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 22, 2024. Claims 1-6 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application JP 2023-209741. filed on December 13, 2023. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to the declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. No action by the applicant is required at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 22, 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the reference number for the time t0 is not shown in the drawings. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“functional units …” and “first functional unit …” and “second functional unit …” in Claims 1-6.
“a first time management unit …” in Claims 1 and 5.
“a second time management unit …” in Claims 1 and 5.
“a difference degree detection unit …” in Claims 1 and 5.
“an execution unit …” in Claims 1 and 5.
“a calculation unit …” in Claim 2.
“a control value generation unit …” in Claim 2.
“a transmission unit …” in Claim 2.
“a control device …” in Claim 3.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof:
Regarding the limitations of “functional units …”, the instant specification at Paragraphs [0014], [0072], [0084] at least states that “The vehicle 100 includes a vehicle control device 110 for controlling each unit of the vehicle 100 …”, and “The above-described functional units may be distributed among a plurality of processors when the vehicle control device is configured by a plurality of computers …”. The structure for a functional unit is software or hardware capable of receiving control instructions from the control device.
Regarding the limitations of “a first time management unit …”, and “a calculation unit …”, the instant specification at Paragraph [0020] at least states that “The processor 201a functions as a processing unit 211, a calculation unit 212, and a first time management unit 213 by executing a program PG21 stored in the memory 202a …”. The structure for a first time management unit is a processor or computer equivalent with associated hardware or software for sending and receiving information.
Regarding the limitations of “a second time management unit …”, “a difference degree detection unit …”, “an execution unit …”, and “a control value generation unit …”, the instant specification at Paragraph [0025] at least states that “The processor 201b functions as the control value generation unit 214, the second time management unit 215, the first difference degree detection unit 216, and the first execution unit 217 by executing the program PG22 stored in the memory 202b …”. The structure for these limitations is a processor or computer equivalent with associated hardware or software for sending and receiving information.
Regarding the limitation of “a transmission unit …”, the instant specification at Paragraphs [0031]-[0032] at least states that “The processor 201c functions as the transmission unit 218, the third time management unit 219, the second difference degree detection unit 220, and the second execution unit 221 by executing the program PG23 stored in the memory 202c. The transmission unit 218 acquires the travel control signal and sends the travel control signal to the vehicle 100. In the present embodiment, the unmanned driving of the vehicle 100 is realized by receiving the travel control signal sent from the transmission unit 218 to the vehicle 100 …”. The structure for a transmission unit is a processor or computer equivalent with associated hardware or software for sending and receiving information.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea for determining a timing value for when to execute a warning to a user or reduce speed, which can be done mentally. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims detecting the external environment and determining the position and direction of a moving object. A person can observe their surroundings, determine how far away other objects are, and determine when to slow down as a result.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1 is directed to a system for performing a process, and Claim 6 is directed to a method for controlling a moving object (i.e. process), and Claim 5 is directed to a moving object (i.e. a machine). Therefore, Claims 1 and 5-6 are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claims 2-4 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 1.
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 following groups of a) an abstract idea, b) a law of nature, or c) a natural phenomenon.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the bolded portions represent an “abstract idea”; and where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”):
Claim 1 recites the following:
A system comprising:
a plurality of functional units each configured to perform a process for controlling unmanned driving of a moving object;
a first time management unit configured to manage a first time that is used in a first functional unit, the first functional unit being part of the functional units;
a second time management unit configured to manage a second time that is used in a second functional unit, the second functional unit being a different one of the functional units from the first functional unit;
a difference degree detection unit configured to detect a degree of difference between the first time and the second time; and
an execution unit configured to execute either or both of the following operations when the degree of difference is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold: warning an administrator, and reducing a moving speed of the moving object.
Regarding the limitations of “manage a first time …”, “manage a second time …”, and “detect a degree of difference …”, the Examiner submits that these limitations consist of an abstract idea by using generic functional units (i.e. processor or computer equivalent) to determine a first and second time and determining to alert a user or reduce speed. For example, a driver can mentally observe a car 50 feet ahead of it, then 5 seconds later, observe the car is in the same lane and only 25 feet ahead, and the driver can then adjust the driving of the vehicle in response to observing the second time and distance to the other vehicle.
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.”
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 limitations of “functional units …”, “time management units …”, “a difference degree detection unit …”, and “an execution unit …”, the Examiner submits that these limitations comprise software or hardware which utilize a generic computer (not currently in the claims, but see claim interpretation section above) to perform the process.
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 limitations of “warning an administrator …”, the Examiner submits that this limitation consists of insignificant extra-solution activity, which is performed by a generic computer (a processor) using the functional units to perform the process.
The Examiner will note that the limitation of “reducing a moving speed of the moving object …” is not currently required to be performed or executed by the claims, as written, as the claims require “execute either or both …”, which means only one limitation needs to be satisfied to meet the claims.
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, implement/ use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, 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 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 – Step 2B
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, the additional limitations of “warning an administrator …”, the Examiner submits that this limitations consist of insignificant post-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-4 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims 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, because the claims involve determining the position and direction of the moving object and associating the functional units with one or more control devices, but no positive controlling actions on the moving object are recited. Therefore, dependent Claims 2-4 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claim 1.
Elements of Paragraphs [0014], [0016], and [0041], for example, if incorporated into the independent claims, would appear to overcome the current 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, by reciting positive controlling actions on the vehicle in response to receiving signals based on the timing information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WIPO Patent Publication No. 2019/193811 A1, to Horibe (hereinafter referred to as Horibe).
As per Claim 1, Horibe discloses the features of a system comprising:
a plurality of functional units each configured to perform a process (e.g. Page 6, Paragraph beginning with “{2-1-3. Control Unit 150} …” and Paragraph beginning with “Further, as illustrated in Fig. 5 …”; where the control unit may include a processing circuit such as a GPU (Central Processing Unit), a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), a self-position estimation unit, a control calculation unit (i.e. different functional units), and may also include a memory, such as a ROM (Read Only Memory) or a RAM (Random Access Memory) for
controlling unmanned driving of a moving object (e.g. Page 6, Paragraph beginning with The control unit 150 can comprehensively control …”; where the autonomous mobile body may move autonomously, and receive directions for movement from the control unit);
a first time management unit configured to manage a first time that is used in a first functional unit, the first functional unit being part of the functional units (e.g. Page 6, Paragraph beginning with “The control unit 150 can comprehensively control …”; where the autonomous mobile body determines first timing after which the autonomous body performs rotational translational motion);
a second time management unit configured to manage a second time that is used in a second functional unit, the second functional unit being a different one of the functional units from the first functional unit (e.g. Page 6, Paragraph beginning with “The control unit 150 can comprehensively control …”; where the autonomous mobile body determines the second timing based on the target speed of the autonomous mobile body);
a difference degree detection unit configured to detect a degree of difference between the first time and the second time (e.g. Page 5, Paragraph beginning with “then, it came to create …”; Page 6, Paragraph beginning with The control unit 150 can comprehensively control …”; where the control unit can specify the delay information related to the autonomous mobile body from the first and second timing (i.e. degree of difference)); and
an execution unit configured to execute either or both of the following operations when the degree of difference is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold: warning an administrator, and reducing a moving speed of the moving object (e.g. Page 8, Paragraph beginning with “For example, during the movement …”; Page 13, Paragraph beginning with “<4.1 Modification 1> …”; where the control unit determines the difference between the target speed and the sensing result of the actual speed of the autonomous mobile body at the second timing, and the movement of the autonomous mobile body is controlled to correct the difference so that the target speed matches the command speed).
As per Claim 2, Horibe discloses the features of Claim 1, and Horibe further discloses the features of wherein the functional units include
a calculation unit configured to acquire either or both of a position of the moving object and a direction of the moving object (e.g. Page 6, Paragraph beginning with “Further, as illustrated in Fig. 5 …”; Page 7, Paragraph beginning with “{2-1-5. Inner world sensor unit 186} …”; where the control unit includes a self-position estimation unit and a control calculation unit, and the autonomous mobile body can determine its relative position, acceleration, and angular velocity of the body (i.e. position and direction information)) by
using a detection result regarding the moving object acquired from an external sensor located outside the moving object (e.g. Page 6, Paragraph beginning with “{2-1-1. External sensor unit 192} …” and “The external sensor unit 192 includes …”; where an external sensor unit may include a receiver that receives a positioning signal and senses external information of the autonomous mobile body),
a control value generation unit configured to generate, using either or both of the position of the moving object and the direction of the moving object, a control value for controlling the moving object (e.g. Page 6, Paragraph beginning with “Further, as illustrated in Fig. 5 …”; where the control unit includes a control calculation unit, which includes a command speed/ angular velocity calculation unit, and a control delay calculation unit to estimate its position and posture), and
a transmission unit configured to send the control value to the moving object (e.g. Page 7, Paragraph beginning with “{2-1-7. Command Speed / Angular Speed Calculation Unit 172} …”; where the command speed is sent to the drive mechanism for the autonomous mobile body to commence moving).
As per Claim 3, Horibe discloses the features of Claim 1, and Horibe further discloses the features of further comprising a plurality of control devices, wherein: a first control device that is one of the control devices includes the first functional unit; and a second control device that is a different one of the control devices from the first control device includes the second functional unit (e.g. Page 6, Paragraph beginning with “{2-1-3. Control Unit 150} …” and Paragraph beginning with “Further, as illustrated in Fig. 5 …”; where the control unit includes a control calculation unit).
As per Claim 4, Horibe discloses the features of Claim 1, and Horibe further discloses the features of the device comprising:
the difference degree detection unit (e.g. Page 5, Paragraph beginning with “then, it came to create …”; Page 6, Paragraph beginning with The control unit 150 can comprehensively control …”; where the control unit can specify the delay information related to the autonomous mobile body from the first and second timing (i.e. degree of difference)); and
the execution unit (e.g. Page 8, Paragraph beginning with “For example, during the movement …”; Page 13, Paragraph beginning with “<4.1 Modification 1> …”; where the control unit includes a control calculation unit, which may send directions for movement to the autonomous mobile body).
As per Claim 5, Horibe discloses the features of a moving object configured to travel by unmanned driving (e.g. Page 6, Paragraph beginning with The control unit 150 can comprehensively control …”; where the autonomous mobile body may move autonomously, and receive directions for movement from the control unit), the moving object comprising:
a plurality of functional units configured to control the unmanned driving (e.g. Page 6, Paragraph beginning with “{2-1-3. Control Unit 150} …” and Paragraph beginning with “Further, as illustrated in Fig. 5 …”; where the control unit may include a processing circuit such as a GPU (Central Processing Unit), a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), a self-position estimation unit, a control calculation unit (i.e. different functional units), and may also include a memory, such as a ROM (Read Only Memory) or a RAM (Random Access Memory);
a first time management unit configured to manage a first time that is used in a first functional unit, the first functional unit being part of the functional units (e.g. Page 6, Paragraph beginning with “The control unit 150 can comprehensively control …”; where the autonomous mobile body determines first timing after which the autonomous body performs rotational translational motion);
a second time management unit configured to manage a second time that is used in a second functional unit, the second functional unit being a different one of the functional units from the first functional unit (e.g. Page 6, Paragraph beginning with “The control unit 150 can comprehensively control …”; where the autonomous mobile body determines the second timing based on the target speed of the autonomous mobile body);
a difference degree detection unit configured to detect a degree of difference between the first time and the second time (e.g. Page 5, Paragraph beginning with “then, it came to create …”; Page 6, Paragraph beginning with The control unit 150 can comprehensively control …”; where the control unit can specify the delay information related to the autonomous mobile body from the first and second timing (i.e. degree of difference)); and
an execution unit configured to execute either or both of the following operations when the degree of difference is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold: warning an administrator, and reducing a moving speed of the moving object (e.g. Page 8, Paragraph beginning with “For example, during the movement …”; Page 13, Paragraph beginning with “<4.1 Modification 1> …”; where the control unit determines the difference between the target speed and the sensing result of the actual speed of the autonomous mobile body at the second timing, and the movement of the autonomous mobile body is controlled to correct the difference so that the target speed matches the command speed for the timing segment).
As per Claim 6, Horibe discloses the features of a control method for controlling a moving object in a system (e.g. Page 6, Paragraph beginning with The control unit 150 can comprehensively control …”; where the autonomous mobile body may move autonomously, and receive directions for movement from the control unit) including
a plurality of functional units each configured to perform a process for controlling unmanned driving of the moving object (e.g. Page 6, Paragraph beginning with “{2-1-3. Control Unit 150} …” and Paragraph beginning with “Further, as illustrated in Fig. 5 …”; where the control unit may include a processing circuit such as a GPU (Central Processing Unit), a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), a self-position estimation unit, a control calculation unit (i.e. different functional units), and may also include a memory, such as a ROM (Read Only Memory) or a RAM (Random Access Memory), the control method comprising:
detecting a degree of difference between a first time and a second time (e.g. Page 5, Paragraph beginning with “then, it came to create …”; Page 6, Paragraph beginning with The control unit 150 can comprehensively control …”; where the control unit can specify the delay information related to the autonomous mobile body from the first and second timing (i.e. degree of difference)),
the first time being a time that is used in a first functional unit, the first functional unit being part of the functional units (e.g. Page 6, Paragraph beginning with “The control unit 150 can comprehensively control …”;where the autonomous mobile body determines first timing after which the autonomous body performs rotational translational motion),
the second time being a time that is used in a second functional unit, and the second functional unit being a different one of the functional units from the first functional unit (e.g. Page 6, Paragraph beginning with “The control unit 150 can comprehensively control …”; where the autonomous mobile body determines the second timing based on the target speed of the autonomous mobile body); and
executing either or both of the following operations when the degree of difference is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold: warning an administrator, and reducing a moving speed of the moving object (e.g. Page 8, Paragraph beginning with “For example, during the movement …”; Page 13, Paragraph beginning with “<4.1 Modification 1> …”; where the control unit determines the difference between the target speed and the sensing result of the actual speed of the autonomous mobile body at the second timing, and the movement of the autonomous mobile body is controlled to correct the difference so that the target speed matches the command speed for the timing segment).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ichimaru (U.S. 2021/0049051 A1), which teaches a method for determining which target functions should be conducted by a vehicle.
Otaki, et al (U.S. 2021/0058173 A1), which teaches a method for providing remote control instructions to a vehicle, and determining whether a communication delay occurs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERRITT E LEVY whose telephone number is (571)270-5595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0630-1600.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MERRITT E LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666