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 office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 07/06/2026. Claims 1, 4, 6, 14, 16, 21, and 23-24 have been amended. Claims 17-20 have been previously cancelled. No Claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-16 and 21-24 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 03/09/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 17-20 of Group II are cancelled. Claims 21-24 are newly added aligned with the election of Group I. Accordingly, claims 1-16 and 21-24 are currently pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 controller in claims 21-24.
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. The controller is interpreted as a processor as recited in Paragraph 0249.
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 § 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 1-16 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) performing a perturbation on a constellation of landmark objects of a reference map, performing global matching test between the perturbed constellation and other constellations, determine that the constellation of landmark objects of a reference map is robust, detect landmark objects based on distinct object features of the landmark objects, fusing the object features, tracking the fused object features overtime, comparing the object features to a reference map.
The limitations of “performing a perturbation on a constellation of landmark objects of a reference map, performing global matching test between the perturbed constellation and other constellations, determine that the constellation of landmark objects of a reference map is robust, detect landmark objects based on distinct object features of the landmark objects, fusing the object features, tracking the fused object features overtime, comparing the object features to a reference map”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (claim 21). That is, other than reciting “a controller” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a controller” language, performing, determining, detecting, fusing, tracking and comparing, in the context of the claim, encompasses the user observing the landmark objects, fusing object features mentally through cognitive processes like mental simulation and imagination, and mentally tracking and comparing object features using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 21 recites the additional elements of using a controller to perform the recited steps. The controller is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Furthermore, the claims recite a vehicle comprising two different onboard sensors. The examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities. In particular, the vehicle comprising the two different onboard sensors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the detecting step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a controller in claim 21 to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of using a vehicle comprising two different onboard sensors is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites a general method for position determination for a transportation vehicle may use a light detection and ranging or laser imaging, detection, and ranging sensor (LiDAR sensor) mounted on the vehicle (Paragraph 0002). Accordingly, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-15 and 22-24 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 2-5 and 22 describe the landmark objects and features and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 6-15, and 23-24 recite additional steps that fall under the mental process. Therefore, dependent claims 2-15 and 22-24 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 21.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-13, 16 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kälberer et al US 2021/0094595 A1 (hence Kälberer) in view of Yu US 2025/0068960 A1 (hence Yu).
In re claim 1, Kälberer discloses a method for safely determining a position information of a train on a track (Abstract) and teaches the following:
A localization method (Paragraph 0013 “an autonomous determination of the position information of the train on the track”, and Paragraph 0014 “first localization stage” and “second localization stage”) comprising:
using at least two different on-board sensors (Fig.1, #5, #6, and Paragraph 0047 “a first optical imaging sensor 5 and a second optical imaging sensor 6”) to detect landmark objects of a constellation of landmark objects in a localization region of a guideway, based on distinct object features of the landmark objects (Paragraph 0047 “At least some of the sensors (here the optical imaging sensors 5, 6) search for and measure passive trackside structures 56 ahead of the train 58, in particular with respect to their appearance characteristics (external shape), their distance to the train 58 and their angular position relative to the train 58”, Fig.2a, #60, #61, and Paragraphs 0049 and 0052, and Paragraph 0145 “a feature extraction of the video or LIDAR image identifies relevant attributes in order to characterize an object or a scene”);
subsequently, fusing the object features detected by the at least two different on-board sensors (Fig.2a, #19 and Paragraph 0053 “Finally, the first position information 52 and the second position information 54 undergo a data fusion 19 with respect to position (including location and velocity), resulting in a consolidated position information 55”, and Fig.2b, #19 and Paragraph 0056);
tracking the fused object features over time in a unified local reference frame such that a sliding window of landmark objects is maintained as a local map (Paragraph 0140 “With a Kalman filter supported prediction step the potential object location including the region of interest can be predicted between the last cycle and current cycle”, Paragraph 0145 “Landmarks (or passive trackside structures) are stationary features which can unambiguously be re-observed and distinguished from the environment”, and Paragraph 0146 “As part of the method landmark object classification may be used to identify an object in the scene based on preceding feature extraction”);
and comparing the object features of the constellation of landmark objects in the local map to a constellation of landmark objects of the reference map in order to uniquely identify a corresponding constellation of landmark objects in the reference map (Paragraph 0064 “Accordingly, the corresponding passive trackside structures 56a-56e identified with the first sensor arrangement may be allocated to the respective entries (registered/stored passive trackside structures) of the map database” and “Identified appearance characteristics of the passive trackside structures measured by the first sensor arrangement have to sufficiently match the stored appearance characteristics in order to allow for a successful allocation”, and Paragraph 0146 “As part of the method landmark object classification may be used to identify an object in the scene based on preceding feature extraction”)
However, Kälberer doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
determining that a constellation of landmark objects of a reference map is robust, comprising: performing a perturbation on the constellation of landmark objects of the reference map; performing global matching tests between the perturbed constellation of landmark objects of the reference map and all other constellations of landmark objects of the reference map in a search region; and determining that the constellation of landmark objects of the reference map is robust under the performed perturbation, in response to none of the global matching tests being successful
Nevertheless, Yu discloses a technique for processing sensor data includes generating, using a machine learning model and based on a first sensor data instance, a first set of confidences for a set of output types and a first adversarial confidence that represents a likelihood that the first sensor data instance is adversarial (Abstract) and teaches the following:
determining that a constellation of landmark objects of a reference map is robust, comprising: performing a perturbation on the constellation of landmark objects of the reference map; performing global matching tests between the perturbed constellation of landmark objects of the reference map and all other constellations of landmark objects of the reference map in a search region; and determining that the constellation of landmark objects of the reference map is robust under the performed perturbation, in response to none of the global matching tests being successful (Fig.3, #301-#308, and Paragraphs 0060-0063)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Kälberer reference to include generating a first set of confidences for a set of output types and a first adversarial confidence that represents a likelihood that the first sensor data instance is adversarial, as taught by Yu, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order for improving the robustness of machine learning models such as those included visual driving systems (Yu, Paragraph 0004).
In re claim 16, Kälberer discloses the claimed invention as recited above with respect to claim 1 including:
wherein at least one landmark object of the detected landmark objects is a 3D landmark object being detectable by at least two of a camera, a LiDAR, or a radar, and wherein the 3D landmark object has alphanumeric characters or a QR code detectable by the camera to provide unique identification of the landmark object (Paragraph 0049 “This first sensor arrangement 60 here comprises optical sensors 11 comprising both LIDAR and a VIDEO sensors, as well as a an inertial unit 12”, Paragraph 0083 “passive trackside structures are identified as positioning references containing as minimum information typically including but not limited to point ID”)
In re claim 21, Kälberer discloses the claimed invention as recited above with respect to claim 1 including a vehicle configured to travel along a constrained path (Fig.1, #58 and Paragraph 0045 “a train”)
In re claims 2 and 22, Kälberer teaches the following:
wherein the landmark objects include a for-purpose landmark object (Paragraph 0013 “Passive trackside structures for the inventive method may comprise, for example, rail infrastructure elements, including signals and signs, buildings, in particular train stations, or bridges, in particular bridges spanning over the track, or signal masts, or crossing roads, or traffic signs, or switches”)
In re claim 3, Kälberer teaches the following:
wherein the landmark objects comprise one or more permanent features including one or more of a tunnel mouth, a change in tunnel structure, a tunnel bifurcation, a platform, a building, a sign, a lamp, an electrical box, or a signal (Paragraph 0013 “Passive trackside structures for the inventive method may comprise, for example, rail infrastructure elements, including signals and signs, buildings, in particular train stations, or bridges, in particular bridges spanning over the track, or signal masts, or crossing roads, or traffic signs, or switches”)
In re claim 4, Kälberer teaches the following:
wherein the object features comprise one or more of a height, a width, a length, a size, a texture entropy, a color range, feature indicating whether the landmark object is located indoors or outdoors, a spatial distribution between objects or a texture difference (Paragraph 0064 “appearance characteristics are stored, such as the type of the signal, e.g. main-signal with velocity indication on top, the height above ground and the size of the black octagon and the black triangle”, Paragraph 0083 and 0146)
In re claim 5, Kälberer teaches the following:
wherein the landmark objects comprise a corner location, an inscription location, a window location, and edge distance, a direction, a mesh line, or a mesh face (Paragraph 0088)
In re claim 10, Kälberer teaches the following:
wherein the comparing comprises monitoring a distance metric based on object feature comparison; and generating a constellation match in the reference map if the distance metric is below a defined threshold; or not generating a constellation match in the reference map if the distance metric is not below a defined threshold (Paragraphs 0026, 0077, and 0140)
In re claim 11, Kälberer teaches the following:
generating an error vector based on ranges to landmark objects in the local map in comparison with calculated distances to landmark objects based on hypothesized vehicle position on guideway spline and known landmark object locations in the reference map (Paragraphs 0016 and 0024)
In re claim 12, Kälberer teaches the following:
herein a velocity of a vehicle having the on-board sensors is calculated based on detected tracked object data and compared with an odometry determined velocity data from the vehicle (Paragraph 0019)
In re claim 13, Kälberer teaches the following:
extracting a path of a vehicle having the at least two on-board sensors based on sensor data (Paragraph 0025)
Claim(s) 6-9, 14-15, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kälberer and Yu as recited above and further in view of Waschulzik US 2024/0118104 A1 (hence Waschulzik).
In re claims 6 and 23, Kälberer discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 21, but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
detecting the landmark objects using artificial intelligence-based detecting and classical detecting based on sensor data; and tracking the detected landmark objects resulting from the classical detecting
Nevertheless, Waschulzik discloses a method and a device for processing sensor data in a vehicle (Abstract) and teaches the following:
detecting the landmark objects using artificial intelligence-based detecting and classical detecting based on sensor data; and tracking the detected landmark objects resulting from the classical detecting (Paragraph 0012 “mathematical operations and/or pattern recognition. Data processing of sensor data is preferably performed by artificial intelligence, for example by a trained neural network and/or the like” and Paragraph 0017)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Kälberer reference to include performing mathematical operations and/or pattern recognition, as taught by Waschulzik, in order to assess the object recognition reliability of the result (Waschulzik, Paragraph 0017).
In re claim 7, Kälberer teaches the following:
wherein the detecting tracked objects is performed for each of the at least two different sensors and further comprising: fusing the tracked detected objects among at least two different sensor data (Paragraph 0023)
In re claim 8, Kälberer teaches the following:
wherein the fusing further comprises supervising the detected tracked objects to reject potential moving objects (Paragraph 0026)
In re claim 9, Kälberer teaches the following:
wherein the supervising comprises monitoring a difference between a predicted object position based on a vehicle motion model and a measured position; and outputting a detected tracked object if the difference is below a threshold (Paragraphs 0017 and 0026)
In re claim 14, Waschulzik teaches the following:
wherein the extracting comprises: performing AI-based detecting and classical detecting based on sensor data; tracking the extracted path resulting from the classical detecting (Paragraphs 0012 and 0017, the motivation to combine has been provided supra)
In re claim 15, Kälberer teaches the following:
wherein the extracting is performed for each of the at least two different sensors and further comprising: fusing the extracted paths among at least two different sensor data, and wherein the fusing further comprises supervising the extracted paths to reject extracted paths inconsistent with a reference map track centerline (Paragraphs 0026 and 0086)
In re claim 24, Kälberer teaches the following:
extracting a path of a vehicle having the at least two on-board sensors based on sensor data (Paragraph 0025)
wherein the extracting is performed for each of the at least two different sensors and further comprising: fusing the extracted paths among at least two different sensor data, and wherein the fusing further comprises supervising the extracted paths to reject extracted paths inconsistent with a reference map track centerline (Paragraphs 0026 and 0086)
However, Kälberer doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the extracting comprises: artificial intelligence-based detecting and classical detecting based on sensor data; tracking the extracted path resulting from the classical detecting
Nevertheless, Waschulzik discloses a method and a device for processing sensor data in a vehicle (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein the extracting comprises: artificial intelligence-based detecting and classical detecting based on sensor data; tracking the extracted path resulting from the classical detecting (Paragraphs 0012 and 0017)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Kälberer reference to include performing mathematical operations and/or pattern recognition, as taught by Waschulzik, in order to assess the object recognition reliability of the result (Waschulzik, Paragraph 0017).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1-16, and 21-24 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and that the claim limitations are directed to specific technological processes for vehicle localization and cannot be practically performed in the human mind, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. The claims as recited do not perform any vehicle localization. The end result of the claims is identifying a corresponding constellation of landmarks. Furthermore, the recited steps, as discussed above, may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. For example, determining that a constellation of objects is robust includes a mental comparison of said constellation to other constellations and making sure no deviations are present and that’s a mental process. The rest of the limitations, as recited above, can also be done mentally. Detecting, fusing, tracking and comparing, in the context of the claim, encompasses the user observing the landmark objects, fusing object features mentally through cognitive processes like mental simulation and imagination, and mentally tracking and comparing object features using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments, filed on 07/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) claims1-5, 10-13, 16, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kälberer have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kälberer and Yu as recited above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights