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 December 10th, 2024. Claims 1-13 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on December 10th, 2024 and June 12th, 2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on December 26th, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2023-219944 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a vehicle speed, a position, a traveling track and an indication state of a blinker of a peripheral vehicle” should recite “a peripheral vehicle speed, a position, a traveling track and an indication state of a blinker of a peripheral vehicle” to clarify that the information listed is with regards to the peripheral vehicle.
Claim 1 recites “a vehicle speed, a position, a traveling track and an indication state of a blinker of the self-vehicle” should recite “a self-vehicle speed, a position, a traveling track and an indication state of a blinker of a self-vehicle” to clarify that the information listed is with regards to the peripheral vehicle.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“an acquisition unit configured to acquire peripheral vehicle information” in claim 1. Structure for this limitation can be found at paragraph [0020] of Applicant’s specification.
“a prediction unit configured to predict a possibility of collision” in claims 1-9. Structure for this limitation can be found at paragraph [0028] of Applicant’s specification.
“a notification unit configured to notify an occupant” in claims 1 and 8. Structure for this limitation can be found at paragraph [0028] of Applicant’s specification.
“a determination unit configured to determine” in claim 9. Structure for this limitation can be found at paragraph [0028] of Applicant’s specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Regarding claim 1, the last paragraph of claim 1 appears to be substantially the same as the second paragraph of claim 1. It is unclear whether the possibility of collision determined in the last paragraph is the same as the possibility of collision from the second paragraph; therefore, rendering the claim indefinite. The same applies to the other independent claims 12 and 13. Additionally, claims 2-11 are additionally rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "the blinker of the peripheral vehicle indicating a first side or a second side" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the sides are with respect to the self-vehicle or with respect to the peripheral vehicle itself. For purpose of prior art examination, Examiner is interpreting the sides to be relative to the vehicle whose blinker is being referred to. Claims 3-7 are additionally rejected due to their dependence on claim 2.
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 invention is directed to an abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a device for assisting a user in driving, claim 12 is a method for assisting a user in driving, and claim 13 is a computer-readable medium for assisting a user in driving. 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, 12, and 13 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. 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 driving assistance device comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire peripheral vehicle information indicating a vehicle speed, a position, a traveling track, and an indication state of a blinker of a peripheral vehicle existing around a self-vehicle mounted with the driving assistance device from the peripheral vehicle by vehicle-to-vehicle communication;
a prediction unit configured to predict a possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle based on self-vehicle information indicating a vehicle speed, a position, a traveling track, and an indication state of a blinker of the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle information; and
a notification unit configured to notify an occupant of the self-vehicle based on a prediction result by the prediction unit, wherein
the prediction unit predicts a possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle based on at least the indication state of the blinker of the self-vehicle, the indication state of the blinker of the peripheral vehicle, and the position of the peripheral vehicle with respect to the self-vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bold limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “acquire peripheral vehicle information…predict a possibility of collision” in the context of this claim encompasses a driver observing the traffic around them and predicting the direction of travel of an external vehicle and determining whether that path conflicts with the driver’s current path. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims 12 and 13, which is of similar scope to claim 1, 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 driving assistance device comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire peripheral vehicle information indicating a vehicle speed, a position, a traveling track, and an indication state of a blinker of a peripheral vehicle existing around a self-vehicle mounted with the driving assistance device from the peripheral vehicle by vehicle-to-vehicle communication;
a prediction unit configured to predict a possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle based on self-vehicle information indicating a vehicle speed, a position, a traveling track, and an indication state of a blinker of the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle information; and
a notification unit configured to notify an occupant of the self-vehicle based on a prediction result by the prediction unit, wherein
the prediction unit predicts a possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle based on at least the indication state of the blinker of the self-vehicle, the indication state of the blinker of the peripheral vehicle, and the position of the peripheral vehicle with respect to the self-vehicle.
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 “notify an occupant of the self-vehicle based on a prediction result by the prediction unit” and acquiring data by “vehicle to vehicle communication” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use generic processing units to perform the processes. In particular the notify step amounts to mere outputting of data gathered, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generic process units merely describes how to generally “apply” and “display” the otherwise mental judgements using generic components in a vehicle control environment. The driving assistance device is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the notification step.
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 elements of “notify an occupant” and acquiring data by “vehicle to vehicle communication” 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. And as discussed above, the additional limitations, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine,
conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “notify an occupant” and acquiring data by “vehicle to vehicle communication” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities
because MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v.
Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d
607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015),
indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and
conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of v2v communication does not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a
particular technological environment or field of use as mentioned in MPEP 2106.05(h). Hence claim 1 is
not patent eligible. Claims 12 and 13 are also not patent eligible for the same reasons as stated in the above claim 1 rejection.
Dependent claims 2-11 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-11, 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 the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 2-11 are patent ineligible.
Examiner advises the applicant to include limitations regarding controlling the self-vehicle based on the determination of the collision probability such as recited in paragraph [0025] of applicant’s specification.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by JP2008168827A (hereinafter, “Yusuke”).
Regarding claim 1 Yusuke discloses a driving assistance device (see at least [0001]; “the present invention relates to a lane change assist device that assists a vehicle in changing lanes”) comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire peripheral vehicle information indicating a vehicle speed, a position, a traveling track, and an indication state of a blinker of a peripheral vehicle existing around a self-vehicle mounted with the driving assistance device from the peripheral vehicle by vehicle-to-vehicle communication (see at least [0014]; “In addition, the vehicle-to-vehicle communication unit 3 transmits information about the vehicle, such as…the direction indication state of the vehicle's turn indicator 1b, and information about the lane the vehicle is currently traveling in, to other vehicles via vehicle-to-vehicle communication…the vehicle-to-vehicle communication unit 3 can transmit and receive information about the vehicle itself and other vehicles in real time at a predetermined communication cycle,” the turn indicator corresponds to Applicant’s blinker and the information about the lane the vehicle is traveling in corresponds to both the position and traveling track of the other vehicle, and [0015]; “The vehicle surroundings monitoring unit 4 can measure inter-vehicle relationship values (relative distance, relative speed, inter-vehicle time, etc.) between the subject vehicle and other vehicles in the vicinity using a monitoring sensor,” it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this information can be acquired by either V2V communication or sensors);
a prediction unit configured to predict a possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle based on self-vehicle information indicating a vehicle speed, a position, a traveling track, and an indication state of a blinker of the self-vehicle (see at least [0025]; “The surrounding information management unit 5 collects information about the vehicle itself, such as the direction indication state of the direction indicator 1b and vehicle speed information detected by the vehicle speed sensor 1a, via the in-vehicle information receiving unit 1 (step 2). The surrounding information management unit 5 then collects vehicle position information, such as vehicle position information, information about the lane the vehicle is currently traveling in”) and the peripheral vehicle information (see at least [0027]; “Based on the surrounding vehicle information collected by the surrounding information management unit 5 in step 6, the vehicle surrounding situation prediction unit 6 predicts the road conditions around the vehicle when the vehicle changes lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the turn indicator 1b detected in step 1 (step 7),” the surrounding vehicle information includes both information of the host-vehicle and of the surrounding vehicles [0032]; “As in As in FIG. 3, the host vehicle A monitors the direction indication state of the turn indicators of the surrounding vehicles C and D, which indicates their intention to change lanes, at a predetermined interval. When a change in the direction indicating state of the turn indicator of vehicle A from no indication state to a right direction indicating state is detected, the direction indicated by the turn indicator state, which indicates the lane change intentions of surrounding vehicles C and D, is compared to predict the road conditions after vehicle A changes lanes in that direction. When there is a risk of collision as shown in FIG. 4B, the lane change assist system 10 of the host vehicle A warns the driver not to change lanes into lane b,” the information acquired is analyzed to determine whether there is a risk for collision); and
a notification unit configured to notify an occupant of the self-vehicle based on a prediction result by the prediction unit (see at least [0032]; “When there is a risk of collision as shown in FIG. 4B, the lane change assist system 10 of the host vehicle A warns the driver not to change lanes into lane b.”), wherein
the prediction unit predicts a possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle based on at least the indication state of the blinker of the self-vehicle, the indication state of the blinker of the peripheral vehicle, and the position of the peripheral vehicle with respect to the self-vehicle (see at least [0027]; “Based on the surrounding vehicle information collected by the surrounding information management unit 5 in step 6, the vehicle surrounding situation prediction unit 6 predicts the road conditions around the vehicle when the vehicle changes lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the turn indicator 1b detected in step 1 (step 7),” the surrounding vehicle information includes both information of the host-vehicle and of the surrounding vehicles, and the road condition information corresponds to the risk of collision).
Regarding claim 2 Yusuke discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Yusuke discloses wherein a first side is one of a right side and a left side which is a side of a road on which passage is mandatory in a region where the self-vehicle is located, and a second side is a side opposite to the first side (see at least Fig. 3 and Fig. 4), and
the prediction unit predicts a possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle (see at least [0027]; “Based on the surrounding vehicle information collected by the surrounding information management unit 5 in step 6, the vehicle surrounding situation prediction unit 6 predicts the road conditions around the vehicle when the vehicle changes lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the turn indicator 1b detected in step 1 (step 7),” the surrounding vehicle information includes both information of the host-vehicle and of the surrounding vehicles, and the road condition information corresponds to the risk of collision) based on at least one of
the peripheral vehicle being on the first side or the second side with respect to the self-vehicle (see at least [0015]; “The vehicle surroundings monitoring unit 4 can measure inter-vehicle relationship values (relative distance, relative speed, inter-vehicle time, etc.) between the subject vehicle and other vehicles in the vicinity using a monitoring sensor,” the distance between the vehicles would also indicate in which direction the peripheral vehicle is located),
the blinker of the self-vehicle indicating the first side or the second side (see at least [0022]; “The vehicle surroundings situation prediction unit 6, for example, compares the direction indication state of the vehicle with the direction indication state of the other vehicle to determine whether it is safe to change lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the vehicle itself,”), and
the blinker of the peripheral vehicle indicating the first side or the second side (see at least [0022]; “The vehicle surroundings situation prediction unit 6, for example, compares the direction indication state of the vehicle with the direction indication state of the other vehicle to determine whether it is safe to change lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the vehicle itself”).
Regarding claim 8 Yusuke discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Yusuke discloses wherein the notification unit notifies the occupant of the self-vehicle based on a prediction result by the prediction unit at a time point when the blinker of the self-vehicle or the peripheral vehicle changes an indication of a direction (see at least [0025-0027]; “This operation flow starts when the in-vehicle information receiving unit 1 detects a change in the direction indication state of the direction indicator 1b from a no indication state to a right direction indication state or a left direction indication state (step 1)… Based on the surrounding vehicle information collected by the surrounding information management unit 5 in step 6, the vehicle surrounding situation prediction unit 6 predicts the road conditions around the vehicle when the vehicle changes lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the turn indicator 1b detected in step 1 (step 7). When the vehicle surroundings situation prediction unit 6 predicts that the situation will require the driver to be alerted, it transmits alert information according to the prediction result to the alert unit 7 (step 8).”).
Regarding claim 12 Yusuke discloses a driving assistance method (see at least [0001]; “the present invention relates to a lane change assist device that assists a vehicle in changing lanes”) comprising:
acquiring peripheral vehicle information indicating a vehicle speed, a position, a traveling track, and an indication state of a blinker of a peripheral vehicle existing around a self-vehicle from the peripheral vehicle by vehicle-to-vehicle communication (see at least [0014]; “In addition, the vehicle-to-vehicle communication unit 3 transmits information about the vehicle, such as…the direction indication state of the vehicle's turn indicator 1b, and information about the lane the vehicle is currently traveling in, to other vehicles via vehicle-to-vehicle communication…the vehicle-to-vehicle communication unit 3 can transmit and receive information about the vehicle itself and other vehicles in real time at a predetermined communication cycle,” the turn indicator corresponds to Applicant’s blinker and the information about the lane the vehicle is traveling in corresponds to both the position and traveling track of the other vehicle, and [0015]; “The vehicle surroundings monitoring unit 4 can measure inter-vehicle relationship values (relative distance, relative speed, inter-vehicle time, etc.) between the subject vehicle and other vehicles in the vicinity using a monitoring sensor,” it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this information can be acquired by either V2V communication or sensors);
predicting a possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle based on self-vehicle information indicating a vehicle speed, a position, a traveling track, and an indication state of a blinker of the self-vehicle (see at least [0025]; “The surrounding information management unit 5 collects information about the vehicle itself, such as the direction indication state of the direction indicator 1b and vehicle speed information detected by the vehicle speed sensor 1a, via the in-vehicle information receiving unit 1 (step 2). The surrounding information management unit 5 then collects vehicle position information, such as vehicle position information, information about the lane the vehicle is currently traveling in”) and the peripheral vehicle information (see at least [0027]; “Based on the surrounding vehicle information collected by the surrounding information management unit 5 in step 6, the vehicle surrounding situation prediction unit 6 predicts the road conditions around the vehicle when the vehicle changes lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the turn indicator 1b detected in step 1 (step 7),” the surrounding vehicle information includes both information of the host-vehicle and of the surrounding vehicles [0032]; “As in As in FIG. 3, the host vehicle A monitors the direction indication state of the turn indicators of the surrounding vehicles C and D, which indicates their intention to change lanes, at a predetermined interval. When a change in the direction indicating state of the turn indicator of vehicle A from no indication state to a right direction indicating state is detected, the direction indicated by the turn indicator state, which indicates the lane change intentions of surrounding vehicles C and D, is compared to predict the road conditions after vehicle A changes lanes in that direction. When there is a risk of collision as shown in FIG. 4B, the lane change assist system 10 of the host vehicle A warns the driver not to change lanes into lane b,” the information acquired is analyzed to determine whether there is a risk for collision); and
notifying an occupant of the self-vehicle based on a prediction result in the predicting (see at least [0032]; “When there is a risk of collision as shown in FIG. 4B, the lane change assist system 10 of the host vehicle A warns the driver not to change lanes into lane b.”), wherein
the predicting including predicting a possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle based on at least the indication state of the blinker of the self-vehicle, the indication state of the blinker of the peripheral vehicle, and the position of the peripheral vehicle with respect to the self-vehicle (see at least [0027]; “Based on the surrounding vehicle information collected by the surrounding information management unit 5 in step 6, the vehicle surrounding situation prediction unit 6 predicts the road conditions around the vehicle when the vehicle changes lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the turn indicator 1b detected in step 1 (step 7),” the surrounding vehicle information includes both information of the host-vehicle and of the surrounding vehicles, and the road condition information corresponds to the risk of collision).
Regarding claim 13 Yusuke discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute:
acquiring peripheral vehicle information indicating a vehicle speed, a position, a traveling track, and an indication state of a blinker of a peripheral vehicle existing around a self-vehicle from the peripheral vehicle by vehicle-to-vehicle communication (see at least [0014]; “In addition, the vehicle-to-vehicle communication unit 3 transmits information about the vehicle, such as…the direction indication state of the vehicle's turn indicator 1b, and information about the lane the vehicle is currently traveling in, to other vehicles via vehicle-to-vehicle communication…the vehicle-to-vehicle communication unit 3 can transmit and receive information about the vehicle itself and other vehicles in real time at a predetermined communication cycle,” the turn indicator corresponds to Applicant’s blinker and the information about the lane the vehicle is traveling in corresponds to both the position and traveling track of the other vehicle, and [0015]; “The vehicle surroundings monitoring unit 4 can measure inter-vehicle relationship values (relative distance, relative speed, inter-vehicle time, etc.) between the subject vehicle and other vehicles in the vicinity using a monitoring sensor,” it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this information can be acquired by either V2V communication or sensors);
predicting a possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle based on self-vehicle information indicating a vehicle speed, a position, a traveling track, and an indication state of a blinker of the self-vehicle (see at least [0025]; “The surrounding information management unit 5 collects information about the vehicle itself, such as the direction indication state of the direction indicator 1b and vehicle speed information detected by the vehicle speed sensor 1a, via the in-vehicle information receiving unit 1 (step 2). The surrounding information management unit 5 then collects vehicle position information, such as vehicle position information, information about the lane the vehicle is currently traveling in”) and the peripheral vehicle information (see at least [0027]; “Based on the surrounding vehicle information collected by the surrounding information management unit 5 in step 6, the vehicle surrounding situation prediction unit 6 predicts the road conditions around the vehicle when the vehicle changes lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the turn indicator 1b detected in step 1 (step 7),” the surrounding vehicle information includes both information of the host-vehicle and of the surrounding vehicles [0032]; “As in As in FIG. 3, the host vehicle A monitors the direction indication state of the turn indicators of the surrounding vehicles C and D, which indicates their intention to change lanes, at a predetermined interval. When a change in the direction indicating state of the turn indicator of vehicle A from no indication state to a right direction indicating state is detected, the direction indicated by the turn indicator state, which indicates the lane change intentions of surrounding vehicles C and D, is compared to predict the road conditions after vehicle A changes lanes in that direction. When there is a risk of collision as shown in FIG. 4B, the lane change assist system 10 of the host vehicle A warns the driver not to change lanes into lane b,” the information acquired is analyzed to determine whether there is a risk for collision); and
notifying an occupant of the self-vehicle based on a prediction result in the predicting (see at least [0032]; “When there is a risk of collision as shown in FIG. 4B, the lane change assist system 10 of the host vehicle A warns the driver not to change lanes into lane b.”), wherein
the predicting includes predicting a possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle based on at least the indication state of the blinker of the self-vehicle, the indication state of the blinker of the peripheral vehicle, and the position of the peripheral vehicle with respect to the self-vehicle (see at least [0027]; “Based on the surrounding vehicle information collected by the surrounding information management unit 5 in step 6, the vehicle surrounding situation prediction unit 6 predicts the road conditions around the vehicle when the vehicle changes lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the turn indicator 1b detected in step 1 (step 7),” the surrounding vehicle information includes both information of the host-vehicle and of the surrounding vehicles, and the road condition information corresponds to the risk of collision).
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) 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yusuke, as applied to claim 2 above, in view of US-20190232958 (hereinafter, “Deng”).
Regarding claim 3 Yusuke discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Yusuke does not disclose wherein in a case where the peripheral vehicle is located within a first range on the first side or within a second range on the second side with respect to the self-vehicle, the blinker of the self-vehicle indicates the second side, and the blinker of the peripheral vehicle indicates the first side,
the prediction unit predicts that there is no possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle
Deng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein in a case where the peripheral vehicle is located within a first range on the first side or within a second range (see at least fig. 3C, the lane 205c corresponds to a second range on the second side, each lane corresponds to a position range) on the second side with respect to the self-vehicle, the blinker of the self-vehicle indicates the second side, and the blinker of the peripheral vehicle indicates the first side (see at least Fig. 3C; vehicle 101 is turning to the right which corresponds to the second side, vehicle 200 is located to the right (second side) and is determined as going straight (which is the first side of the host vehicle), however it would be obvious that if a vehicle is determined to be turning (to either of its right or left side), the paths would not cross),
the prediction unit predicts that there is no possibility of collision (see at least [0067]; “The processing unit 110 may predict that there is a possibility of collision for a pair in which the courses of both the vehicles intersect or coincide with each other among pairs of the three courses 901S, 901R, and 901L predicted for the self-vehicle 100 and the three courses 902S, 902R, and 902L predicted for the peripheral vehicle RV, and predict that there is no possibility of collision for the other pairs,” if paths do not intersect collision is zero) between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle (see at least [0041]; “Because the example paths 210h, 210a do not cross, the risk of a collision between the host vehicle 101 and the target 200 is low. Thus, the computer 105 can determine not to perform extensive threat analysis on the target 200,” the level of risk for collision is negligible and no threat analysis is needed, this corresponds to the zero risk of collision of applicant since both mean the paths do not intersect).
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 Yusuke with the prediction possibility of Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of focusing computing energy on vehicles with more likely chances of collision (see at least Deng; [0001]).
Regarding claim 4 Yusuke discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Yusuke does not disclose wherein in a case where the peripheral vehicle is located within a second range on the second side with respect to the self-vehicle and the blinker of the peripheral vehicle indicates the first side…the prediction unit predicts that there is no possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle; or
in a case where the peripheral vehicle is located within the second range on the second side with respect to the self-vehicle, the blinker of the self-vehicle indicates the first side, and the blinker of the peripheral vehicle indicates the first side or the second side, the prediction unit predicts that there is no possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle
Deng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein in a case where the peripheral vehicle is located within a second range on the second side with respect to the self-vehicle (see at least fig. 3C, the lane 205c corresponds to a second range on the second side, each lane corresponds to a position range) and the blinker of the peripheral vehicle indicates the first side…the prediction unit predicts that there is no possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle (see at least Fig. 3C; vehicle 101 is turning to the right which corresponds to the second side, vehicle 200 is located to the right (second side) and is determined as going straight (which is the first side of the host vehicle), however it would be obvious that if a vehicle is determined to be turning (to either of its right or left side), the paths would not cross and the collision risk would still be negligible and no warning would be necessary. Additionally, this claim does not contain information as to the state of the self-vehicle and it can therefore be in any state under broadest reasonable interpretation); or
in a case where the peripheral vehicle is located within the second range on the second side with respect to the self-vehicle (see at least fig. 3C, the lane 205c corresponds to a second range on the second side, each lane corresponds to a position range) , the blinker of the self-vehicle indicates the first side, and the blinker of the peripheral vehicle indicates the first side or the second side, the prediction unit predicts that there is no possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle (see at least Fig. 3C; vehicle 101 is turning to the right which corresponds to the second side, vehicle 200 is located to the right (second side) and is determined as going straight (which is the first side of the host vehicle), however it would be obvious that any path that does not cross would have the same result. If vehicle 101 turns left (first side), and the peripheral vehicle 200 turns right (second side) the paths do not collide therefore no possibility of 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 Yusuke with the prediction possibility of Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of focusing computing energy on vehicles with more likely chances of collision (see at least Deng; [0001]).
Regarding claim 5 Yusuke discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Yusuke does not disclose wherein in a case where the peripheral vehicle is located within a first range on the first side with respect to the self-vehicle and the blinker of the self-vehicle indicates the first side, the prediction unit predicts that there is no possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle.
Deng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein in a case where the peripheral vehicle is located within a first range on the first side with respect to the self-vehicle and the blinker of the self-vehicle indicates the first side, the prediction unit predicts that there is no possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle (see at least fig. 3C it would be obvious that while Fig. 3C shows a different example, that if the vehicle paths do not intersect the possibility of collision is negligible and no warning is output. The claim does not specify the state of the blinker of the peripheral vehicle it would be obvious if the self-vehicle turned left at an intersection, the paths would not intersect if the peripheral vehicle turned right (second side).
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 Yusuke with the prediction possibility of Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of focusing computing energy on vehicles with more likely chances of collision (see at least Deng; [0001]).
Regarding claim 6 Yusuke discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Yusuke does not disclose wherein in a case where the peripheral vehicle is located within a third range ahead of the self-vehicle, the blinker of the self-vehicle indicates the second side, and the blinker of the peripheral vehicle indicates the second side, the prediction unit predicts that there is no possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle.
Deng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein in a case where the peripheral vehicle is located within a third range ahead of the self-vehicle (see at least fig. 3A and 3B, the lane 205b corresponds to a third range ahead of the vehicle, each lane corresponds to a position range), the blinker of the self-vehicle indicates the second side, and the blinker of the peripheral vehicle indicates the second side, the prediction unit predicts that there is no possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle (see at least [0039]; “FIG. 3A illustrates an example intersection in which a target 200 is turning away from the host vehicle 101. The host vehicle 101 has an example path 210h that extends from the roadway lane 205a, the current position of the host vehicle 101, to the roadway lane 205c, i.e., a left-hand tum. The target 200 has an example path 210a that extends from the roadway lane 205b, the current position of the target 200, to the roadway lane 205d. In the example of FIG. 3A, the risk of a collision between the host vehicle 101 and the target 200 is low because the example paths 210h, 210a do not cross, and thus the computer 105 can determine not to perform extensive threat analysis on the target 200.”).
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 Yusuke with the prediction possibility of Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of focusing computing energy on vehicles with more likely chances of collision (see at least Deng; [0001]).
Regarding claim 7 Yusuke discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Yusuke does not disclose wherein in a case where the peripheral vehicle is located within a third range ahead of the self-vehicle, the blinker of the self-vehicle does not indicate a direction or indicates the first side, and the blinker of the peripheral vehicle does not indicate a direction or indicates the first side, the prediction unit predicts that there is no possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle.
Deng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein in a case where the peripheral vehicle is located within a third range ahead of the self-vehicle, the blinker of the self-vehicle does not indicate a direction or indicates the first side (see at least fig. 3F, the lane 205b corresponds to a third range ahead of the vehicle, each lane corresponds to a position range), and the blinker of the peripheral vehicle does not indicate a direction or indicates the first side, the prediction unit predicts that there is no possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle (see at least [0045]; “Fig. 3F illustrates an example intersection…the computer can detect the target 200 and determine whether to perform extensive threat analysis and actuate one or more components 120 to avoid the target 200. The risk of collision between the host vehicle 101 and the target 200 is low at least because the host vehicle and the target 200 remain in their respective roadway lanes 205a, 205b”).
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 Yusuke with the prediction possibility of Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of focusing computing energy on vehicles with more likely chances of collision (see at least Deng; [0001]).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yusuke, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of WO2020202367A1 (hereinafter, “Koga”)
Regarding claim 9 Yusuke discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Yusuke does not disclose further comprising a determination unit configured to determine whether or not the peripheral vehicle has performed a lane change based on a traveling track of the peripheral vehicle included in the peripheral vehicle information, wherein
in a case where the blinker of the peripheral vehicle continuously indicates a direction even after completion of a lane change of the peripheral vehicle, the prediction unit predicts a possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle not based on the indication state of the blinker of the peripheral vehicle.
Koga, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising a determination unit configured to determine whether or not the peripheral vehicle has performed a lane change based on a traveling track of the peripheral vehicle included in the peripheral vehicle information (see at least [0018-0019]; “First, the control unit 101 acquires and stores information on the direction in which the vehicle is facing (direction information), speed information, and acceleration information from the direction sensor 115 (S301). Next, it is determined whether the vehicle is currently stopped by referring to the speed information or the like (S302). If the vehicle is not stopped, the direction information is acquired again to identify the direction of travel of the vehicle 201 itself (303). Then, the direction stored in step S301 when the turn signal was turned on is compared with the current traveling direction determined in step S303 (S305). If the difference between the two compared directions exceeds a predetermined angle, it is determined that cornering has been completed…If the turn signal is not turned off within a predetermined time after the cornering is completed, the turn signal forgetting to turn off information 151 is set (for example, turned on) (S310).”, wherein
in a case where the blinker of the peripheral vehicle continuously indicates a direction even after completion of a lane change of the peripheral vehicle, the prediction unit predicts a possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle not based on the indication state of the blinker of the peripheral vehicle (see at least [0021]; “The turn signal forgetting information is generated by the vehicle 201 and transmitted to the server 211 via the antenna 210 together with other status information such as the vehicle's position, direction, speed, and turn signal operation status,” and [0025]; “In step S410, it is determined whether one of a pair of oncoming vehicles is traveling straight and the other is a vehicle that may cross the traveling direction of the oncoming vehicle. In principle, the decision as to whether to go straight through the intersection or turn in any direction is based on the blinker operation status included in the received status information. However, as an exception, a vehicle determined in step S409 to have forgotten to turn off its turn signal is treated as a vehicle going straight. In step S410, it is determined that a vehicle entering the intersection from one direction is a straight-moving vehicle, and a vehicle entering the intersection from the other direction is a vehicle crossing the direction of travel of an oncoming straight-moving vehicle,” if a turn signal is determined to be in error the path of the people is instead determined on the perceived direction of travel, based on this it can be determined whether the pair of vehicles intersect and therefore have a probability of 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 Yusuke with the erroneous blinker detection of Koga. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving traffic safety (see at least Koga; [0007]).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yusuke in view of Deng, as applied to claim 3 and 6 above, in further view of US-20200247398 (hereinafter, “Miyamoto”).
Regarding claim 10 Yusuke in view of Deng renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 3. Yusuke does not disclose wherein the first range is a fan-shaped range located on the first side with respect to the self-vehicle and defined by a predetermined distance and a predetermined angle, and
the second range is a fan-shaped range located on the second side with respect to the self-vehicle and defined by a predetermined distance and a predetermined angle.
Miyamoto, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first range is a fan-shaped range located on the first side with respect to the self-vehicle and defined by a predetermined distance and a predetermined angle (see at least Fig. 3; an external vehicle is able to be detected in three separate ranges, one ahead, one to the right and one to the left, all are denoted by their own angle), and
the second range is a fan-shaped range located on the second side with respect to the self-vehicle and defined by a predetermined distance and a predetermined angle (see at least Fig. 3; an external vehicle is able to be detected in three separate ranges, one ahead, one to the right and one to the left, all are denoted by their own angle). Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the range of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
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 Yusuke with the three detection ranges of Miyamoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of detecting objects before the vehicles are fairly close (see at least Miyamoto; [0006]).
Regarding claim 11 Yusuke in view of Deng renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 6. Yusuke does not disclose wherein the third range is a fan-shaped range located ahead of the self-vehicle and defined by a predetermined distance and a predetermined angle.
Miyamoto, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the third range is a fan-shaped range located ahead of the self-vehicle and defined by a predetermined distance and a predetermined angle (see at least Fig. 3; an external vehicle is able to be detected in three separate ranges, one ahead, one to the right and one to the left, all are denoted by their own angle). Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the range of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
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 Yusuke with the three detection ranges of Miyamoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of detecting objects before the vehicles are fairly close (see at least Miyamoto; [0006]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20230282112 teaches a system and method for intersection collision avoidance wherein potential collisions or conflicts between vehicles at an intersection may be determined based in part on turn signals of the vehicles within the intersection.
US-9688273 teaches a system and method for warning a vehicle driver of a potential collision when turning at or near an intersection, wherein the paths of the host vehicle and remote vehicles are used to determine the predicted paths and risk of potential collision.
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
2/10/26