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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on November 18th, 2024. Claims 1-13 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on December 24th, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“calculating a plurality of evasive trajectories of the vehicle eith respect” should recite “calculating a plurality of evasive trajectories of the vehicle with respect” in claims 1, and 11-13.
“causing the comptuer system to perform the following steps” should recite “causing the computer system to perform the following steps” in claim 12.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “near” as used in “near-collision limit range” in claims 1, 2, 4, and 11-13, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what range Applicant is defining as being near to the collision. Claims 3, and 5-10 are additionally rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
The term “near” as used in “near-collision distance” in claims 4, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what distance Applicant is defining as being near to the collision.
The term “just” as used in “a collision is just avoided” in claims 4, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “just” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how Applicant is defining just avoiding a collision.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "wherein determining of the critical acceleration vector includes reducing the magnitude of the optimal acceleration vector to the critical acceleration vector" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the optimal acceleration vector can be reduced to the critical acceleration vector if the critical acceleration vector has not yet been determined.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method for calculating criticality, claim 11 is directed to a computer system for calculating criticality, claim 12 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium for calculating criticality and claim 13 is directed to a method for configuring a driving function system for calculating criticality. Therefore, claims 1-13 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step2A, 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.
In this case independent claims 1, and 11-13 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover mathematical concepts. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for determining a criticality of an evasive behavior of an at least partially automated vehicle, wherein the at least partially automated vehicle is moving at an instantaneous velocity, wherein the method comprises the following steps:
calculating a plurality of evasive trajectories of the vehicle with respect to a referenced collision object by combining different longitudinal accelerations with different lateral accelerations;
determining an optimal trajectory, in which a minimum distance dmin between the vehicle and the collision object is maximum, from the plurality of evasive trajectories;
determining a critical acceleration vector of an associated critical trajectory in which the minimum distance dmin reaches a near-collision limit range; and
determining a criticality of the optimal trajectory based on the critical acceleration vector and an optimal acceleration vector associated with the optimal trajectory.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bold limitation(s) constitute both a “mental process” and a “mathematical process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “calculating a plurality of evasive trajectories…determining an optimal trajectory, in which a minimum distance…is maximum” in the context of this claim encompasses observing the surrounding environment and an obstacle and making note of various evasive trajectories the user could take to avoid the obstacle and selecting the one which gives the user the maximum clearance from the obstacle. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The determination of a critical acceleration vector and a criticality of an optimal trajectory are merely mathematical concepts. As explained above, independent claim 16 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claim 30, which is of similar scope to claim 16, likewise recites at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, prong I.
101 Analysis – Step2A, 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 idea 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 computer-implemented method for determining a criticality of an evasive behavior of an at least partially automated vehicle, wherein the at least partially automated vehicle is moving at an instantaneous velocity, wherein the method comprises the following steps:
calculating a plurality of evasive trajectories of the vehicle with respect to a referenced collision object by combining different longitudinal accelerations with different lateral accelerations;
determining an optimal trajectory, in which a minimum distance dmin between the vehicle and the collision object is maximum, from the plurality of evasive trajectories;
determining a critical acceleration vector of an associated critical trajectory in which the minimum distance dmin reaches a near-collision limit range; and
determining a criticality of the optimal trajectory based on the critical acceleration vector and an optimal acceleration vector associated with the optimal trajectory.
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 limitation of “calculating” and “determining” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a generic computer to perform the processes. In particular the “calculating” step is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The partially automated vehicle merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental and mathematical judgements using generic components in a vehicle control system. The vehicle system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the “calculating” and “determining” steps.
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.
101 Analysis – Step2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of an at least partially automated vehicle 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 limitation of an at least partially automated vehicle, is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because MPEP 2106.05(f), and the cases cited therein, including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that merely invoking computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process does not amount to a practical application when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence claim 1 is not patent eligible. Claims 11-13 are also not patent eligible for the same reasons as stated in the above claim 1 rejection.
Dependent claims 2-10 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-10, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on the same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in these dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 2-10 are patent ineligible.
Claim 9 has been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additionally limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claim 9 recites additional limitations regarding an action step in which the criticality is used to control the vehicle in a manner such as to display information and/or to adjust an evasive maneuver. Merely displaying information is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). However, adjustment of the evasive maneuver would amount to a practical application. As this action step is written as an and/or statement, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim does not require adjustment of the evasive maneuver, therefore the claim remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner advises incorporating the second limitation of claim 9 into the independent claims as it involves adjusting an evasive maneuver based on the criticality determined. Controlling of the vehicle amounts to a practical application, and may aid in overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
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.
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) 1-4, 6-7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20170183004 (hereinafter, “Bonarens”) in view of US-20190232958 (hereinafter, “Deng”).
Regarding claim 1 Bonarens discloses a computer-implemented method (see at least [0002]; “The present invention pertains to a driver assistance system for avoiding collisions of motor vehicles, as well as a method that can be implemented with such a driver assistance system”) for determining...an evasive behavior of an at least partially automated vehicle (see at least [0006]; “the driver assistance system is in fact able to intervene in the steering system in hazardous situations,” the driving assistance system is able to intervene in vehicle control therefore making the vehicle at least partially automated), wherein the at least partially automated vehicle is moving at an instantaneous velocity (see at least [0039]; “(b1, c1) and (b2,c2) respectively correspond to the speed and the acceleration of the motor vehicle at the current time t=0” the speed at time t=0 is equivalent to the instantaneous velocity), wherein the method comprises the following steps:
calculating a plurality of evasive trajectories of the vehicle with respect to a referenced collision object (see at least [0012]; “An infinite variety of candidate evasive trajectories typically exists at all times and the computer unit can respectively select the most suitable of these candidate evasive trajectories”) by combining different longitudinal accelerations with different lateral accelerations (see at least [0038]; “In the traffic situation illustrated in FIG. 1, step S2 comprises the detection of a collision hazard in the form of the parked vehicle while the vehicle is located at the point 16. In this case, the method branches out to step S3 in order to calculate a first evasive trajectory 15. Another utility program 20 may be provided in the computer unit 12 for this calculation. The point 17, at which the first evasive trajectory 15 branches off the predicted trajectory 14, should lie sufficiently far in the future such that the steps of the method described below can be processed before the motor vehicle 1 has reached this point 17,” and see Fig. 1 the trajectories of 14, 15 and 19 all correspond to different combinations of longitudinal and lateral accelerations because they comprise different steering angles);
determining an optimal trajectory, in which a minimum distance dmin between the vehicle and the collision object is maximum, from the plurality of evasive trajectories (see at least [0039]; “] The motor vehicle 1 can be driven around the parked vehicle 3 on any number of trajectories, but not all of these trajectories are necessarily suitable as an evasive trajectory,” and [0008]; “a candidate trajectory is only considered as an evasive trajectory if it fulfills one or more of the following boundary conditions…compliance with a lower limit of the distance of the vehicle from the obstacle because the collision avoidance fails in any case if this distance becomes 0,” if selecting between two trajectories one which has a minimum distance of 0 and one with a minimum distance above 0 the trajectory with the maximum value is chosen as the optimal trajectory)…
determining…an optimal acceleration vector associated with the optimal trajectory (see at least [0040]; “Trajectories are discarded as unsuitable in any case if the amount of the acceleration vector, which is composed of an acceleration component in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle and an acceleration component in the lateral direction of the vehicle, is greater than the maximum acceleration, at which the wheels of the vehicle 1 are not yet skidding, i.e. trajectories to which the following applies in at least one point,” the trajectory of all candidate evasive trajectories is evaluated and is used in part to determine the optimal trajectory therefore the optimal acceleration vector is determined).
Bonarens does not disclose determining a criticality of an evasive behavior…
…determining a critical acceleration vector of an associated critical trajectory in which the minimum distance dmin reaches a near-collision limit range; and
determining a criticality of the optimal trajectory based on the critical acceleration vector and an optimal acceleration vector associated with the optimal trajectory.
Deng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining a criticality of an evasive behavior (see at least [0065]; “the computer 105 can determine the threat number based on the predicted trajectories of the host vehicle 101 and the target 200”)…
…determining a critical acceleration vector of an associated critical trajectory in which the minimum distance dmin reaches a near-collision limit range (see at least [0062-0063]; “The computer 105 can determine a longitudinal deceleration to stop the host vehicle 101 before colliding with the target 200, e.g., 2 m/s2,” the distance at which the host vehicle is stopped before colliding is the near-collision limit range, since applicant does not define this value Examiner is interpreting a near collision limit range as any distance range before collision. In this scenario the vehicle brakes without turning therefore the acceleration vector is merely the longitudinal acceleration with a lateral acceleration of zero); and
determining a criticality of the…trajectory based on the critical acceleration vector and an…acceleration vector associated with the…trajectory (see at least [0061]; “The BTN is a measure of a needed longitudinal deceleration to allow the host vehicle 101 to stop before colliding with the target 200. The BTN can be based on a measured host vehicle 101 speed, a distance between the target 200 and the host vehicle 101, and the projected paths 210h, 210a. The computer 105 can determine a longitudinal deceleration to stop the host vehicle 101 before colliding with the target 200, e.g., 2 m/s2. The computer 105 can determine a maximum deceleration of the host vehicle 101, e.g., 8 m/s2. The BTN can be the ratio of the needed deceleration to the maximum deceleration, e.g., BTN=2/8=0.25. If the needed deceleration to avoid a collision with the target 200 exceeds the maximum deceleration of the host vehicle 101, i.e., BTN> 1, then the computer 105 can set the value of the BTN to I, i.e., if BTN>l, BTN=l,” the needed acceleration/deceleration corresponds to Applicant’s critical acceleration vector, the maximum deceleration corresponds to the acceleration vector of the vehicle’s trajectory. The two are compared to yield the brake threat number which is a criticality metric).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving assistance system of Bonarens with the threat number determination of Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of warning a driver of unsafe conditions based on the threat number (see at least Deng; [0067]).
Regarding claim 2 Bonarens in view of Deng renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Deng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the determining of the critical acceleration vector includes reducing the magnitude of the optimal acceleration vector to the critical acceleration vector, at which the minimum distance dmin reaches the near-collision limit range (see at least [0062-0063]; “The computer 105 can determine a longitudinal deceleration to stop the host vehicle 101 before colliding with the target 200, e.g., 2 m/s2,” the distance at which the host vehicle is stopped before colliding is the near-collision limit range, since applicant does not define this value Examiner is interpreting a near collision limit range as any distance range before collision. In this scenario the vehicle brakes without turning therefore the acceleration vector is merely the longitudinal acceleration with a lateral acceleration of zero).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving assistance system of Bonarens with the threat number determination of Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of warning a driver of unsafe conditions based on the threat number (see at least Deng; [0067]).
Regarding claim 3 Bonarens in view of Deng renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Deng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the criticality of the optimal trajectory is determined by forming a ratio of a magnitude of the critical acceleration vector to a magnitude of the optimal acceleration vector (see at least [0061]; “The BTN is a measure of a needed longitudinal deceleration to allow the host vehicle 101 to stop before colliding with the target 200. The BTN can be based on a measured host vehicle 101 speed, a distance between the target 200 and the host vehicle 101, and the projected paths 210h, 210a. The computer 105 can determine a longitudinal deceleration to stop the host vehicle 101 before colliding with the target 200, e.g., 2 m/s2. The computer 105 can determine a maximum deceleration of the host vehicle 101, e.g., 8 m/s2. The BTN can be the ratio of the needed deceleration to the maximum deceleration, e.g., BTN=2/8=0.25. If the needed deceleration to avoid a collision with the target 200 exceeds the maximum deceleration of the host vehicle 101, i.e., BTN> 1, then the computer 105 can set the value of the BTN to I, i.e., if BTN>l, BTN=l,” the needed acceleration/deceleration corresponds to Applicant’s critical acceleration vector, the maximum deceleration corresponds to the acceleration vector of the vehicle’s trajectory. The two are compared to yield the brake threat number which is a criticality metric).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving assistance system of Bonarens with the threat number determination of Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of warning a driver of unsafe conditions based on the threat number (see at least Deng; [0067]).
Regarding claim 4 Bonarens in view of Deng renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Deng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the near-collision limit range is defined by dmin> 0 and dmin ≤ ϵ, wherein ϵ defines a near-collision distance at which a collision is just avoided (see at least [0062-0063]; “The computer 105 can determine a longitudinal deceleration to stop the host vehicle 101 before colliding with the target 200, e.g., 2 m/s2,” the distance at which the host vehicle is stopped before colliding is the near-collision limit range, since applicant does not define what it means to “just avoid” an accident, Examiner is interpreting the near collision limit range as any distance range before collision)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving assistance system of Bonarens with the threat number determination of Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of warning a driver of unsafe conditions based on the threat number (see at least Deng; [0067]).
Regarding claim 6 Bonarens in view of Deng renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Bonarens discloses wherein the minimum distance dmin between the vehicle and the collision object is determined for each evasive trajectory and, wherein the corresponding minimum distances dmin of the plurality of evasive trajectories are compared with one another, and wherein the evasive trajectory of the plurality of evasive trajectories with the largest minimum distance dmin is selected as the optimal evasive trajectory (see at least [0039]; “] The motor vehicle 1 can be driven around the parked vehicle 3 on any number of trajectories, but not all of these trajectories are necessarily suitable as an evasive trajectory,” and [0008]; “a candidate trajectory is only considered as an evasive trajectory if it fulfills one or more of the following boundary conditions…compliance with a lower limit of the distance of the vehicle from the obstacle because the collision avoidance fails in any case if this distance becomes 0,” if selecting between two candidate evasive trajectories one which has a minimum distance of 0 and one with a minimum distance above 0 the trajectory with the maximum value is chosen as the optimal trajectory).
Regarding claim 7 Bonarens in view of Deng renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Bonarens discloses wherein an associated acceleration vector… are determined for at least several of the calculated plurality of evasive trajectories (see at least [0040]; “Trajectories are discarded as unsuitable in any case if the amount of the acceleration vector, which is composed of an acceleration component in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle and an acceleration component in the lateral direction of the vehicle, is greater than the maximum acceleration, at which the wheels of the vehicle 1 are not yet skidding, i.e. trajectories to which the following applies in at least one point,” the trajectory of all candidate evasive trajectories is evaluated and is used in part to determine the optimal trajectory therefore the optimal acceleration vector is determined).
Bonarens does not disclose wherein…a critical acceleration vector, and a corresponding criticality are determined for at least several of the calculated plurality of evasive trajectories.
Deng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein…a critical acceleration vector, and a corresponding criticality are determined for at least several of the calculated plurality of evasive trajectories (see at least [0061]; “The BTN is a measure of a needed longitudinal deceleration to allow the host vehicle 101 to stop before colliding with the target 200. The BTN can be based on a measured host vehicle 101 speed, a distance between the target 200 and the host vehicle 101, and the projected paths 210h, 210a. The computer 105 can determine a longitudinal deceleration to stop the host vehicle 101 before colliding with the target 200, e.g., 2 m/s2. The computer 105 can determine a maximum deceleration of the host vehicle 101, e.g., 8 m/s2. The BTN can be the ratio of the needed deceleration to the maximum deceleration, e.g., BTN=2/8=0.25. If the needed deceleration to avoid a collision with the target 200 exceeds the maximum deceleration of the host vehicle 101, i.e., BTN> 1, then the computer 105 can set the value of the BTN to I, i.e., if BTN>l, BTN=l,” it would be obvious that this formula could be used on the plurality of evasive trajectories of Bonarens to yield criticalities for each of the trajectories).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving assistance system of Bonarens with the threat number determination of Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of warning a driver of unsafe conditions based on the threat number (see at least Deng; [0067]).
Regarding claim 9 Bonarens in view of Deng renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Deng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches furthermore comprising an action step: for displaying the optimal trajectory and/or the criticality of the optimal trajectory, and/or for an autonomous or semi-autonomous adjustment of an evasive maneuver of the at least partially automated vehicle according to the optimal trajectory (see at least [0067]; “The computer 105 can actuate one or more vehicle components 120 based on the threat number TN, e.g., when the threat number TN is above a predetermined threat number threshold. The computer 105 can actuate one or more components 120 based on a comparison of the threat number to a plurality of thresholds. For example, if the threat number TN is above 0.7, the computer 105 can actuate a brake 120 to decelerate the host vehicle 101, e.g., at -6.5 meters per second squared (m/s2),” the actuation of the component change the current trajectory and therefore correspond to an adjustment of the evasive maneuver).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving assistance system of Bonarens with the threat number determination of Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of warning a driver of unsafe conditions based on the threat number (see at least Deng; [0067]).
Regarding claim 10 Bonarens in view of Deng renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Deng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the determined criticality is used to test and/or secure an at least partially automated driving function system of the at least partially automated vehicle (see at least [0067]; “The computer 105 can actuate one or more vehicle components 120 based on the threat number TN, e.g., when the threat number TN is above a predetermined threat number threshold. The computer 105 can actuate one or more components 120 based on a comparison of the threat number to a plurality of thresholds. For example, if the threat number TN is above 0.7, the computer 105 can actuate a brake 120 to decelerate the host vehicle 101, e.g., at -6.5 meters per second squared (m/s2),” the actuation of the component change the current trajectory autonomously and therefore can be considered as testing automated driving).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving assistance system of Bonarens with the threat number determination of Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of warning a driver of unsafe conditions based on the threat number (see at least Deng; [0067]).
Regarding claim 11 Bonarens discloses a computer system (see at least [0002]; “The present invention pertains to a driver assistance system for avoiding collisions of motor vehicles, as well as a method that can be implemented with such a driver assistance system”) configured to determine…an evasive behavior of an at least partially automated vehicle (see at least [0006]; “the driver assistance system is in fact able to intervene in the steering system in hazardous situations,” the driving assistance system is able to intervene in vehicle control therefore making the vehicle at least partially automated), the computer system configured to:
calculate a plurality of evasive trajectories of the vehicle with respect to a referenced collision object (see at least [0012]; “An infinite variety of candidate evasive trajectories typically exists at all times and the computer unit can respectively select the most suitable of these candidate evasive trajectories”) by combining different longitudinal accelerations with different lateral accelerations (see at least [0038]; “In the traffic situation illustrated in FIG. 1, step S2 comprises the detection of a collision hazard in the form of the parked vehicle while the vehicle is located at the point 16. In this case, the method branches out to step S3 in order to calculate a first evasive trajectory 15. Another utility program 20 may be provided in the computer unit 12 for this calculation. The point 17, at which the first evasive trajectory 15 branches off the predicted trajectory 14, should lie sufficiently far in the future such that the steps of the method described below can be processed before the motor vehicle 1 has reached this point 17,” and see Fig. 1 the trajectories of 14, 15 and 19 all correspond to different combinations of longitudinal and lateral accelerations because they comprise different steering angles);
determine an optimal trajectory, in which a minimum distance dmin between the vehicle and the collision object is maximum, from the plurality of evasive trajectories (see at least [0039]; “] The motor vehicle 1 can be driven around the parked vehicle 3 on any number of trajectories, but not all of these trajectories are necessarily suitable as an evasive trajectory,” and [0008]; “a candidate trajectory is only considered as an evasive trajectory if it fulfills one or more of the following boundary conditions…compliance with a lower limit of the distance of the vehicle from the obstacle because the collision avoidance fails in any case if this distance becomes 0,” if selecting between two trajectories one which has a minimum distance of 0 and one with a minimum distance above 0 the trajectory with the maximum value is chosen as the optimal trajectory)…
determining…an optimal acceleration vector associated with the optimal trajectory (see at least [0040]; “Trajectories are discarded as unsuitable in any case if the amount of the acceleration vector, which is composed of an acceleration component in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle and an acceleration component in the lateral direction of the vehicle, is greater than the maximum acceleration, at which the wheels of the vehicle 1 are not yet skidding, i.e. trajectories to which the following applies in at least one point,” the trajectory of all candidate evasive trajectories is evaluated and is used in part to determine the optimal trajectory therefore the optimal acceleration vector is determined).
Bonarens does not disclose determining a criticality of an evasive behavior…
…determining a critical acceleration vector of an associated critical trajectory in which the minimum distance dmin reaches a near-collision limit range; and
determining a criticality of the optimal trajectory based on the critical acceleration vector and an optimal acceleration vector associated with the optimal trajectory.
Deng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining a criticality of an evasive behavior (see at least [0065]; “the computer 105 can determine the threat number based on the predicted trajectories of the host vehicle 101 and the target 200”)…
…determining a critical acceleration vector of an associated critical trajectory in which the minimum distance dmin reaches a near-collision limit range (see at least [0062-0063]; “The computer 105 can determine a longitudinal deceleration to stop the host vehicle 101 before colliding with the target 200, e.g., 2 m/s2,” the distance at which the host vehicle is stopped before colliding is the near-collision limit range, since applicant does not define this value Examiner is interpreting a near collision limit range as any distance range before collision. In this scenario the vehicle brakes without turning therefore the acceleration vector is merely the longitudinal acceleration with a lateral acceleration of zero); and
determining a criticality of the…trajectory based on the critical acceleration vector and an…acceleration vector associated with the…trajectory (see at least [0061]; “The BTN is a measure of a needed longitudinal deceleration to allow the host vehicle 101 to stop before colliding with the target 200. The BTN can be based on a measured host vehicle 101 speed, a distance between the target 200 and the host vehicle 101, and the projected paths 210h, 210a. The computer 105 can determine a longitudinal deceleration to stop the host vehicle 101 before colliding with the target 200, e.g., 2 m/s2. The computer 105 can determine a maximum deceleration of the host vehicle 101, e.g., 8 m/s2. The BTN can be the ratio of the needed deceleration to the maximum deceleration, e.g., BTN=2/8=0.25. If the needed deceleration to avoid a collision with the target 200 exceeds the maximum deceleration of the host vehicle 101, i.e., BTN> 1, then the computer 105 can set the value of the BTN to I, i.e., if BTN>l, BTN=l,” the needed acceleration/deceleration corresponds to Applicant’s critical acceleration vector, the maximum deceleration corresponds to the acceleration vector of the vehicle’s trajectory. The two are compared to yield the brake threat number which is a criticality metric).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving assistance system of Bonarens with the threat number determination of Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of warning a driver of unsafe conditions based on the threat number (see at least Deng; [0067]).
Regarding claim 12 Bonarens discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium on which is stored a computer program (see at least [0023]; “The invention also pertains to a computer program product with program code means that enable a computer to operate as a computer unit in a driver assistance system in the above-described fashion or to carry out the above described method, as well as to a machine-readable data carrier, on which program instructions are recorded that enable a computer to operate in this fashion.”) for determining…an evasive behavior of an at least partially automated vehicle (see at least [0006]; “the driver assistance system is in fact able to intervene in the steering system in hazardous situations,” the driving assistance system is able to intervene in vehicle control therefore making the vehicle at least partially automated), wherein the at least partially automated vehicle is moving at an instantaneous velocity (see at least [0039]; “(b1, c1) and (b2,c2) respectively correspond to the speed and the acceleration of the motor vehicle at the current time t=0” the speed at time t=0 is equivalent to the instantaneous velocity), the computer program, when executed by a computer system, causing the computer system to perform the following steps:
calculating a plurality of evasive trajectories of the vehicle with respect to a referenced collision object (see at least [0012]; “An infinite variety of candidate evasive trajectories typically exists at all times and the computer unit can respectively select the most suitable of these candidate evasive trajectories”)by combining different longitudinal accelerations with different lateral accelerations (see at least [0038]; “In the traffic situation illustrated in FIG. 1, step S2 comprises the detection of a collision hazard in the form of the parked vehicle while the vehicle is located at the point 16. In this case, the method branches out to step S3 in order to calculate a first evasive trajectory 15. Another utility program 20 may be provided in the computer unit 12 for this calculation. The point 17, at which the first evasive trajectory 15 branches off the predicted trajectory 14, should lie sufficiently far in the future such that the steps of the method described below can be processed before the motor vehicle 1 has reached this point 17,” and see Fig. 1 the trajectories of 14, 15 and 19 all correspond to different combinations of longitudinal and lateral accelerations because they comprise different steering angles);
determining an optimal trajectory, in which a minimum distance dmin between the vehicle and the collision object is maximum, from the plurality of evasive trajectories (see at least [0039]; “] The motor vehicle 1 can be driven around the parked vehicle 3 on any number of trajectories, but not all of these trajectories are necessarily suitable as an evasive trajectory,” and [0008]; “a candidate trajectory is only considered as an evasive trajectory if it fulfills one or more of the following boundary conditions…compliance with a lower limit of the distance of the vehicle from the obstacle because the collision avoidance fails in any case if this distance becomes 0,” if selecting between two trajectories one which has a minimum distance of 0 and one with a minimum distance above 0 the trajectory with the maximum value is chosen as the optimal trajectory)…
determining…an optimal acceleration vector associated with the optimal trajectory (see at least [0040]; “Trajectories are discarded as unsuitable in any case if the amount of the acceleration vector, which is composed of an acceleration component in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle and an acceleration component in the lateral direction of the vehicle, is greater than the maximum acceleration, at which the wheels of the vehicle 1 are not yet skidding, i.e. trajectories to which the following applies in at least one point,” the trajectory of all candidate evasive trajectories is evaluated and is used in part to determine the optimal trajectory therefore the optimal acceleration vector is determined).
Bonarens does not disclose determining a criticality of an evasive behavior…
…determining a critical acceleration vector of an associated critical trajectory in which the minimum distance dmin reaches a near-collision limit range; and
determining a criticality of the optimal trajectory based on the critical acceleration vector and an optimal acceleration vector associated with the optimal trajectory.
Deng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining a criticality of an evasive behavior (see at least [0065]; “the computer 105 can determine the threat number based on the predicted trajectories of the host vehicle 101 and the target 200”)…
…determining a critical acceleration vector of an associated critical trajectory in which the minimum distance dmin reaches a near-collision limit range (see at least [0062-0063]; “The computer 105 can determine a longitudinal deceleration to stop the host vehicle 101 before colliding with the target 200, e.g., 2 m/s2,” the distance at which the host vehicle is stopped before colliding is the near-collision limit range, since applicant does not define this value Examiner is interpreting a near collision limit range as any distance range before collision. In this scenario the vehicle brakes without turning therefore the acceleration vector is merely the longitudinal acceleration with a lateral acceleration of zero); and
determining a criticality of the…trajectory based on the critical acceleration vector and an…acceleration vector associated with the…trajectory (see at least [0061]; “The BTN is a measure of a needed longitudinal deceleration to allow the host vehicle 101 to stop before colliding with the target 200. The BTN can be based on a measured host vehicle 101 speed, a distance between the target 200 and the host vehicle 101, and the projected paths 210h, 210a. The computer 105 can determine a longitudinal deceleration to stop the host vehicle 101 before colliding with the target 200, e.g., 2 m/s2. The computer 105 can determine a maximum deceleration of the host vehicle 101, e.g., 8 m/s2. The BTN can be the ratio of the needed deceleration to the maximum deceleration, e.g., BTN=2/8=0.25. If the needed deceleration to avoid a collision with the target 200 exceeds the maximum deceleration of the host vehicle 101, i.e., BTN> 1, then the computer 105 can set the value of the BTN to I, i.e., if BTN>l, BTN=l,” the needed acceleration/deceleration corresponds to Applicant’s critical acceleration vector, the maximum deceleration corresponds to the acceleration vector of the vehicle’s trajectory. The two are compared to yield the brake threat number which is a criticality metric).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving assistance system of Bonarens with the threat number determination of Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of warning a driver of unsafe conditions based on the threat number (see at least Deng; [0067]).
Regarding claim 13 Bonarens discloses a method (see at least [0002]; “The present invention pertains to a driver assistance system for avoiding collisions of motor vehicles, as well as a method that can be implemented with such a driver assistance system”) for configuring an at least partially automated driving function system (see at least [0006]; “the driver assistance system is in fact able to intervene in the steering system in hazardous situations,” the driving assistance system is able to intervene in vehicle control therefore making the vehicle at least partially automated), the method comprising:
determining…an evasive behavior of an at least partially automated vehicle (see at least [0012]; “An infinite variety of candidate evasive trajectories typically exists at all times and the computer unit can respectively select the most suitable of these candidate evasive trajectories”), wherein the at least partially automated vehicle is moving at an instantaneous velocity (see at least [0039]; “(b1, c1) and (b2,c2) respectively correspond to the speed and the acceleration of the motor vehicle at the current time t=0” the speed at time t=0 is equivalent to the instantaneous velocity), wherein the method comprises the following steps:
calculating a plurality of evasive trajectories of the vehicle with respect to a referenced collision object (see at least [0012]; “An infinite variety of candidate evasive trajectories typically exists at all times and the computer unit can respectively select the most suitable of these candidate evasive trajectories”) by combining different longitudinal accelerations with different lateral accelerations (see at least [0038]; “In the traffic situation illustrated in FIG. 1, step S2 comprises the detection of a collision hazard in the form of the parked vehicle while the vehicle is located at the point 16. In this case, the method branches out to step S3 in order to calculate a first evasive trajectory 15. Another utility program 20 may be provided in the computer unit 12 for this calculation. The point 17, at which the first evasive trajectory 15 branches off the predicted trajectory 14, should lie sufficiently far in the future such that the steps of the method described below can be processed before the motor vehicle 1 has reached this point 17,” and see Fig. 1 the trajectories of 14, 15 and 19 all correspond to different combinations of longitudinal and lateral accelerations because they comprise different steering angles);
determining an optimal trajectory, in which a minimum distance dmin between the vehicle and the collision object is maximum, from the plurality of evasive trajectories (see at least [0039]; “] The motor vehicle 1 can be driven around the parked vehicle 3 on any number of trajectories, but not all of these trajectories are necessarily suitable as an evasive trajectory,” and [0008]; “a candidate trajectory is only considered as an evasive trajectory if it fulfills one or more of the following boundary conditions…compliance with a lower limit of the distance of the vehicle from the obstacle because the collision avoidance fails in any case if this distance becomes 0,” if selecting between two trajectories one which has a minimum distance of 0 and one with a minimum distance above 0 the trajectory with the maximum value is chosen as the optimal trajectory)…
determining…an optimal acceleration vector associated with the optimal trajectory (see at least [0040]; “Trajectories are discarded as unsuitable in any case if the amount of the acceleration vector, which is composed of an acceleration component in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle and an acceleration component in the lateral direction of the vehicle, is greater than the maximum acceleration, at which the wheels of the vehicle 1 are not yet skidding, i.e. trajectories to which the following applies in at least one point,” the trajectory of all candidate evasive trajectories is evaluated and is used in part to determine the optimal trajectory therefore the optimal acceleration vector is determined).
Bonarens does not disclose determining a criticality of an evasive behavior…
…determining a critical acceleration vector of an associated critical trajectory in which the minimum distance dmin reaches a near-collision limit range; and
determining a criticality of the optimal trajectory based on the critical acceleration vector and an optimal acceleration vector associated with the optimal trajectory;
wherein the determining criticality is taken into account when configuring at least partially automated driving functions including when configuring rules for evasive maneuvers.
Deng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining a criticality of an evasive behavior (see at least [0065]; “the computer 105 can determine the threat number based on the predicted trajectories of the host vehicle 101 and the target 200”)…
…determining a critical acceleration vector of an associated critical trajectory in which the minimum distance dmin reaches a near-collision limit range (see at least [0062-0063]; “The computer 105 can determine a longitudinal deceleration to stop the host vehicle 101 before colliding with the target 200, e.g., 2 m/s2,” the distance at which the host vehicle is stopped before colliding is the near-collision limit range, since applicant does not define this value Examiner is interpreting a near collision limit range as any distance range before collision. In this scenario the vehicle brakes without turning therefore the acceleration vector is merely the longitudinal acceleration with a lateral acceleration of zero); and
determining a criticality of the…trajectory based on the critical acceleration vector and an…acceleration vector associated with the…trajectory (see at least [0061]; “The BTN is a measure of a needed longitudinal deceleration to allow the host vehicle 101 to stop before colliding with the target 200. The BTN can be based on a measured host vehicle 101 speed, a distance between the target 200 and the host vehicle 101, and the projected paths 210h, 210a. The computer 105 can determine a longitudinal deceleration to stop the host vehicle 101 before colliding with the target 200, e.g., 2 m/s2. The computer 105 can determine a maximum deceleration of the host vehicle 101, e.g., 8 m/s2. The BTN can be the ratio of the needed deceleration to the maximum deceleration, e.g., BTN=2/8=0.25. If the needed deceleration to avoid a collision with the target 200 exceeds the maximum deceleration of the host vehicle 101, i.e., BTN> 1, then the computer 105 can set the value of the BTN to I, i.e., if BTN>l, BTN=l,” the needed acceleration/deceleration corresponds to Applicant’s critical acceleration vector, the maximum deceleration corresponds to the acceleration vector of the vehicle’s trajectory. The two are compared to yield the brake threat number which is a criticality metric);
wherein the determining criticality is taken into account when configuring at least partially automated driving functions including when configuring rules for evasive maneuvers (see at least [0067]; “The computer 105 can actuate one or more vehicle components 120 based on the threat number TN, e.g., when the threat number TN is above a predetermined threat number threshold. The computer 105 can actuate one or more components 120 based on a comparison of the threat number to a plurality of thresholds. For example, if the threat number TN is above 0.7, the computer 105 can actuate a brake 120 to decelerate the host vehicle 101, e.g., at -6.5 meters per second squared (m/s2),” the actuation of the component change the current trajectory autonomously and therefore can be considered as testing automated driving, the threat number is considered when configuring rules for evasive maneuvers, when the threat numbers are compared to thresholds, rules such as causing the vehicle to brake are enacted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving assistance system of Bonarens with the threat number determination of Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of warning a driver of unsafe conditions based on the threat number (see at least Deng; [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving assistance system of Bonarens with the threat number determination of Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of warning a driver of unsafe conditions based on the threat number (see at least Deng; [0067]).
Claim(s) 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonarens in view of Deng, as applied to claims 1 and 7, in further view of US-20180129214 (hereinafter, “During”).
Regarding claim 5 Bonarens in view of Deng renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Bonarens discloses wherein the combining of the different longitudinal accelerations with the different lateral accelerations includes combinations of maximum usable braking capability and maximum usable steering capability according to a specified maximum friction force model (see at least [0040]; “Trajectories are discarded as unsuitable in any case if the amount of the acceleration vector, which is composed of an acceleration component in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle and an acceleration component in the lateral direction of the vehicle, is greater than the maximum acceleration, at which the wheels of the vehicle 1 are not yet skidding”).
Bonarens does not disclose including a specified circle-of-forces model.
During, in the same field of endeavor, teaches including a specified circle-of-forces model (see at least [0053]; “In this case, x corresponds to the position of the vehicle in the x direction and y(x) indicates the position of the vehicle in the y direction as a function of x. To be able to determine the navigability of the respective partial trajectory or trajectory, a prerequisite may be observance of the 'circle of forces' condition”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving assistance system of Bonarens as modified by Deng with the ‘circle of forces’ condition of During. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of ensuring the trajectories are capable of being navigated by the vehicle (see at least During; [0053]).
Regarding claim 8 Bonarens in view of Deng renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 7. Bonarens does not disclose wherein the optimized trajectory is determined based on a comparison of the determined criticalities.
During, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the optimized trajectory is determined based on a comparison of the determined criticalities (see at least [0044]; “In a first operation, an optimum trajectory is determined among all the trajectories stored as the tree, for example, on the basis of a cost function,” and [0055]; “From these trajectories, it is then possible to choose an optimum trajectory by a cost function that describes e.g., the comfort, safety and efficiency of the respective trajectory,” criticality is a type of cost function as it is a measure of safety of the trajectory).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving assistance system of Bonarens as modified by Deng with the cost comparison of During. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of choosing the most optimal trajectory out of all candidate trajectories (see at least During; [0055]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20220289174 teaches a vehicle control apparatus capable of determining a collision risk between a vehicle and an obstacle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH whose telephone number is (703)756-1982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667 2/17/26