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 .
Response to Arguments
Objection to drawings and specification is withdrawn in view of amendments. Applicant argues on page 10 of the Applicant’s Remarks that “The Office Action (pgs. 4-6) relies on a combination of Kawabata at paras. [0004] and [0048] and Matsuura at para. [0058] for disclosure of the controller configured to "determine whether a road surface resistance is lower than a predetermined value during the control to the first state" as recited by independent claim 1. However, such reliance is improper as none of the cited paragraphs of Kawabata and Matsuura, or any other portions thereof for that matter, disclose determining a road surface resistance, let alone determining whether a road surface resistance is lower than a predetermined value during the control to the first state.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Road surface resistance, which is referred to as skid resistance, is the frictional force that opposes the motion of a vehicle's tires on the pavement surface, particularly when braking or cornering and it is typically quantified using a coefficient of friction (μ) or skid number. Kawabata discloses coefficient of friction ([0004)], slip ratio greater than a predetermined threshold value ([0048]), and Matsuura also discloses calculating friction coefficient (μ) ([0058]). Since road surface resistance is referred to as skid resistance and typically quantified using a coefficient of friction (μ) or skid number, therefore, both Kawabata and Matsuura discloses road surface resistance.
Further, Applicant argues on page 11 of the Applicant’s Remarks that “Paragraph [0004] of Kawabata fails to disclose determining a road surface resistance, let alone determining whether a road surface resistance is lower than a predetermined value during the control to the first state, at least because the vehicle coefficient of friction (i.e., a unitless ratio describing the relationship between normal and frictional forces) discussed therein does not reasonably equate to road surface resistance (i.e., a force having specified units of measure, such as pounds, newtons, and the like).” and that “Further, paragraph [0004] of Kawabata fails to disclose determining a road surface resistance, let alone determining whether a road surface resistance is lower than a predetermined value during the control to the first state”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Since, road surface resistance is referred to as skid resistance and typically quantified using a coefficient of friction (μ) or skid number, therefore, Kawabata discloses determining a road surface resistance ([0004], [0048]). Again, Applicant argues on page 11 of the Applicant’s Remarks that “Paragraph [0048] of Kawabata fails to disclose determining a road surface resistance, let alone determining whether a road surface resistance is lower than a predetermined value during the control to the first state, at least because the slip ratio (i.e., a dimensionless value quantifying the difference between a vehicle's tire circumferential velocity and the actual ground speed) discussed therein does not reasonably equate to road surface resistance”. Also, Applicant argues on page 12 of the Applicant’s Remarks that “Paragraph [0058] of Matsuura fails to disclose determining a road surface resistance, let alone determining whether a road surface resistance is lower than a predetermined value during the control to the first state, at least because the regenerative braking force, the friction coefficient p, and the braking force discussed therein do not reasonably equate to road surface resistance, e.g., as discussed above with respect to the coefficient of friction, the braking force, and the regenerative braking force of Kawabata.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as already explained above.
Additionally, Applicant argues on page 13 of the Applicant’s Remarks that “Fukushima fails to
disclose a controller configured to set a decompression reference speed to reduce the hydraulic pressure of the hydraulic brake device in the first state as recited by claim 2 at least because the slip reference speed for detecting a slip state of the wheels Ml and M2 based on the maximum axle rotation speed among a plurality of wheel rotation speeds including at least the above two wheel rotation speeds does not reasonably equate to a speed for implementing the pressure reduction of the hydraulic brake device when ABS is operated.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fukushima discloses “The anti-skid control device is characterized by comprising a slip reference speed reducing means M7 for reducing and correcting the wheel reference speed, and a brake control means M8 for comparing the two wheel rotation speeds detected by the wheel rotation speed detecting means M4 with the slip reference speed and outputting a control signal to the braking force adjusting means M3 (Page 3 last Para and Page 4 first Para). Also, Fukushima discloses “Furthermore, each wheel 1 to 4 is equipped with a hydraulic brake device. (Wheel cylinders) 11, 12, 13, and 14 are arranged, and the hydraulic pressure from the master cylinder 16 is sent to each hydraulic brake device 11 to 14 via actuators 21, 22, 23, and 24 and each hydraulic pipeline.”.
Hence, Applicant's arguments filed on 04/23/2026 regarding claims 1-5 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabata (JP H10297462 A) in view of Matsuura et al (US 20070046099 A1) (Hereinafter Matsuura).
Regarding Claim 1, Kawabata teaches a controller for an electric vehicle for executing anti-lock control for suppressing a lock of a wheel by controlling a braking force applied to the wheel using a hydraulic braking force by a hydraulic brake device and a regenerative braking force by a motor (See at least Para [0003] “…The conventional brake force control apparatus, the anti-lock brake control for preventing wheel locking from occurring and has a function of executing (hereinafter, referred to as ABS control)…”, Para [0018] “Regenerative energy the drive motor is generated, is supplied as a charging current to the battery 24…”, Para [0019] “Brake force control apparatus of the present embodiment is also provided with a hydraulic control mechanism 32…”, Para [0004] “Thus, the magnitude of the braking force during the ABS control execution, during traveling of the low μ road has to be controlled to a small value as compared to when the running of the high μ road. Thus, for example, when changing the traveling road surface of the vehicle during execution of the ABS control from the high μ road to a low μ road, it is necessary to quickly reduce the braking force from a larger value to a smaller value”, Para [0012] “Further, the above object is achieved as set forth in claim 2, it is mounted on an electric vehicle, to perform anti-lock brake control for preventing wheel locking by increasing or decreasing the braking force when a predetermined condition is satisfied braking in the power control device, and the regenerative braking force generating means for generating a regenerative braking force, said during the execution of the anti-lock brake control, the regenerative braking force increase ban to prohibit the increase of the regenerative braking force which the regenerative braking force generating means is generated…”), wherein
the controller is configured to
control to set a first state where the regenerative braking force is controlled by speed
feedback control in which a hydraulic pressure of the hydraulic brake device, during execution of the anti-lock control, is set constant and a speed of the wheel is controlled to follow a target speed (See at least Para [0008] “Further, as described above, the above conventional braking force control apparatus, while holding the hydraulic braking force constant, and executes the ABS control by increasing or decreasing the regenerative braking force…Therefore, according to the conventional brake force control apparatus, by vehicle speed along with the execution of the ABS control is decreased, …”),
determine whether a road surface resistance is lower than a predetermined value
during the control to the first state (See at least Para [0004] “Vehicle coefficient of friction high road when the vehicle is traveling (hereinafter, the high μ road hereinafter), the braking force is large even when the wheel lock is hard to occur. On the other hand, the vehicle is a low friction coefficient road surface (hereinafter, referred to as low-μ road) when running on a can, even a small braking force, easy locking of the wheel occurs. Thus, the magnitude of the braking force during the ABS
control execution, during traveling of the low μ road has to be controlled to a small value as compared to when the running of the high μ road. Thus, for example, when changing the traveling road surface of the vehicle during execution of the ABS control from the high μ road to a low μ road, it is necessary to quickly reduce the braking force from a larger value to a smaller value.”, Para [0048] “As shown in FIG. 4 (a), at time t3, the slip ratio S is greater than a predetermined threshold value S0, it is determined that the wheel is turned locking tendency, ABS control is started. When the ABS control is started at time t3, by the hydraulic braking force FL and the regenerative braking force FG is reduced both total braking force FALL decreases. In this case, the hydraulic braking force FL is rapidly reduced by said pressure reduction mode is achieved…”), and
reduce, when determining that the road surface resistance is lower than the
predetermined value in the first state, the hydraulic pressure of the hydraulic brake device while controlling the regenerative braking force by the speed feedback control (See at least Para [0048] “As shown in FIG. 4 (a), at time t3, the slip ratio S is greater than a predetermined threshold value S0, it is
determined that the wheel is turned locking tendency, ABS control is started. When the ABS control is started at time t3, by the hydraulic braking force FL and the regenerative braking force FG is reduced both total braking force FALL decreases. In this case, the hydraulic braking force FL is rapidly reduced by said pressure reduction mode is achieved…”).
Although, Kawabata teaches determine whether a road surface resistance is greater
than a predetermined value during the control to the first state, he does not explicitly spell out that the road surface resistance is lower than a predetermined value.
Matsuura teaches the road surface resistance is lower than a predetermined value (See at least Para [0058] “…If the program determines (in Step S30) that the calculated friction coefficient .mu. is low and thus the vehicle is traveling on a frozen road surface, braking force for low-.mu. is assigned to the set braking force in Step S31. If the program determines (in Step S32) that the calculated friction coefficient .mu. is at a medium level and thus the vehicle is traveling on compressed snow, braking force for medium-.mu. which is greater than the braking force for low-.mu. is assigned to the set braking force in Step S33. If the program determines that the friction coefficient .mu. is not low in Step S30 and not at a medium level in Step S32, it is assumed that the vehicle is traveling on asphalt. Thus, braking force for highs that is larger than the braking force for medium-.mu. is assigned to the set braking force in Step S34.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kawabata with the teachings of Matsuura and include the feature of the road surface resistance being lower than a predetermined value, thereby provide control accordingly to stabilize the vehicle (See at least [0006] “An object of the present invention is to quickly eliminate a locking tendency of any vehicle wheel, thus stabilizing the vehicle.”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabata (JP H10297462 A) in view of Matsuura et al (US 20070046099 A1) (Hereinafter Matsuura), and further in view of Fukushima et al. (JPH0354058A) (Hereinafter Fukushima).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Kawabata teaches all the elements of claim 1.
However, Kawabata does not explicitly spell out the controller for an electric vehicle according to claim 1, wherein
the controller is configured to
set a decompression reference speed to reduce the hydraulic pressure of the hydraulic
brake device in the first state,
determine, under control to the first state, whether a rotation speed of the wheel is
greater than the decompression reference speed,
determine, when determining that the rotation speed of the wheel is equal to or less
than the decompression reference speed in the first state, that the road surface resistance is less than a predetermined value under the control to the first state, and
start decompression of the hydraulic brake device before the regenerative braking force
reaches a reduction limit.
Fukushima teaches out the controller for an electric vehicle according to claim 1, wherein
the controller is configured to
set a decompression reference speed to reduce the hydraulic pressure of the hydraulic
brake device in the first state (See at least Page 4 “speed setting means M6 sets a slip reference speed for detecting a slip state of the wheels M1 and M2 based on the maximum axle rotation speed among a plurality of wheel rotation speeds including at least the above two wheel rotation speeds.”),
determine, under control to the first state, whether a rotation speed of the wheel is
greater than the decompression reference speed (See at least Page 9 “…it is determined whether the high-speed wheel rotation speed VIJHI is equal to or greater than the high-speed reference speed KV1 (step 406)…”),
determine, when determining that the rotation speed of the wheel is equal to or less
than the decompression reference speed in the first state, that the road surface resistance is less than a predetermined value under the control to the first state (See at least Page 9 “…If the high-speed wheel rotation speed VIJHI is less than the high-speed reference speed Kvu14, {L flag F}IDROP is set to "1" (step 408),”, Page 12 “That is, as shown in Figure 9(c), when the main routine is repeatedly executed and the speed difference ΔVil continues for a predetermined time or more (steps 442, 444, 446) and is still smaller than the reference value KV,εL2, it is determined that the road surface is normal”), and
start decompression of the hydraulic brake device before the regenerative braking force
reaches a reduction limit (See at least Page 9 “Pressure reduction in progress flag F8ε. If it is determined that the value of VIJHI is "1", that is, if the brake pressure is in a reduced output state, it is determined whether the high-speed wheel rotation speed VIJHI is equal to or greater than the high-speed reference speed KV1 (step 406). As shown in FIG. 9(a), this high-speed reference speed KV,H is determined by setting a predetermined offset value to the estimated vehicle speed vO determined in step 500. If the high-speed wheel rotation speed VIJHI is less than the high-speed reference speed
Kvu14, {L flag F}IDROP is set to "1" (step 408)”, Page 5 “…However, hydraulic pumps 27a and 27b are
also provided as hydraulic pressure sources for slip control, which generate hydraulic
pressure by driving electric motors. The electronic control circuit 40 controls these actuators
21 to 24 to adjust the brake hydraulic pressure of the hydraulic brake devices 11 to 14 and to
adjust the braking force for each of the wheels 1 to 4…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kawabata with the teachings of Fukushima and include the feature of setting a decompression reference speed to reduce the hydraulic pressure of the hydraulic brake device in the first state, determining under control to the first state, whether a rotation speed of the wheel is greater than the decompression reference speed, determining when determining that the rotation speed of the wheel is equal to or less than the decompression reference speed in the first state, that the road surface resistance is less than a predetermined value under the control to the first state, and starting decompression of the hydraulic brake device before the regenerative braking force reaches a reduction limit, thereby provide control accordingly to improve the stability of the vehicle (See at least Page 19 “This prevents the anti-skid control on the inside wheel from starting too early, allowing for full braking force and improving braking performance.”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabata (JP H10297462 A) in view of Matsuura et al (US 20070046099 A1) (Hereinafter Matsuura), Ma et al. (CN114919423A) (Hereinafter Ma), and further in view of Fukushima et al. (JPH0354058A) (Hereinafter Fukushima).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kawabata teaches all the elements of claim 1. Kawabata further teaches controller for an electric vehicle according to claim 1, wherein
the controller is configured to
…
set a control value of the hydraulic pressure of the hydraulic brake device according to a
magnitude of the road surface resistance (See at least Para [0041] “Meanwhile, when the vehicle is traveling on a low μ road, as compared to when the vehicle is traveling on a high μ road, easily occurs locking of the wheels at the braking force is small state. Thus, for example, during execution of the ABS control, when the road surface during running is changed from a high μ road to a low μ road, in order to prevent locking of the wheels in the low μ road, increasing the braking force, and promptly it is necessary to reduce to. That is, for a variety of road conditions, in order to reliably prevent the locking of wheels during execution of the ABS control, it is desirable to braking force widespread, and may quickly alter.”),
perform control so that the hydraulic pressure of the hydraulic brake device is constant
at the control value of the hydraulic pressure in the first state (See at least Para [0008] “Further, as described above, the above conventional braking force control apparatus, while holding the hydraulic braking force constant, and executes the ABS control by increasing or decreasing the regenerative braking force…”), and
reset the control value of the hydraulic pressure in accordance with the reduced road
surface resistance and continue the control of the regenerative braking force by the speed feedback control (See at least Para [0041] “…Thus, for example, during execution of the ABS control, when the road surface during running is changed from a high μ road to a low μ road, in order to prevent locking of the wheels in the low μ road, increasing the braking force…”, Para [0042] As described above, the brake force control apparatus of the present embodiment can generate a regenerative braking force FG the hydraulic braking force FL…”) …
However, Kawabata does not explicitly spell out the
set the decompression reference speed to a value that is obtained by subtracting a
preset value from a target speed of the motor,
… when determining that the rotation speed of the wheel is equal to or less than the decompression reference speed in the first state.
Ma teaches …
set the decompression reference speed to a value that is obtained by subtracting a
preset value from a target speed of the motor (See at least Page 2 Para 5 “As can be seen from the above technical solutions, the present application provides a vehicle control method,
wherein a target interpolation value is determined based on the difference between a preset speed threshold value of the vehicle and a real-time speed value, and then a target control value is calculated according to the target interpolation value and a preset algorithm, …”),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kawabata with the teachings of Ma and include the feature of setting the decompression reference speed to a value that is obtained by subtracting a preset value from a target speed of the motor, thereby provide control accordingly to improve the stability of the vehicle (Page 3 Para 5 “… To control the operation of the vehicle based on the target control value, so that the running speed of the vehicle is in the target speed range to which the preset speed threshold belongs. Since the interpolation value is determined according to the size of the difference, the calculation is based on the interpolation value and the preset algorithm, the response speed of the preset algorithm is improved by interpolation, so that the speed of the vehicle is consistent with the target control speed threshold as soon as possible. Compared with the prior art, the running speed of the vehicle is directly reduced to the speed limit threshold, which has a higher speed. stability.”).
Fukushima teaches … when determining that the rotation speed of the wheel is equal to or less than the decompression reference speed in the first state (See at least Page 9 “…If the high-speed wheel rotation speed VIJHI is less than the high-speed reference speed Kvu14, {L flag F}IDROP is set to "1" (step 408),”, Page 12 “That is, as shown in Figure 9(c), when the main routine is repeatedly executed and the speed difference ΔVil continues for a predetermined time or more (steps 442, 444, 446) and is still smaller than the reference value KV,εL2, it is determined that the road surface is normal”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kawabata with the teachings of Fukushima and include the feature of determining that the rotation speed of the wheel is equal to or less than the decompression reference speed in the first state, thereby provide control accordingly to improve the stability of the vehicle (See at least Page 19 “This prevents the anti-skid control on the inside wheel from starting too early, allowing for full braking force and improving braking performance.”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabata (JP H10297462 A) in view of Matsuura et al (US 20070046099 A1) (Hereinafter Matsuura), Fukushima et al. (JPH0354058A) (Hereinafter Fukushima), and further in view of Wang et al. (CN118025098A) (Hereinafter Wang).
Regarding Claim 4, Kawabata teaches all the elements of claim 2. Kawabata further teaches the controller for an electric vehicle according to claim 2, wherein
the controller is configured to
determine whether the regenerative braking force is in a preset range including the
reduction limit of the regenerative braking force during the control to the first state (See at least Para [0048] “…When the ABS control is started at time t3, by the hydraulic braking force FL and the regenerative braking force FG is reduced both total braking force FALL decreases. In this case, the hydraulic braking force FL is rapidly reduced by said pressure reduction mode is achieved. Further, the rate of decrease in the regenerative braking force FG, along with a sufficient change in the total braking force FALL is secured, is set to decrease in the regenerative energy can be suppressed to a minimum.”), and
However, Kawabata does not explicitly spell out…
set, when determining that the regenerative braking force is in the preset range
including the reduction limit, the decompression reference speed to a same value as the target speed of the motor.
Wang teaches …
set, when determining that the regenerative braking force is in the preset range
including the reduction limit, the decompression reference speed to a same value as the target speed of the motor (See at least Page 2 Para 13 “When the vehicle's braking force is reduced and the feedback braking force of the motor is detected for braking, the ABS system's decompression state is used to maintain the mechanical braking force at zero;”, Page 2 Para 14 “Reduce the regenerative braking force according to the preset motor braking curve;”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kawabata with the teachings of Wang and include the feature of setting, when determining that the regenerative braking force is in the preset range including the reduction limit, the decompression reference speed to a same value as the target speed of the motor, thereby utilizing the of the breaking energy is improved (See at least Page 6 Para 1 “In this way, by coordinating and optimizing the mechanical braking force and the feedback braking force, the utilization rate of the braking energy is improved while ensuring the original ABS function.”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabata (JP H10297462 A) in view of Matsuura et al (US 20070046099 A1) (Hereinafter Matsuura), Fukushima et al. (JPH0354058A) (Hereinafter Fukushima), Wang et al. (CN118025098A) (Hereinafter Wang), and further in view of Okano et al (JP2015120375A) (Hereinafter Okano).
Regarding Claim 5, Kawabata teaches all the elements of claim 4. Kawabata further teaches the controller for an electric vehicle according to claim 4, wherein
the controller is configured to
determine whether the regenerative braking force is in a prescribed range including a
maximum regeneration which the regenerative braking force can output during the control to the first state (See at least Para [0018] “… Brake ECU12 by monitoring the operating state of the battery 24, the upper limit of the regenerative energy capable of supplying to the battery 24 (hereinafter, maximum regenerative energy) is calculated. Then, the brake ECU12, as regenerative torque corresponding to the maximum regenerative energy is generated, and supplies the command signal to the drive and regeneration unit 14. Regenerative torque drive motor is the generation of the drive and regeneration device 14, which acts as a braking force to the left and right front wheels FL, FR. Hereinafter, the braking force generated by the regenerative torque, referred to as a regenerative braking force FG.”), and
However, Kawabata does not explicitly spell out …
increase, when determining that the regenerative braking force is in the prescribed
range including the maximum regeneration, the hydraulic pressure of the hydraulic brake device
Okano teaches …
increase, when determining that the regenerative braking force is in the prescribed
range including the maximum regeneration, the hydraulic pressure of the hydraulic brake device (See at least Para [0008] “…Therefore, in the above configuration, when changing the regenerative braking force, if it can be predicted that the response speed of the hydraulic braking force tends to increase, the limit value of the change gradient of the regenerative braking force is increased…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kawabata with the teachings of Okano and include the feature of increasing, when determining that the regenerative braking force is in the prescribed range including the maximum regeneration, the hydraulic pressure of the hydraulic brake device, thereby provide control accordingly to improve recovery efficiency of energy (electric power) (See at least Para [0006] “An object of the present invention is to provide a vehicle braking control device capable of improving the energy recovery efficiency at the time of vehicle braking.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kato et al. (US 9415692 B2) teaches a vehicle brake hydraulic pressure control apparatus
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHEDA HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-5310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 571-270-5744. 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.
/SHAHEDA HOQUE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights