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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on November 20, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on November 20, 2024.
Claims 11-20 have been presented for examination.
Claims 11-20 are currently rejected.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/02335305).
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.
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 user interface module” in at least claim 11
“a driver monitoring module” in at least claim 11
“a control module” in at least claim 11
Structure is provided as follows:
“user interface module” on at least page 3 describing the user interface module to be a head unit or infotainment system installed in the vehicle.
“driver monitoring module” on page 4 describing the driver monitoring module to include at least one sensor.
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 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.
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 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim limitation “a control module” in at least claim 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The recited module is not defined in the claims or specification as having a specific technological structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Additionally, the term “a long-term observation of the driver” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The description “long term” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, “long-term” may vary from seconds to days, rendering the amount of time required for “long-term observation” to be unclear. For purposes of prior art examination, “long-term observation” shall be interpreted by the Examiner to mean continued observation.
Dependent claims 12-17 inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims from which they rely on and are thereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Appropriate correction 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 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 19
Claim 19. A driver assistance method for a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving a user input to deactivate an emergency stopping function;
determining a driver status; and
reactivating the deactivated emergency stopping function if the driver status corresponds to a predetermined status.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - 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 its 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 limitation of determining a driver status. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Specifically, the claim encompasses a person observing a driver and forming a mental judgement regarding the status of the driver.
Additionally, the limitation “reactivating the deactivated emergency stopping function” is contingent upon the driver status corresponding to a predetermined status, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the contingent step of “reactivating” is not required because the condition(s) precedent are not met.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 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 additional elements or steps of receiving a user input to deactivate an emergency stopping function.
The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering information for the determining step), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. As written, the claim does not appear to include any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim 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 instructions 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.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim 20 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the 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. Therefore, dependent claims 20 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 19.
Therefore, claims 19-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/02335305).
Regarding claim 11, Jung discloses a driver assistance system for a vehicle, comprising:
a user interface module configured to receive a user input (Jung ¶ 61 discloses a “mode switching receiver 101 may receive a switch request according to the user manipulation of selecting a manual switching user interface (e.g., manual switching button) or automatic switching user interface (e.g., automatic switching button) provided on the vehicle 10”)
a driver monitoring module configured to determine a driver status; and (Jung ¶ 133 discloses “The controller 100 senses a situation (e.g., fatigue) of a driver of the vehicle 10, in step S512. For example, the sensor 203 of the vehicle 10 may sense driver fatigue based on the activity pattern of a driver (e.g., eye blinking, head shaking).”)
a control module (Jung in at least ¶ 135 “controller 100”) configured to reactivate the deactivated emergency stopping function if the driver status corresponds to a predetermined status. (Jung ¶ 135 discloses “When the fatigue of a driver is greater than or equal to the certain value [i.e., the driver status corresponds to a predetermined status], the controller 100 controls the vehicle 10 to operate in the autonomous driving mode, in step S514.” Also see Fig. 5B depicting activating the autonomous driving mode in S514 from the manual driving mode of S511. “For example, when it is determined that the fatigue of a driver is too high, the controller 100 may control the vehicle 10 to designate the destination 511 to be a rest area [i.e., emergency stopping function],” where the vehicle can be parked, see ¶¶ 134 and 136.)
While Jung does not expressly disclose reactivating the deactivated emergency stopping function if the driver status corresponds to a predetermined status, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the switching from a manual driving mode to an autonomous driving mode to expressly include reactivating a deactivated emergency stopping function because the emergency stopping function, or the vehicle quickly reducing the velocity in an emergency state (Jung ¶ 162), is controlled by the controller 100 in the autonomous driving mode. Therefore, the deactivation of, or switching from, the autonomous driving mode includes deactivation of the emergency stopping function. Further, the controller 100 continues to sense the driver fatigue (Jung ¶ 138). One having ordinary skill in the art would understand that as the controller senses the driver fatigue, the controller would repeatedly (i.e., continuously) determine whether to control the vehicle to operate in the autonomous driving mode based on the fatigue of the driver being greater than or equal to a certain value, which is a predetermined status. Thus, the limitations are obvious in view of Jung.
Regarding claim 12, Jung discloses the driver assistance system of claim 11, wherein the user interface module is configured:
to output a request to reactivate the emergency stopping function if the driver status corresponds to the predetermined status; and (Jung ¶ 135 discloses “When the fatigue of a driver is greater than or equal to the certain value, the controller 100 controls the vehicle 10 to operate in the autonomous driving mode, in step S514.”)
to reactivate the emergency stopping function if a user input to reactivate the emergency stopping function is received as a response to the request. (Jung ¶ 89 discloses “In response to the received switch request, the controller 100 may determine the intention of a driver who drives the vehicle 10 according to the driving state of the vehicle 10, and control the vehicle 10 to operate in the autonomous driving mode which is established according to the determined intention of a driver,” wherein the switch request is “according to the user manipulation of selecting a manual switching user interface (e.g., manual switching button) or automatic switching user interface (e.g., automatic switching button) provided on the vehicle 10,” see ¶ 61.)
Regarding claim 13, Jung discloses the driver assistance system of claim 11, wherein:
the control module is configured to reactivate the deactivated emergency stopping function automatically if the driver status corresponds to the predetermined status. (Jung ¶ 48 discloses that “the controller may receive a switch request according to an event occurring based on a state of driver (e.g., at least one of the driver's hand position, foot position, body position, and face position), such that “When the fatigue of a driver is greater than or equal to the certain value, the controller 100 controls the vehicle 10 [i.e., automatically reactivated] to operate in the autonomous driving mode, in step S514,” see ¶ 135. “For example, when it is determined that the fatigue of a driver is too high, the controller 100 may control the vehicle 10 to designate the destination 511 to be a rest area [i.e., emergency stopping function],” where the vehicle can be parked, see ¶¶ 134 and 136.)
Regarding claim 14, Jung discloses the driver assistance system of claim 11, wherein:
the driver monitoring module is configured to determine a measure of the driver status, and (Jung ¶ 78 discloses sensor 203, which may be implemented as part of controller 100, see ¶ 80, of the vehicle which senses “a situation of a driver” which includes “fatigue of a driver or driving posture of a driver. Specifically, driver fatigue may be determined by tracking the driver′ gaze and the driver's facial movement.”)
wherein the control module is configured to carry out the reactivation of the emergency stopping function based on the measure of the driver status. (Jung ¶ 48 discloses that “the controller may receive a switch request according to an event occurring based on a state of driver (e.g., at least one of the driver's hand position, foot position, body position, and face position), such that “When the fatigue of a driver is greater than or equal to the certain value, the controller 100 controls the vehicle 10 to operate in the autonomous driving mode, in step S514,” see ¶ 135. “For example, when it is determined that the fatigue of a driver is too high, the controller 100 may control the vehicle 10 to designate the destination 511 to be a rest area [i.e., emergency stopping function],” where the vehicle can be parked, see ¶¶ 134 and 136.)
Regarding claim 15, Jung discloses the driver assistance system of claim 14, wherein the control module is configured:
to output the request to reactivate the emergency stopping function if the measure of the driver status corresponds to a first measure, in particular wherein the first measure is a first fatigue status of the driver; and (Jung Fig. 5B depicts determining a first fatigue status of the driver in step S512, such that “When the fatigue of a driver is greater than or equal to the certain value [i.e., a first measure], the controller 100 controls the vehicle 10 to operate in the autonomous driving mode, in step S514,” see ¶ 135, and controlling the vehicle to operate in autonomous driving mode [i.e., output the request to reactivate the emergency stopping function] in step S514)
to reactivate the deactivated emergency stopping function automatically if the measure of the driver status corresponds to a second measure which is higher than the first measure, in particular wherein the second measure is a second fatigue status of the driver. (Jung ¶ 48 discloses that “the controller may receive a switch request according to an event occurring based on a state of driver (e.g., at least one of the driver's hand position, foot position, body position, and face position), such that “When the fatigue of a driver is greater than or equal to the certain value, the controller 100 controls the vehicle 10 [i.e., automatically reactivated] to operate in the autonomous driving mode, in step S514,” see ¶ 135. “For example, when it is determined that the fatigue of a driver is too high, the controller 100 may control the vehicle 10 to designate the destination 511 to be a rest area [i.e., emergency stopping function],” where the vehicle can be parked, see ¶¶ 134 and 136. Jung ¶ 138 discloses that the vehicle 10 “continues [i.e., a second measure and a corresponding second fatigue status] to sense the state of the driver (e.g., driver fatigue).” See Fig. 10. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that as the controller continues to (i.e., repeatedly) sense the state of the driver, the controller would control the vehicle to operate in the autonomous driving mode according to the fatigue of the driver being greater than a second certain value.)
Regarding claim 16, Jung discloses the driver assistance system of claim 11, wherein:
the driver monitoring module is configured for a long-term observation of the driver; and (Jung Fig. 5B depicts that the controller continues to sense [i.e., long term observation] the state of the driver in at least step S512 to S513 while the fatigue of the driver is not equal to or greater than a certain value, see corresponding ¶ 137.)
the control module is configured to carry out the reactivation of the emergency stopping function based on the long-term observation of the driver. (Jung ¶ 200 discloses “While operating in the manual driving mode, the controller 100 senses the driving situation of the vehicle 10, in step S1007” including “at least one of the state of driver,” and “When a request to switch to the autonomous driving mode is received, the controller 100 controls the vehicle 10 to operate in the autonomous driving mode, in step S1010, which is established according to the driver's intention determined in step S1008.”)
Regarding claim 17, Jung discloses the driver assistance system of claim 11, wherein the control module is configured:
to reactivate the emergency stopping function for a current driving cycle and to deactivate it again for a driving cycle following the current driving cycle; or to reactivate the emergency stopping function permanently for this driver. (Jung Fig. 10 depicts that the process may end after controlling the vehicle to operate in the autonomous driving mode in step S1010, the autonomous driving mode thereby being reactivated “permanently” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, wherein the autonomous driving mode includes driving the vehicle 10 to a rest area where the vehicle can be parked [i.e., emergency stop function], see at least ¶ 136.)
Regarding claim 18, Jung discloses the motor vehicle comprising:
the driver assistance system of claim 11. (Jung in at least Fig. 2B)
Regarding claim 19, Jung discloses the driver assistance method for a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving a user input to deactivate an emergency stopping function; (Jung ¶ 146 discloses that a “controller 100 may sense the user inputting to select an emergent situation button provided on a dash board of the vehicle 10. Herein, the emergent situation button may include the manual driving mode button”)
determining a driver status; and (Jung ¶ 78 discloses sensor 203, which may be implemented as part of controller 100, see ¶ 80, of the vehicle which senses “a situation of a driver” which includes “fatigue of a driver or driving posture of a driver. Specifically, driver fatigue may be determined by tracking the driver′ gaze and the driver's facial movement.”)
reactivating the deactivated emergency stopping function if the driver status corresponds to a predetermined status. (Jung ¶ 135 discloses “When the fatigue of a driver is greater than or equal to the certain value [i.e., the driver status corresponds to a predetermined status], the controller 100 controls the vehicle 10 to operate in the autonomous driving mode, in step S514.” Also see Fig. 5B depicting activating the autonomous driving mode in S514 from the manual driving mode of S511. “For example, when it is determined that the fatigue of a driver is too high, the controller 100 may control the vehicle 10 to designate the destination 511 to be a rest area [i.e., emergency stopping function],” where the vehicle can be parked, see ¶¶ 134 and 136. The Examiner further notes that the claim contains a contingent limitation (e.g., “if”) and that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04.)
Regarding claim 20, Jung discloses a non-transitory storage medium storing software program executable by one or more processors to carry out the driver assistance method of claim 19. (Jung in at least ¶¶ 297-298)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0269063) discloses a system for requesting switching to manual driving upon determining that a malfunction has occurred in at least one electronic device operating to implement the autonomous driving function while the vehicle is traveling along emergency travel routes.
Chae et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0190479) discloses sensing a user control input for switching an autonomous mode and determining to switch the autonomous mode based on the control input and a determined collision risk, and controlling the autonomous driving of the vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM 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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662