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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig 5 step 550, it is mentioned “recognition point is between the one edge and the reference distance on the display screen”. However, based on the specification para 0064 it is mentioned that “[0064] Then, in step 550, the digital rear mirror device 100 may determine whether that recognition point 313 is between the one edge 321, 323, 325 and the reference lines 331, 333, 335 on the display screen 320”. Appropriate corrections are required to resolve this discrepancy.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 2-10, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the claim language recites “…wherein the reference distance corresponds to a distance between a reference line set for one edge of the display screen in the display screen”. It’s unclear based on the claim language, what is meant by the current claim language. More specifically it’s unclear how a reference distance is obtained corresponding to “a distance between a reference line set for one edge of the display screen”. It’s not clearly specified that the distance is between the reference line and what another element. For the purpose of examination, Examiner considers the distance as any distance corresponding to the reference line provided within the edge of the display screen.
Regarding claim 12, the claim language recites “… the reference distance corresponds to the distance between reference lines set with respect to one edge of the display screen within the display screen”. It’s unclear based on the claim language, what is meant by the current claim language. More specifically it’s unclear how a reference distance is obtained corresponding to “a distance between reference lines set with respect to one edge of the display screen”. It’s not clearly specified that the distance is between the reference lines set and what another element. For the purpose of examination, Examiner considers the distance as any distance corresponding to the reference line provided within the edge of the display screen.
Regarding claims 3-10 and 13-20, these claims are either directly or indirectly dependent upon rejected independent claims 2 and 12, and also inherit the deficiencies described above. Therefore, they are also rejected under this section for at least their dependency upon a rejected base claim.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Examiner notes wherein all claims have been addressed below in view of the prior art of record, as best understood by the Examiner, in light of the 35 USC 112 rejections provided herein.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 analyses for claim 1-10:
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, it is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to
determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
The claim includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). It recites:
A method of operating digital rear mirror device of vehicle, the method comprising:
obtaining a rear image while the vehicle is traveling;
recognizing at least one other vehicle in an adjacent lane from the rear image;
determining whether the other vehicle is within a reference distance from the vehicle using the rear image; and
providing information related to lane change to the adjacent lane if the other vehicle is within the reference distance.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, recognizing at least one other vehicle and determining whether the other vehicle is within a reference distance in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing the activity in their mind and generating an image in their imagination. In the alternative, these activities can also be performed using pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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. The courts have indicated that additional elements 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method of operating digital rear mirror device of vehicle, the method comprising:
obtaining a rear image while the vehicle is traveling;
recognizing at least one other vehicle in an adjacent lane from the rear image;
determining whether the other vehicle is within a reference distance from the vehicle using the rear image; and
providing information related to lane change to the adjacent lane if the other vehicle is within the reference distance.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitation of “obtaining a rear image”, and “providing information related to lane change to the adjacent lane”, these are considered forms of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Examiner would like to point out that the current claim limitation is provided at high level of generality and “providing information related to lane change to the adjacent lane” can be interpreted as the processor providing information to another module within the system as internal data transfer. In that regard, Fig 4 makes it clear that the modules such as digital rear mirror module, audio output etc. provide information to the user based on the information received from the processor.
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 limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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.
Dependent claims 2-10 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. Therefore, these dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the base claim.
101 analyses for claim 11-20:
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 11 is directed to a device. Therefore, it is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to
determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
The claim includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). It recites:
A digital rear mirror device for a vehicle, comprising:
a digital rear mirror module; and
a processor, connected with the digital rear mirror module, and configured to obtain a rear image while the vehicle is traveling and display the rear image on the digital rear mirror module,
wherein the processor is configured to:
recognize at least one other vehicle in an adjacent lane from the rear image;
determine whether the other vehicle is within a reference distance from the vehicle using the rear image; and
provide information related to lane change to the adjacent lane if the other vehicle is within the reference distance.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, recognizing at least one other vehicle and determining whether the other vehicle is within a reference distance in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing the activity in their mind and generating an image in their imagination. In the alternative, these activities can also be performed using pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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. The courts have indicated that additional elements 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A digital rear mirror device for a vehicle, comprising:
a digital rear mirror module; and
a processor, connected with the digital rear mirror module, and configured to obtain a rear image while the vehicle is traveling and display the rear image on the digital rear mirror module,
wherein the processor is configured to:
recognize at least one other vehicle in an adjacent lane from the rear image;
determine whether the other vehicle is within a reference distance from the vehicle using the rear image; and
provide information related to lane change to the adjacent lane if the other vehicle is within the reference distance.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitation of obtaining a rear image, displaying the image, and providing information related to lane change to the adjacent lane, these are considered forms of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Furthermore, the “processor” recited in the claim is considered as insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a generic controller and computer component to perform the process.
Examiner would like to point out that the current claim limitation is provided at high level of generality and “providing information related to lane change to the adjacent lane” can be interpreted as the processor providing information to another module within the system as internal data transfer. Fig 4 makes it clear that the modules such as digital rear mirror module, audio output etc. provide information to the user based on the information received from the processor.
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 limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 11 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying 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 limitations of a processor and a digital rear mirror module are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Dependent claims 12-20 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. Therefore, these dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the base claim.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishiguchi (US 20170349173 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nishiguchi teaches a method of operating digital rear mirror device of vehicle, the method comprising:
obtaining a rear image while the vehicle is traveling (Fig 1-4, para 0045 wherein image capturing rear of the vehicle is obtained; “For example, the display section 26 is provided on an instrument panel, not illustrated in the drawings. … In other words, the side mirrors may be configured not by mirrors, but by the display sections 26 that display the side images Icl, Icr taken by side cameras 134l, 134r”),
recognize at least one other vehicle in an adjacent lane from the rear image (para 0080, 0098 wherein “[0098] At step S12, the ECU 138 determines whether or not a specific following vehicle 202 (also referred to below as the “target following vehicle 202tar”) is present in the target lane 502tar”);
determine whether the other vehicle is within a reference distance from the vehicle using the rear image (Fig 3-5, para 0068, 0098 wherein “[0068] The nearby object recognition section 160 (distance computation section) recognizes the nearby objects 200 based on the camera information Ic from the cameras 130, 134l, 134r”; “The target following vehicle 202tar corresponds to a vehicle for which a difference ΔV (=Va−Vs) between the vehicle speed V of the following vehicle 202 (Va) and the vehicle speed V of the vehicle 10 (Vs) is greater than a first vehicle speed threshold value THΔv1, and a distance D from the vehicle 10 to the following vehicle 202 is a first distance threshold value THd1 or lower”); and
provide information related to lane change to the adjacent lane if the other vehicle is within the reference distance (Fig 5, step s12-13, para 0098-0101 wherein warning display relating to lane change is provided when the distance is less than threshold; “0099 The first distance threshold value THd1 is a positive threshold value set in order for the vehicle 10 to perform ALC”; “[0101] When a target following vehicle 202tar is present in the target lane 502tar (S12: YES), at step S13, the ECU 138 displays a warning display on the display section 26”).
Regarding claim 11, Nishiguchi teaches a digital rear mirror device for a vehicle, comprising:
a digital rear mirror module (Fig 1, para 0045 wherein display section 26 is provided); and
a processor, connected with the digital rear mirror module (Fig 1, 2, para 0051 wherein processor is provided for processing image information; “[0051] The calculation section 86 executes a program stored in the storage section 88 in order to control the overall route guidance device 12, and is, for example, configured by a central processing unit (CPU)”), and configured to obtain a rear image while the vehicle is traveling and display the rear image on the digital rear mirror module (Fig 1-4, para 0045 wherein image capturing rear of the vehicle is obtained and displayed; “For example, the display section 26 is provided on an instrument panel, not illustrated in the drawings. … In other words, the side mirrors may be configured not by mirrors, but by the display sections 26 that display the side images Icl, Icr taken by side cameras 134l, 134r”),
wherein the processor is configured to:
recognize at least one other vehicle in an adjacent lane from the rear image (para 0080, 0098 wherein “[0098] At step S12, the ECU 138 determines whether or not a specific following vehicle 202 (also referred to below as the “target following vehicle 202tar”) is present in the target lane 502tar”);
determine whether the other vehicle is within a reference distance from the vehicle using the rear image (Fig 3-5, para 0068, 0098 wherein “[0068] The nearby object recognition section 160 (distance computation section) recognizes the nearby objects 200 based on the camera information Ic from the cameras 130, 134l, 134r”; “The target following vehicle 202tar corresponds to a vehicle for which a difference ΔV (=Va−Vs) between the vehicle speed V of the following vehicle 202 (Va) and the vehicle speed V of the vehicle 10 (Vs) is greater than a first vehicle speed threshold value THΔv1, and a distance D from the vehicle 10 to the following vehicle 202 is a first distance threshold value THd1 or lower”); and
provide information related to lane change to the adjacent lane if the other vehicle is within the reference distance (Fig 5, step s12-13, para 0098-0101 wherein warning display relating to lane change is provided when the distance is less than threshold; “0099 The first distance threshold value THd1 is a positive threshold value set in order for the vehicle 10 to perform ALC”; “[0101] When a target following vehicle 202tar is present in the target lane 502tar (S12: YES), at step S13, the ECU 138 displays a warning display on the display section 26”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiguchi (US 20170349173 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Nishiguchi teaches the providing information related to lane change comprises: providing the information related to lane change while displaying the rear image on a display screen (Fig 1-4, para 0045 wherein image capturing rear of the vehicle is obtained and displayed; “For example, the display section 26 is provided on an instrument panel, not illustrated in the drawings. … In other words, the side mirrors may be configured not by mirrors, but by the display sections 26 that display the side images Icl, Icr taken by side cameras 134l, 134r”).
However, Nishiguchi fails to teach the reference distance corresponds to a distance between a reference line set for one edge of the display screen in the display screen.
Nishiguchi further teaches display screen to provide information regarding lane change to the user (0045 wherein “[0045] The display section 26 displays side images Icl, Icr to the side of the vehicle 10 according to commands from the driving assistance device 14 (for example as the display screens 600a to 600c in FIG. 4A to FIG. 4C, described later)”, reference distance corresponds to the distance between reference lines set with respect to one edge of the illustrated driving info (Fig 3, para 0098 wherein reference distance THd1 is represented as distance between reference lines that are horizontal and parallel to the bottom edge of the illustration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Nishiguchi’s teachings of having a display screen for displaying the rear image and providing lane changing information based on reference distance to incorporate Nishiguchi’s teachings of having illustration with reference distance relevant to lane changing information wherein reference distance corresponds to the distance between reference lines set with respect to one edge of the illustrated driving info in order to have the reference distance corresponds to a distance between a reference line set for one edge of the display screen in the display screen. Doing so would provide driver with visual representation of the spatial arrangements of vehicles in different lanes and separation with them in order to provide assistance in lane changing operation.
Regarding claim 12, Nishiguchi teaches the digital rear mirror module has a display screen for displaying the rear image (Fig 1-4, para 0045 wherein image capturing rear of the vehicle is obtained and displayed; “For example, the display section 26 is provided on an instrument panel, not illustrated in the drawings. … In other words, the side mirrors may be configured not by mirrors, but by the display sections 26 that display the side images Icl, Icr taken by side cameras 134l, 134r”).
However, Nishiguchi fails to teach the reference distance corresponds to the distance between reference lines set with respect to one edge of the display screen within the display screen.
Nishiguchi further teaches display screen to provide information regarding lane change to the user (0045 wherein “[0045] The display section 26 displays side images Icl, Icr to the side of the vehicle 10 according to commands from the driving assistance device 14 (for example as the display screens 600a to 600c in FIG. 4A to FIG. 4C, described later)”, reference distance corresponds to the distance between reference lines set with respect to one edge of the illustrated driving info (Fig 3, para 0098 wherein reference distance THd1 is represented as distance between reference lines that are horizontal and parallel to the bottom edge of the illustration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Nishiguchi’s teachings of having a display screen for displaying the rear image and providing lane changing information based on reference distance to incorporate Nishiguchi’s teachings of having illustration with reference distance relevant to lane changing information wherein reference distance corresponds to the distance between reference lines set with respect to one edge of the illustrated driving info in order to have the reference distance corresponds to the distance between reference lines set with respect to one edge of the display screen within the display screen. Doing so would provide driver with visual representation of the spatial arrangements of vehicles in different lanes and separation with them in order to provide assistance in lane changing operation.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiguchi (US 20170349173 A1) in view of Kim (US 20230013737 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Nishiguchi teaches all the limitations of claim 2 including reference distance and providing guidance to user.
However, Nishiguchi fails to teach the reference distance is initially set or changeable by the user; and the reference distance is calculated from the reference line within the display screen in response to the user setting the reference line within the display screen while viewing the display screen; or the reference distance is input by the user to cause the reference line to be set corresponding to the reference distance.
Kim teaches a reference distance is changeable by the user and the reference distance is input by the user regarding the vehicle operation (para 0032 wherein “The UI CAN 208 and the associated dashboard ECU 209 and touchscreen 210 allow the operator to set operating parameters such as following distance for ACC, enable or disable ADAS indicators such as blind spot detection or collision warning, and the like”); to cause the reference line to be set corresponding to the reference distance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Nishiguchi’s teachings of having a reference distance and providing guidance to user based on the reference distance and reference line corresponding to the reference line to incorporate Kim’s teachings of having a reference distance changeable by the user during the vehicle operation in order to have the reference distance changeable by the user and the reference distance is input by the user to cause the reference line to be set corresponding to the reference distance. Doing so would allow the driver to modify the driving support system including lane changing assisting system based on desired minimum separation distance with other vehicles and have the reference line displayed according to the set distance.
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 9
mutandis mutatis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAGAR KC whose telephone number is (571)272-7337. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5 pm.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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.
/SAGAR KC/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657