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 .
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention id directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 10
Step 1: Claims 1-9 are directed to a device, with is a machine; and claims 10- 18 are directed to a method, which is a process. Therefore, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claims 1 and 10 recite the limitations of a radar that receive information about detection points, determining tracks from these detection points, determining crossing points and recalculating the track. These series of steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a combination of data gathering and mathematical analysis. These steps are observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions, which fall into the mathematical concepts group of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1 and 10 recites receiving radar data and calculating a fitted shape about the detection points, these are routine steps discussed at a high level of generality. A track setter and crossing point counter are claimed but they act as fitting a shape around detection points and a counter, no different than a processor which is s generic machine. The steps of receiving a signal and displaying a shape with points amounts to mere data gathering and/or data manipulation and does not add more than insignificant extra solution activity to the abstract idea. For at least the above reasons the receiving and producing limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical solution.
Step 2B: The claims do not provide an inventive concept because as recited in the paragraphs above, the claim recites the limitations of receiving a radar signal and producing a fitted shape about the detection points, an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept. Producing a fitted shape does not make the limitations other than abstract. Moreover, the limitations do not reflect an improvement that can be implemented, or include the use of a particular machine. Therefore, the claims are not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The claims 2-9, which depend from claims 1, and 11-18, which depend on 10, similarly only recite the abstract idea through mathematical concepts as they produce fitted shapes, apply algorithms, and identify results but do not use the results to implement an improvement. As such they are also not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaishnav (US 20210080557 A1) in view of Wu (CN114581414A).
Regarding claim 1 Vaishnav discloses
An object tracking device, comprising: a track setter receiving location information about a plurality of detection points for an object from a radar and setting a first track of the object (Paragraph 0034, "In an embodiment of the present invention, a millimeter-wave radar is used to detect and track a human target in an indoor environment. After initial detection of targets and corresponding clustering, a bounding box is determined that surrounds the human target, such as surrounding the torso, hands, and feet of the detected human target. The dimensions of the bounding box are tracked");
a crossing point counter determining the number of crossing points between a line connecting the detection point and the radar and any one of the first track based on movement information about a first track center point (Paragraph 0034, "The dimensions of the bounding box are tracked, together with the angle of arrival of each human target, and the position, and velocity of the centroid of each human target, to estimate a gating region associated to a track. Only targets detected inside the gating region of the track are used to update the track" );
and an object tracker resetting the first track based on location information about a detection point in which the number of crossing points is less than N as preset (where N is an integer of two or more) and tracking the object based on any one of the reset first track ( Paragraph 0048, "In an embodiment, a bounding box surrounds the spread in Doppler and range of a human target. The perimeter and area of the bounding box is dynamically adjusted to track changes in the spread in Doppler and range of the human target" where when it recalculates the bounding box for the track it is choosing the mass of detection points and would not set the bounding box around a singular point). Vaishnav does not disclose a second track extended from the first track based on the location information.
Wu discloses
A second track extended from the first track based on the location information (Paragraph n0004, "creating an inner bounding box and an outer bounding box corresponding to the target bounding box").
The crossing point counter is determining if the detection points are within the track or are outside the track. Vaishnav can determine if there are points inside or outside the gating region or the bounding box of the track. A crossing counter would be obvious for Vaishnav in the process of making the inside/outside distinction as both processes are determining if the detection points are within the track.
Vaishnav discloses a track using a bounding box but does not disclose an outer or extended bounding box. As Vaishnav is already able to create a bounding box that can change shape and size it is obvious that it could create an extended boundary to the original one. It would be advantageous to have a second boundary, for example, with autonomous vehicle navigation where it would use the inner and outer box to determine if different portions of a cluster (corresponding to a singular target) are moving to help determine if the vehicle/device is experiencing jamming. Additionally, an inner/outer box distinction could help to prevent clustering background points with target points. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vaishnav with Wu to add in the use of an outer bounding box to help mitigate jamming or to help distinguish background points from target points.
Regarding claim 2 the combination of Vaishnav and Wu discloses
The object tracking device of claim 1, including the first track and second track. Vaishnav further discloses wherein the track setter sets the first track and the second track as an elliptic shape (Paragraph 0050, "In some embodiments, the bounding box may have a shape different than a rectangle, such as a circle, ellipse, or an arbitrary shape. For example, in some embodiments, the bounding box is a circle having a center at the centroid of the range-Doppler spread of the human target" where if it can do an elliptic shape for one bounding box it could do so for an extended bounding box).
Regarding claim 3 the combination of Vaishnav and Wu discloses
The object tracking device of claim 1, including the first track and second track. Vaishnav further discloses wherein the track setter sets the first track and the second track based on an algorithm including at least one of a random finite set model, a random matrix model, and an elliptic shape model (Paragraph 0050, "In some embodiments, the bounding box may have a shape different than a rectangle, such as a circle, ellipse, or an arbitrary shape. For example, in some embodiments, the bounding box is a circle having a center at the centroid of the range-Doppler spread of the human target" where if the algorithm can set an elliptic shape for one bounding box it could do so for an extended bounding box).
Regarding claim 4 the combination of Vaishnav and Wu discloses
The object tracking device of claim 1. Vaishnav further discloses wherein the movement information about the first track center point is determined based on the location information about the detection point, and includes at least one of a location and moving speed of the first track center point (Paragraph 0034, "After initial detection of targets and corresponding clustering, a bounding box is determined that surrounds the human target, such as surrounding the torso, hands, and feet of the detected human target. The dimensions of the bounding box are tracked, together with the angle of arrival of each human target, and the position, and velocity of the centroid of each human target").
Regarding claim 5 the combination of Vaishnav and Wu discloses
The object tracking device of claim 4. Vaishnav further discloses wherein the crossing point counter determines the number of crossing points between the line connecting the detection point and the radar and the first track when the location of the first track center point is outside a set area (Paragraph 0034, " After initial detection of targets and corresponding clustering, a bounding box is determined that surrounds the human target, such as surrounding the torso, hands, and feet of the detected human target. The dimensions of the bounding box are tracked, together with the angle of arrival of each human target, and the position, and velocity of the centroid of each human target" where if the target is in view of the radar the radar can track the target (detection points in relation to the bounding box) whether it be in a set area or not).
Regarding claim 6 the combination of Vaishnav and Wu discloses
The object tracking device of claim 5. Vaishnav discloses wherein the crossing point counter determines the number of crossing points between the line connecting the detection point and the radar and the first track when the location of the first track center point is inside the set area (Paragraph 0034, " After initial detection of targets and corresponding clustering, a bounding box is determined that surrounds the human target, such as surrounding the torso, hands, and feet of the detected human target. The dimensions of the bounding box are tracked, together with the angle of arrival of each human target, and the position, and velocity of the centroid of each human target" where if the target is in view of the radar the radar can track the target (detection points in relation to the bounding box) whether it be in a set area or not). Vaishnav does not disclose the second track for the crossing point counter.
Wu discloses
The second track for the crossing point counter (Paragraph n0004, "creating an inner bounding box and an outer bounding box corresponding to the target bounding box").
Similar to claim 1, the crossing point counter is determining if the detection points are within the track or are outside the track. Vaishnav can determine if there are points inside or outside the gating region or the bounding box of the track. A crossing counter would be obvious for Vaishnav in the process of making the inside/outside distinction as both processes are determining if the detection points are within the track.
Vaishnav is already able to create a bounding box that can change shape and size it is obvious that it could create an extended boundary to the original one. The radar of Vaishnav can track an object that is within view of the radar, meaning the location of the object (whether it be inside a set area or not) does not affect its ability to track the object. Therefore, if Vaishnav were to add an extended boundary it would also be able to determine if there are detection points within the second boundary regardless of the set area. Similarly, as Wu is intended for use with autonomous driving it would also be able to track a target regardless of the set area (e.g. left side of car, right side of car etc.…). It would be advantageous to have a second boundary, for example, with autonomous vehicle navigation where it would use the inner and outer box to determine if different portions of a cluster (corresponding to a singular target) are moving to help determine if the vehicle/device is experiencing jamming. Additionally, an inner/outer box distinction could help to prevent clustering background points with target points. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vaishnav with Wu to add in the use of an outer bounding box to help mitigate jamming or to help distinguish background points from target points.
Regarding claim 7 the combination of Vaishnav and Wu discloses
The object tracking device of claim 6. Vaishnav further discloses wherein an inside of the set area includes at least one of the object, a stationary object other than the object, and a dynamic object other than the object, and wherein a moving speed of the dynamic object is less than a first numerical value (Paragraph 0004, "In some settings, static objects coexist with moving objects. For example, in an indoor setting, static objects, such as furniture and walls, coexist with moving objects such as humans. An indoor setting may also include object exhibiting periodic movements, such as fans. Doppler analysis has been used to distinguish between moving and static objects" where it can distinguish a human moving on a couch, or a human in a room if the couch or room was the set area).
Regarding claim 8 the combination of Vaishnav and Wu discloses
The object tracking device of claim 4. Vaishnav further discloses wherein the crossing point counter determines the number of crossing points between the line connecting the detection point and the radar and the first track when the moving speed of the first track center point is less than a second numerical value (Paragraph 0034, " After initial detection of targets and corresponding clustering, a bounding box is determined that surrounds the human target, such as surrounding the torso, hands, and feet of the detected human target. The dimensions of the bounding box are tracked, together with the angle of arrival of each human target, and the position, and velocity of the centroid of each human target" where the radar can track the target (detection points in relation to the bounding box) in relation to a speed that is not a maximum speed (e.g. a human on a sofa can't move 100 mph)) .
Regarding claim 9 the combination of Vaishnav and Wu discloses
The object tracking device of claim 4. Vaishnav discloses wherein the crossing point counter determines the number of crossing points between the line connecting the detection point and the radar and the first track when the moving speed of the first track center point is a second numerical value or more (Paragraph 0034, " After initial detection of targets and corresponding clustering, a bounding box is determined that surrounds the human target, such as surrounding the torso, hands, and feet of the detected human target. The dimensions of the bounding box are tracked, together with the angle of arrival of each human target, and the position, and velocity of the centroid of each human target" where the radar can track the target (detection points in relation to the bounding box) in relation to a speed that is equal to or more than, for example, a mile an hour). Vaishnav does not disclose the second track for the crossing point counter.
Wu discloses
The second track for the crossing point counter (Paragraph n0004, "creating an inner bounding box and an outer bounding box corresponding to the target bounding box").
Similar to claim 1, the crossing point counter is determining if the detection points are within the track or are outside the track. Vaishnav can determine if there are points inside or outside the gating region or the bounding box of the track. A crossing counter would be obvious for Vaishnav in the process of making the inside/outside distinction as both processes are determining if the detection points are within the track.
Vaishnav is already able to create a bounding box that can change shape and size it is obvious that it could create an extended boundary to the original one. The radar of Vaishnav can track a moving object that is within view of the radar, meaning the radar can track an object moving equal to or more than a set number such as a mile an hour. Therefore, if Vaishnav were to add an extended boundary it would also be able to determine if there are detection points within the second boundary. It would be advantageous to have a second boundary, for example, with autonomous vehicle navigation where it would use the inner and outer box to determine if different portions of a cluster (corresponding to a singular target) are moving to help determine if the vehicle/device is experiencing jamming. Additionally, an inner/outer box distinction could help to prevent clustering background points with target points. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vaishnav with Wu to add in the use of an outer bounding box to help mitigate jamming or to help distinguish background points from target points.
Regarding claim 10 Vaishnav discloses
An object tracking method, comprising: receiving location information about a plurality of detection points for an object from a radar, and setting a first track of the object (Paragraph 0034, "In an embodiment of the present invention, a millimeter-wave radar is used to detect and track a human target in an indoor environment. After initial detection of targets and corresponding clustering, a bounding box is determined that surrounds the human target, such as surrounding the torso, hands, and feet of the detected human target. The dimensions of the bounding box are tracked");
determining the number of crossing points between a line connecting the detection point and the radar and any one of the first track based on movement information about a first track center point (Paragraph 0034, "The dimensions of the bounding box are tracked, together with the angle of arrival of each human target, and the position, and velocity of the centroid of each human target, to estimate a gating region associated to a track. Only targets detected inside the gating region of the track are used to update the track" );
and resetting the first track based on location information about a detection point in which the number of crossing points is less than N as preset (where N is an integer of two or more), and tracking the object based on any one of the reset first track (Paragraph 0048, "In an embodiment, a bounding box surrounds the spread in Doppler and range of a human target. The perimeter and area of the bounding box is dynamically adjusted to track changes in the spread in Doppler and range of the human target" where when it recalculates the bounding box for the track it is choosing the mass of detection points and would not set the bounding box around a singular point). Vaishnav does not disclose a second track extended from the first track based on the location information.
Wu discloses
A second track extended from the first track based on the location information (Paragraph n0004, "creating an inner bounding box and an outer bounding box corresponding to the target bounding box").
The crossing point counter is determining if the detection points are within the track or are outside the track. Vaishnav can determine if there are points inside or outside the gating region or the bounding box of the track. A crossing counter would be obvious for Vaishnav in the process of making the inside/outside distinction as both processes are determining if the detection points are within the track.
Vaishnav discloses a track using a bounding box but does not disclose an outer or extended bounding box. As Vaishnav is already able to create a bounding box that can change shape and size it is obvious that it could create an extended boundary to the original one. It would be advantageous to have a second boundary, for example, with autonomous vehicle navigation where it would use the inner and outer box to determine if different portions of a cluster (corresponding to a singular target) are moving to help determine if the vehicle/device is experiencing jamming. Additionally, an inner/outer box distinction could help to prevent clustering background points with target points. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vaishnav with Wu to add in the use of an outer bounding box to help mitigate jamming or to help distinguish background points from target points.
Regarding claim 11 the combination of Vaishnav and Wu discloses
The object tracking method of claim 10, including the first track and second track. Vaishnav further discloses wherein setting the first track and the second track sets the first track and the second track as an elliptic shape (Paragraph 0050, "In some embodiments, the bounding box may have a shape different than a rectangle, such as a circle, ellipse, or an arbitrary shape. For example, in some embodiments, the bounding box is a circle having a center at the centroid of the range-Doppler spread of the human target" where if it can do an elliptic shape for one bounding box it could do so for an extended bounding box).
Regarding claim 12 the combination of Vaishnav and Wu discloses
The object tracking method of claim 10, including the first track and second track. Vaishnav further discloses wherein setting the first track and the second track sets the first track and the second track based on an algorithm including at least one of a random finite set model, a random matrix model, and an elliptic shape model (Paragraph 0050, "In some embodiments, the bounding box may have a shape different than a rectangle, such as a circle, ellipse, or an arbitrary shape. For example, in some embodiments, the bounding box is a circle having a center at the centroid of the range-Doppler spread of the human target" where if the algorithm can set an elliptic shape for one bounding box it could do so for an extended bounding box)..
Regarding claim 13 the combination of Vaishnav and Wu discloses
The object tracking method of claim 10. Vaishnav further discloses wherein the movement information about the first track center point is determined based on the location information about the detection point, and includes at least one of a location and moving speed of the first track center point (Paragraph 0034, "After initial detection of targets and corresponding clustering, a bounding box is determined that surrounds the human target, such as surrounding the torso, hands, and feet of the detected human target. The dimensions of the bounding box are tracked, together with the angle of arrival of each human target, and the position, and velocity of the centroid of each human target").
Regarding claim 14 the combination of Vaishnav and Wu discloses
The object tracking method of claim 13. Vaishnav further discloses wherein determining the number of crossing points determines the number of crossing points between the line connecting the detection point and the radar and the first track when the location of the first track center point is outside a set area (Paragraph 0034, " After initial detection of targets and corresponding clustering, a bounding box is determined that surrounds the human target, such as surrounding the torso, hands, and feet of the detected human target. The dimensions of the bounding box are tracked, together with the angle of arrival of each human target, and the position, and velocity of the centroid of each human target" where if the target is in view of the radar the radar can track the target (detection points in relation to the bounding box) whether it be in a set area or not).
Regarding claim 15 the combination of Vaishnav and Wu discloses
The object tracking method of claim 14. Vaishnav discloses wherein determining the number of crossing points determines the number of crossing points between the line connecting the detection point and the radar and the first track when the location of the first track center point is outside a set area (Paragraph 0034, " After initial detection of targets and corresponding clustering, a bounding box is determined that surrounds the human target, such as surrounding the torso, hands, and feet of the detected human target. The dimensions of the bounding box are tracked, together with the angle of arrival of each human target, and the position, and velocity of the centroid of each human target" where if the target is in view of the radar the radar can track the target (detection points in relation to the bounding box) whether it be in a set area or not). Vaishnav does not disclose the second track for the crossing point counter.
Wu discloses
The second track for the crossing point counter (Paragraph n0004, "creating an inner bounding box and an outer bounding box corresponding to the target bounding box").
Similar to claim 1, the crossing point counter is determining if the detection points are within the track or are outside the track. Vaishnav can determine if there are points inside or outside the gating region or the bounding box of the track. A crossing counter would be obvious for Vaishnav in the process of making the inside/outside distinction as both processes are determining if the detection points are within the track.
Vaishnav is already able to create a bounding box that can change shape and size it is obvious that it could create an extended boundary to the original one. The radar of Vaishnav can track an object that is within view of the radar, meaning the location of the object (whether it be inside a set area or not) does not affect its ability to track the object. Therefore, if Vaishnav were to add an extended boundary it would also be able to determine if there are detection points within the second boundary regardless of the set area. Similarly, as Wu is intended for use with autonomous driving it would also be able to track a target regardless of the set area (e.g. left side of car, right side of car etc.…). It would be advantageous to have a second boundary, for example, with autonomous vehicle navigation where it would use the inner and outer box to determine if different portions of a cluster (corresponding to a singular target) are moving to help determine if the vehicle/device is experiencing jamming. Additionally, an inner/outer box distinction could help to prevent clustering background points with target points. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vaishnav with Wu to add in the use of an outer bounding box to help mitigate jamming or to help distinguish background points from target points.
Regarding claim 16 the combination of Vaishnav and Wu discloses
The object tracking method of claim 15. Vaishnav further discloses wherein an inside of the set area includes at least one of the object, a stationary object other than the object, and a dynamic object other than the object, and wherein a moving speed of the dynamic object is less than a first numerical value (Paragraph 0004, "In some settings, static objects coexist with moving objects. For example, in an indoor setting, static objects, such as furniture and walls, coexist with moving objects such as humans. An indoor setting may also include object exhibiting periodic movements, such as fans. Doppler analysis has been used to distinguish between moving and static objects" where it can distinguish a human moving on a couch, or a human in a room if the couch or room was the set area).
Regarding claim 17 the combination of Vaishnav and Wu discloses
The object tracking method of claim 13. Vaishnav further discloses wherein determining the number of crossing points determines the number of crossing points between the line connecting the detection point and the radar and the first track when the moving speed of the first track center point is a second numerical value or more (Paragraph 0034, " After initial detection of targets and corresponding clustering, a bounding box is determined that surrounds the human target, such as surrounding the torso, hands, and feet of the detected human target. The dimensions of the bounding box are tracked, together with the angle of arrival of each human target, and the position, and velocity of the centroid of each human target" where the radar can track the target (detection points in relation to the bounding box) in relation to a speed that is equal to or more than, for example, a mile an hour).
Regarding claim 18 the combination of Vaishnav and Wu discloses
The object tracking method of claim 13, wherein determining the number of crossing points determines the number of crossing points between the line connecting the detection point and the radar and the first track when the moving speed of the first track center point is a second numerical value or more (Paragraph 0034, " After initial detection of targets and corresponding clustering, a bounding box is determined that surrounds the human target, such as surrounding the torso, hands, and feet of the detected human target. The dimensions of the bounding box are tracked, together with the angle of arrival of each human target, and the position, and velocity of the centroid of each human target" where the radar can track the target (detection points in relation to the bounding box) in relation to a speed that is equal to or more than, for example, a mile an hour). Vaishnav does not disclose the second track for the crossing point counter.
Wu discloses
The second track for the crossing point counter (Paragraph n0004, "creating an inner bounding box and an outer bounding box corresponding to the target bounding box").
Similar to claim 1, the crossing point counter is determining if the detection points are within the track or are outside the track. Vaishnav can determine if there are points inside or outside the gating region or the bounding box of the track. A crossing counter would be obvious for Vaishnav in the process of making the inside/outside distinction as both processes are determining if the detection points are within the track.
Vaishnav is already able to create a bounding box that can change shape and size it is obvious that it could create an extended boundary to the original one. The radar of Vaishnav can track a moving object that is within view of the radar, meaning the radar can track an object moving equal to or more than a set number such as a mile an hour. Therefore, if Vaishnav were to add an extended boundary it would also be able to determine if there are detection points within the second boundary. It would be advantageous to have a second boundary, for example, with autonomous vehicle navigation where it would use the inner and outer box to determine if different portions of a cluster (corresponding to a singular target) are moving to help determine if the vehicle/device is experiencing jamming. Additionally, an inner/outer box distinction could help to prevent clustering background points with target points. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vaishnav with Wu to add in the use of an outer bounding box to help mitigate jamming or to help distinguish background points from target points.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D DOZE whose telephone number is (571)272-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 6:00pm ET.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/PETER DAVON DOZE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights