherein the overall status comprises an overall state which is determined on the basis of the control device states and/or the power supply device state, and/or in that the overall status comprises an overall residual running variable which is determined on the basis of the residual running variables and/or the further residual running variable. (see at least Abstract Fig. 1 [0008-0012]: each x-by-wire system cyclically transmits its functional state to the central unit 14, in which, for example, by comparing test patterns, it is checked whether all system components of the x-by-wire system operate satisfactorily. On the basis of the comparison, the type and severity of the defect can be inferred and a scheduled associated with the defect can be activated as a safety strategy by the central unit. Note: The applicant has elected to use “and/or” in the claims, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies, i.e., wherein the overall status comprises an overall state which is determined on the basis of the control device states. )
Regarding claim 24 (similarly claim 26), Bergholz teaches The method according to claim 12 (and claim 14), Bergholz further teaches wherein the overall state is set to a first overall state value if the control device states have values that correspond to functional control devices and/or the power supply device state has a value that corresponds to a functional power supply device and/or in that the overall state is set to a second overall state value if one of the control device states has a value that corresponds to a non-functional control device and/or the power supply device state has a value that corresponds to a non-functional power supply device. (see at least Abstract Fig. 1 [0008-0012]: As a result of the connection of the individual x-by-wire systems to one another, these can be checked for operability and, if a defect of a x-by-wire system is detected by combinatorial use of the remaining x-by-wire systems, the motor vehicle can be converted back into a safe system state. Each x-by-wire system cyclically transmits its functional state to the central unit 14, in which, for example, by comparing test patterns, it is checked whether all system components of the x-by-wire system operate satisfactorily. On the basis of the comparison, the type and severity of the defect can be inferred and a scheduled associated with the defect can be activated as a safety strategy by the central unit. In the case, of heavy defects, the sequence can provide to put the motor vehicle out of operation as quickly as possible. Note: The applicant has elected to use “and/or” in the claims, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies, i.e., wherein the overall state is set to a first overall state value if the control device states have values that correspond to functional control devices or in that the overall state is set to a second overall state value if one of the control device states has a value that corresponds to a non-functional control device. )
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.
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.
Claim(s) 13, 21, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergholz in view of Sobczyk (EP1372125A2_English Translation)
Regarding claim 13, Bergholz teaches The method according to claim 11, Bergholz does not explicitly teach wherein the control devices are supplied with electrical power by means of a power supply device, wherein the power supply device carries out a self-diagnosis and, based on a result of the self-diagnosis, determines a power supply device state and/or a further residual running variable of the motor vehicle, which is transmitted to the central computer as part of a further status message, wherein the central computer takes the further status message into account when determining the overall status.
Sobczyk is directed to system and method for transmitting information about at least one property of a battery to a receiving device, Sobczyk teaches wherein the control devices are supplied with electrical power by means of a power supply device, wherein the power supply device carries out a self-diagnosis and, based on a result of the self-diagnosis, determines a power supply device state and/or a further residual running variable of the motor vehicle, which is transmitted to the central computer as part of a further status message, wherein the central computer takes the further status message into account when determining the overall status. (see at least [0002-0004, 0036-0043]: Information and characteristics about characteristics of a battery, that powers a given device or use in electronic control unit of the device, can be relevant to safety when using x-by-wire systems to establish a reliable state of the battery before starting the drive device. The property of the battery (e.g. data about a physical or functional state of the battery such as battery voltage, current, temperature, state of charge and remaining service life) and diagnosis of the battery can be sent to control devices.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bergholz’s vehicle’s drive-by-wire safety strategy system to incorporate the technique of transmitting power supply device state information that supplies power to control devices to a central computer as status message for determining whether drive device can be started a as taught by Sobczyk with reasonable expectation of success to establish a reliable state of the battery before starting the drive device in the case of x-by-wire systems (Sobczyk [0041]).
Regarding claim 21, Bergholz teaches The method according to claim 12, Bergholz does not explicitly teach wherein the control devices are supplied with electrical power by means of a power supply device, wherein the power supply device carries out a self-diagnosis and, based on a result of the self-diagnosis, determines a power supply device state and/or a further residual running variable of the motor vehicle, which is transmitted to the central computer as part of a further status message, wherein the central computer takes the further status message into account when determining the overall status.
Sobczyk is directed to system and method for transmitting information about at least one property of a battery to a receiving device, Sobczyk teaches wherein the control devices are supplied with electrical power by means of a power supply device, wherein the power supply device carries out a self-diagnosis and, based on a result of the self-diagnosis, determines a power supply device state and/or a further residual running variable of the motor vehicle, which is transmitted to the central computer as part of a further status message, wherein the central computer takes the further status message into account when determining the overall status. (see at least [0002-0004, 0036-0043]: Information and characteristics about characteristics of a battery, that powers a given device or use in electronic control unit of the device, can be relevant to safety when using x-by-wire systems to establish a reliable state of the battery before starting the drive device. The property of the battery (e.g. data about a physical or functional state of the battery such as battery voltage, current, temperature, state of charge and remaining service life) and diagnosis of the battery can be sent to control devices.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bergholz’s vehicle’s drive-by-wire safety strategy system to incorporate the technique of transmitting power supply device state information that supplies power to control devices to a central computer as status message for determining whether drive device can be started a as taught by Sobczyk with reasonable expectation of success to establish a reliable state of the battery before starting the drive device in the case of x-by-wire systems (Sobczyk [0041]).
Regarding claim 23, The combination of Bergholz in view of Sobczyk teaches The method according to claim 13,
Bergholz further teaches wherein the overall status comprises an overall state which is determined on the basis of the control device states and/or the power supply device state, and/or in that the overall status comprises an overall residual running variable which is determined on the basis of the residual running variables and/or the further residual running variable. (see at least Abstract Fig. 1 [0008-0012]: each x-by-wire system cyclically transmits its functional state to the central unit 14, in which, for example, by comparing test patterns, it is checked whether all system components of the x-by-wire system operate satisfactorily. On the basis of the comparison, the type and severity of the defect can be inferred and a scheduled associated with the defect can be activated as a safety strategy by the central unit. Note: The applicant has elected to use “and/or” in the claims, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies, i.e., wherein the overall status comprises an overall state which is determined on the basis of the control device states. )
Regarding claim 25, The combination of Bergholz in view of Sobczyk teaches The method according to claim 13,
Bergholz further teaches wherein the overall state is set to a first overall state value if the control device states have values that correspond to functional control devices and/or the power supply device state has a value that corresponds to a functional power supply device and/or in that the overall state is set to a second overall state value if one of the control device states has a value that corresponds to a non-functional control device and/or the power supply device state has a value that corresponds to a non-functional power supply device. (see at least Abstract Fig. 1 [0008-0012]: As a result of the connection of the individual x-by-wire systems to one another, these can be checked for operability and, if a defect of a x-by-wire system is detected by combinatorial use of the remaining x-by-wire systems, the motor vehicle can be converted back into a safe system state. Each x-by-wire system cyclically transmits its functional state to the central unit 14, in which, for example, by comparing test patterns, it is checked whether all system components of the x-by-wire system operate satisfactorily. On the basis of the comparison, the type and severity of the defect can be inferred and a scheduled associated with the defect can be activated as a safety strategy by the central unit. In the case, of heavy defects, the sequence can provide to put the motor vehicle out of operation as quickly as possible. Note: The applicant has elected to use “and/or” in the claims, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies, i.e., wherein the overall state is set to a first overall state value if the control device states have values that correspond to functional control devices or in that the overall state is set to a second overall state value if one of the control device states has a value that corresponds to a non-functional control device. )
Claim(s) 16, 19, 27, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergholz in view of Bergholz’017 (DE19735017A1_English Translation)
Regarding claim 16 (similarly claims 27, 29-30), Bergholz teaches The method according to claim 11 (similarly claims 12, 14-15), Bergholz does not explicitly teach wherein the overall residual running variable is set to the smallest value of the residual running variables and/or the further residual running variable.
Bergholz’017 is directed to vehicle safety condition diagnosis system, Bergholz’017 teaches wherein the overall residual running variable is set to the smallest value of the residual running variables and/or the further residual running variable. (see at least Examples: if the motor vehicle is now switched on by the ignition, the central unit evaluates the state data of the control devices. The diagnostic result is communicated to the motor vehicle driver via the acoustic output unit or the optical output unit. The diagnosis can be divided into three different groups, namely the motor vehicle has an unrestricted function or is functional to a limited extent or has such a serious defect that It can no longer be put into operation (corresponds to smallest value). If a serious defect occurs during operation, the central unit informs the motor vehicle driver that continued travel is no longer possible and the motor vehicle must be safely parked.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bergholz’s vehicle’s drive-by-wire safety strategy system to incorporate the technique of setting the overall residual running variable to the smallest residual running value upon detecting a serious defect occurred in control devices during vehicle operations as taught by Bergholz’017 with reasonable expectation of success such that motor vehicle driver can be informed of the type and causes of occurring defects in the vehicle (Bergholz’017, disclosure)
Regarding claim 19, The method according to claim 11, wherein the overall status is displayed to a user of the motor vehicle by means of a display device. (see at least Examples: if the motor vehicle is now switched on by the ignition, the central unit evaluates the state data of the control devices. The diagnostic result is communicated to the motor vehicle driver via the acoustic output unit or the optical output unit. The diagnosis can be divided into three different groups, namely the motor vehicle has an unrestricted function or is functional to a limited extent or has such a serious defect that It can no longer be put into operation (corresponds to smallest value). If a serious defect occurs during operation, the central unit informs the motor vehicle driver that continued travel is no longer possible and the motor vehicle must be safely parked.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bergholz’s vehicle’s drive-by-wire safety strategy system to incorporate the technique of informing a driver about detected vehicle control devices’ defect via optical or acoustic output unit as taught by Bergholz’017 with reasonable expectation of success such that motor vehicle driver can be informed of the type and causes of occurring defects in the vehicle (Bergholz’017, disclosure)
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergholz in view of Sobczyk and Bergholz’017 (DE19735017A1_English Translation).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Bergholz in view of Sobczyk teaches The method according to claim 13,
the combination of Bergholz in view of Sobczyk does not explicitly teach wherein the overall residual running variable is set to the smallest value of the residual running variables and/or the further residual running variable.
Bergholz’017 is directed to vehicle safety condition diagnosis system, Bergholz’017 teaches wherein the overall residual running variable is set to the smallest value of the residual running variables and/or the further residual running variable. (see at least Examples: if the motor vehicle is now switched on by the ignition, the central unit evaluates the state data of the control devices. The diagnostic result is communicated to the motor vehicle driver via the acoustic output unit or the optical output unit. The diagnosis can be divided into three different groups, namely the motor vehicle has an unrestricted function or is functional to a limited extent or has such a serious defect that It can no longer be put into operation (corresponds to smallest value). If a serious defect occurs during operation, the central unit informs the motor vehicle driver that continued travel is no longer possible and the motor vehicle must be safely parked.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bergholz and Sobczyk to incorporate the technique of setting the overall residual running variable to the smallest residual running value upon detecting a serious defect occurred in control devices during vehicle operations as taught by Bergholz’017 with reasonable expectation of success such that motor vehicle driver can be informed of the type and causes of occurring defects in the vehicle (Bergholz’017, disclosure).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA F ARTIMEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3410. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-3:30 pm EST.
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, Faris S. Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/DANA F ARTIMEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667