DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-5 remain pending.
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 .
Priority
The Applicant claims benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. §120, §121, §365(c), or §386(c).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 01/28/2025 and 09/10/2025 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §1.97 and §1.98. The Examiner has considered all references, except for any references lined through on the attached IDS form.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a map generating unit that generates a map data set,” as recited in claim 1.
“a determining unit that acquires … performs,” as recited in claim 1.
Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If the Applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.
(a) Regarding Claim 3, the term “the multiple map-image data points” lacks antecedent basis.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Specifically, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Analysis for Independent Claim 1:
Step 1: Determining if claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Independent 1 is directed to statutory categories. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, certain method of organizing human activity, or a mental processes (MPEP 2106.04).
Independent claim 1 recites a judicial exception of a mental process and, to the extent the recited determination is based on estimation accuracy, also recites a mathematical concept. Claim 1 is directed to capturing image data of a road surface, associating image data points with position information items, arranging those data points into a map data set according to the associated position information, acquiring one of the map-image data points as a pre-determination map-image data point, and performing a quality determination for the map data set using a result of quality determination for that acquired map-image data point and a result of quality determination based on the accuracy of estimation of the vehicle’s own position made using the map data set. The Examiner finds these limitations recite the collection of information, the organization of that information, the evaluation of that information, and the determination of a result based on that evaluation. Under the USPTO framework, mental processes and mathematical concepts are abstract-idea groupings, and a claim may recite more than one such grouping.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The only additional technology recited in claim 1 is a vehicle body, a camera mounted on the vehicle body, a map generating unit, and a determining unit. The vehicle body merely provides an environment in which the claimed analysis is said to occur. The camera merely captures image data. The map generating unit merely arranges data points according to associated position information. The determining unit merely performs the claimed evaluation and quality determination. The claim does not recite any improvement to the functioning of the camera, any new image-capture technique, any specialized mapping architecture, any improved localization engine, or any technical control of the vehicle based on the quality determination. Under the USPTO framework, merely using a machine as a tool to perform an abstract idea, adding insignificant data-gathering activity, or linking the use of an abstract idea to a technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The vehicle body is a generic physical environment. The camera is a generic image-capture component performing its ordinary function of acquiring image data. The map generating unit is a generic functional module that organizes data. The determining unit is a generic functional module that evaluates the organized data and reaches a quality conclusion. None of these limitations adds an inventive concept because none changes how the camera, vehicle, or any computing component itself operates, and none recites an unconventional technical implementation. Under the USPTO framework, merely using generic technology to gather data, organize data, and perform repeated comparisons or evaluations does not amount to significantly more.
Taken in combination, the claim elements still do not amount to significantly more. The ordered combination of capturing road-surface images, associating those images with position information, arranging the resulting data points into a map, selecting one map-image data point, evaluating the quality of that data point, considering self-position estimation accuracy, and determining the quality of the map data set remains nothing more than the abstract idea plus conventional data gathering and generic information processing. The claim does not recite any non-conventional interaction among components, any specialized algorithm that improves the underlying technology itself, or any improvement in computer, camera, or vehicle capabilities. The combination merely packages the same abstract analysis into a generic vehicle-mapping format. Accordingly, independent claim 1, taken individually and as an ordered combination, does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
The independent claim(s) are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Analysis for Dependent Claims 2-5:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
The dependent claims are properly directed to claim 1. As a result, the dependent claims are properly directed to statutory classes. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”).
Dependent claims 2–5 recite the same judicial exception as claim 1, namely a mental process, and additionally recite mathematical concepts through their comparison rules, relative-position evaluations, match counting, threshold testing, reliability criteria, overlapping-area criteria, and error-based criteria. Each of these claims depends from claim 1 and therefore continues to recite capturing image information, associating it with position information, arranging map-image data points, and evaluating the quality of the resulting map data set. The additional limitations in claims 2–5 do not alter that character. Instead, they merely add further details regarding how the underlying informational comparison and evaluation is performed. The USPTO guidance recognizes that claims involving calculations and threshold-based evaluations may fall within both the mental-process and mathematical-concept groupings.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 2–5 fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The added limitations merely refine how information is compared, what reference information is used, and what numerical or positional criteria are applied in reaching the quality determination. None of these additional limitations improves the functioning of the camera, the storage unit, the map generating unit, the determining unit, or the vehicle itself. Instead, the added limitations merely use generic components as tools for performing a more detailed form of the same underlying abstract analysis. Under the USPTO framework, a claim does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application merely by using a computer or machine as a tool, by adding extra data-gathering activity, or by linking the abstract idea to a technological environment.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2–5 do not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The added limitations are routine comparison operations, routine use of stored reference information, routine positional comparisons, routine match counting, routine threshold testing, and routine error evaluation. None of these limitations adds an inventive concept because none reflects a non-conventional technical solution or an improvement in computer, mapping, camera, or vehicle functionality. The USPTO framework requires Step 2B to determine whether the additional elements, individually or as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application, and these claims do not do so.
Conclusion:
The dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 1-5 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori U.S. P.G Publication 2021/0245777A1 (hereinafter, Mori), in view of Maeda et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2020/00341470A1 (hereinafter, Maeda).
Regarding Claim 1, Mori describes an autonomous vehicle that travels (autonomous vehicle that travels, Mori, Paragraph 0005) while estimating a vehicle's own position (determining (i.e., estimating a vehicle’s own position), Mori, Paragraph 0009), comprising:
-a vehicle body (vehicle, Mori, Figure 1);
-a camera that is mounted on the vehicle body and captures images of a road surface of a route (camera which captures images of a road surface of the route, Mori, Paragraphs 0003-0005 and 0038 and Figures 1 and 2);
-a map generating unit that generates a map data set by arranging map-image data points, in which position information items are associated with image data points captured by the camera, according to the position information items (map generating unit that generates map data based on position information, wherein some of that data can be image data points captured by a camera based on the position of the vehicle, Mori, Paragraphs 0003-0010 and 0038 and Figures 1 and 2); and
…
-performs quality determination for the map data set using a result of quality determination for the … map-image data point and a result of quality determination based on accuracy of estimation of the vehicle's own position made by using the map data set … from the map generating unit (vehicle able to determine quality of map data points using object recognition (i.e., image data point) to generate a more accurate map and vehicle location, Mori, Paragraphs 0038-0039 and Figure 2).
Mori does not specifically disclose the vehicle to include a determining unit that acquires, from the map generating unit, one of the map-image data points as a pre-determination map-image data point.
Maeda discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Maeda describes a vehicle system that includes the ability to acquire pre-determined map image data points (e.g., stored map data points in RAM and the like) and using said information to determine a more accurate map and/or location of the vehicle in relation to the map (Maeda, Paragraphs 0055-0060).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the vehicle of Mori to include a determining unit that acquires, from the map generating unit, one of the map-image data points as a pre-determination map-image data point, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Maeda.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because gathering image data points helps a vehicle generate a map of the region for the vehicle (Maeda, Paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 2, Mori, as modified, describes the autonomous vehicle according to claim 1.
Mori does not specifically disclose the vehicle to include that the determining unit acquires, as a comparison image data point, an image data point that is different from the image data point associated with the position information item in the pre-determination map-image data point and has been captured at a position close to a position at which the image data point associated with the position information item has been captured, and performs quality determination for the map data set by using a result of quality determination for the pre-determination map-image data point acquired when the acquired comparison image data point and the pre-determination map-image data point are compared with each other, and a result of quality determination based on accuracy of estimation of the vehicle's own position made by using a relative positional relationship between the map data set acquired from the map generating unit and the image data points.
Maeda discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Maeda describes a vehicle system that includes the ability to acquire pre-determined map image data points (e.g., stored map data points in RAM and the like) (Maeda, Paragraphs 0055-0060). Moreover, Maeda describes using said information to determine a more accurate map and/or location of the vehicle in relation to the map by means of comparing the stored data to newly acquired data (Maeda, Paragraphs 0055-0060 and 0077).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the vehicle of Mori to include the determining unit acquires, as a comparison image data point, an image data point that is different from the image data point associated with the position information item in the pre-determination map-image data point and has been captured at a position close to a position at which the image data point associated with the position information item has been captured, and performs quality determination for the map data set by using a result of quality determination for the pre-determination map-image data point acquired when the acquired comparison image data point and the pre-determination map-image data point are compared with each other, and a result of quality determination based on accuracy of estimation of the vehicle's own position made by using a relative positional relationship between the map data set acquired from the map generating unit and the image data points, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Maeda.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because gathering image data points and comparing image data points helps a vehicle generate a map of the region for the vehicle (Maeda, Paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 3, Mori, as modified, describes the autonomous vehicle according to claim 2.
Mori does not specifically disclose the vehicle to include that the determining unit acquires, as a comparison image data point, an image data point that is different from the image data point associated with the position information item in the pre-determination map-image data point and has been captured at a position close to a position at which the image data point associated with the position information item has been captured, and performs quality determination for the map data set by using a result of quality determination for the pre-determination map-image data point acquired when the acquired comparison image data point and the pre-determination map-image data point are compared with each other, and a result of quality determination based on accuracy of estimation of the vehicle's own position made by using a relative positional relationship between the map data set acquired from the map generating unit and the image data points.
Maeda discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Maeda describes a vehicle system that includes the ability to acquire pre-determined map image data points (e.g., stored map data points in RAM and the like) (Maeda, Paragraphs 0055-0060). Moreover, Maeda describes using said information to determine a more accurate map and/or location of the vehicle in relation to the map by means of comparing the stored data to newly acquired data, wherein the comparing is based on a deviation metric (i.e., threshold) for accuracy and updating of the map (Maeda, Paragraphs 0055-0060 and 0077).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the vehicle of Mori to include that the determining unit determines that the map data set is non-defective when a number of matches between the pre-determination map-image data point and the comparison image data point is greater than or equal to a matching threshold, a reliability of the position information item associated with the pre-determination map-image data point is greater than or equal to a threshold, for the multiple map-image data points forming the map data set, an area of an overlapping range between consecutive ones of the map-image data points is greater than or equal to an area threshold, and accuracy of estimation of the vehicle's own position made based on a relative positional relationship between the map data set and the image data point by using the pre- determination map-image data point as the map data set is greater than or equal to an accuracy threshold, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Maeda.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because gathering image data points, comparing, and determining deviations of image data points helps a vehicle generate an accurate map of the region for the vehicle (Maeda, Paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 4, Mori, as modified, describes the autonomous vehicle according to claim 1.
Mori does not specifically disclose the vehicle to include a storage unit that stores a travel route data set in which position information items are associated in advance with image data points of the road surface of the route captured in advance by a camera, wherein the determining unit acquires a comparison image data point from the travel route data set, and performs quality determination for the map data set by using a result of quality determination when the acquired comparison image data point and the pre-determination map-image data point are compared with each other, and a quality determination result based on an error between the route and a result of estimation of the vehicle's own position made by using a relative positional relationship between the map data set acquired from the map generating unit and the travel route data set.
Maeda discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Maeda describes a vehicle system that includes the ability to acquire pre-determined map image data points (e.g., stored map data points in RAM and the like) (Maeda, Paragraphs 0055-0060). Moreover, Maeda describes using said information to determine a more accurate map and/or location of the vehicle in relation to the map by means of comparing the stored data to newly acquired data, wherein the comparing is based on a deviation metric (i.e., threshold) for determining accuracy (i.e., error) and updating of the map (Maeda, Paragraphs 0055-0060 and 0077).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the vehicle of Mori to include a storage unit that stores a travel route data set in which position information items are associated in advance with image data points of the road surface of the route captured in advance by a camera, wherein the determining unit acquires a comparison image data point from the travel route data set, and performs quality determination for the map data set by using a result of quality determination when the acquired comparison image data point and the pre-determination map-image data point are compared with each other, and a quality determination result based on an error between the route and a result of estimation of the vehicle's own position made by using a relative positional relationship between the map data set acquired from the map generating unit and the travel route data set, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Maeda.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because gathering image data points, comparing, and determining deviations of image data points helps a vehicle generate an accurate map of the region for the vehicle (Maeda, Paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 5, Mori, as modified, describes the autonomous vehicle according to claim 1.
Mori does not specifically disclose the vehicle to include that the determining unit determines that the pre-determination map-image data point is non-defective when a number of matches between the pre-determination map-image data point and the travel route data set is greater than or equal to a matching threshold, a reliability of the position information item associated with the pre-determination map-image data point is greater than or equal to a threshold, an area of an overlapping range between the pre-determination map-image data point and another consecutive map-image data point is greater than or equal to an area threshold, and an error between the route and the vehicle's own position is less than or equal to a threshold, the vehicle's own position being estimated from a relative positional relationship between the map data set and the travel route data set by using the pre-determination map- image data point as the map data set.
Maeda discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Maeda describes a vehicle system that includes the ability to acquire pre-determined map image data points (e.g., stored map data points in RAM and the like) (Maeda, Paragraphs 0055-0060). Moreover, Maeda describes using said information to determine a more accurate map and/or location of the vehicle in relation to the map by means of comparing the stored data to newly acquired data, wherein the comparing is based on a deviation metric (i.e., threshold) for determining accuracy (i.e., error and error threshold) and updating of the map accordingly (i.e., based on map data being accurate enough to pass predetermined thresholds) (Maeda, Paragraphs 0055-0060 and 0077).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the vehicle of Mori to include the determining unit determines that the pre-determination map-image data point is non-defective when a number of matches between the pre-determination map-image data point and the travel route data set is greater than or equal to a matching threshold, a reliability of the position information item associated with the pre-determination map-image data point is greater than or equal to a threshold, an area of an overlapping range between the pre-determination map-image data point and another consecutive map-image data point is greater than or equal to an area threshold, and an error between the route and the vehicle's own position is less than or equal to a threshold, the vehicle's own position being estimated from a relative positional relationship between the map data set and the travel route data set by using the pre-determination map- image data point as the map data set, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Maeda.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because gathering image data points, comparing, and determining deviations of image data points helps a vehicle generate an accurate map of the region for the vehicle (Maeda, Paragraph 0002).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Levinson et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2017/0123428A1 (hereinafter, Levinson)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights