DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This is the First Action On the Merits (FAOM). The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application JP2023-215097 filed in Japan on 12/20/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 1, 8, and 15, “a part of control operation” should instead read “a part of a control operation”
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
(a) “a controller” that operates and extracts, in Claim 8, (a) “a controller” that operates and extracts, in Claim 8,
The limitation(s) invoke 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) use the generic placeholder “controller” that is coupled with the above functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and without the generic placeholder being preceded by a structural modifier.
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. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
(a) specification ¶0021 states that the controller may be one or more processors, one or more dedicated circuits, or a combination 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15, the limitation of “operating in a plurality of pseudo situations by a mimic program” (or “operate by the mimic program in a plurality of pseudo situations” for Claim 8) renders the claims indefinite. The “mimic program” is stated to execute “a part of control operation by a control program for controlling travel of the vehicle.” However, the scope of the program is indefinite, as it is not clear whether the “part of control” actually pertains to vehicle travel control, or is merely controlling the program (such as loading information or launching the program, or something else, with “control program for controlling travel of the vehicle” being intended use). Additionally, it is not clear how the word “mimic” limits the program, and whether this is to be interpreted as another simulation (i.e. mimicking of the real world), or whether it refers to something else. Additionally, the term “pseudo situations” is not clear, as it is not clear whether “situation” is being used in the same manner as “situations of a surrounding environment in which a vehicle travels” or alternatively is talking about other situations such as states of the computer or control program or something else. It is also unclear what is “pseudo” about the situations (pseudo being given its plain and ordinary meaning of “not actually but having the appearance of” as the specification does not appear to contain any other definition or description of what a pseudo situation is). The limitation and claims as a whole are therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation and claims are interpreted as the mimic program performing a first simulation of possible driving control actions (pseudo situations) which is different from the second simulation that is performed on the extracted situation/action, as best understood in view of the disclosure.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 1, 8, or 15 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(101 Analysis - Step 1 - Statutory Category) Regarding Claims 1-20, the claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of subject matter as the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I - Judicial Exception) Regarding Independent Claim 1, the claim recites a method of operating an information processing apparatus, the method comprising:
operating in a plurality of pseudo situations by a mimic program that executes, according to a part of situations of a surrounding environment in which a vehicle travels, a part of control operation by a control program for controlling travel of the vehicle according to the situations; and
extracting, from the plurality of pseudo situations, a first pseudo situation in which the vehicle and an object exhibit a predetermined state, for a simulation process by the control program,
wherein in the simulation process, the control operation by the control program is executed in the first pseudo situation.
The limitations indicated in BOLD above, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are an abstract idea of a mental process, capable of being performed in a human mind or manually, using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Particularly, a person is capable of mentally or manually performing a method, the method comprising:
operating in a plurality of pseudo situations according to a part of situations of a surrounding environment in which a vehicle travels (for example a driver mentally considering plural possible actions (swerving left or right or braking) in response to a situation in the front part of a vehicle), a part of control operation for controlling travel of the vehicle according to the situations (the possible actions as part of overall driving of the vehicle); and
extracting, from the plurality of pseudo situations, a first pseudo situation in which the vehicle and an object exhibit a predetermined state (the driver deciding on the action which will cause a predetermined margin of space between the vehicle and an obstacle ahead such as a stopped vehicle), for a simulation process by the control program (the action being intended for some further simulation. It is noted that the language “for a simulation…” is only intended use),
wherein in the simulation process, the control operation by the control program is executed in the first pseudo situation (the “wherein” clause further describing the intended use of the extracted action. A person can intend an action to be further simulated as a control operation by a control program based on the pseudo situation).
Thus, the claim recite an abstract idea.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II - Practical Application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitations indicated with underlining above are additional elements in the claim. That is, the additional elements in the claim are operating of an information processing apparatus, and recitations of the mimic program executing and control operation by a control program.
These elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, recited at a high level of generality. The claims do not provide an improvement in computer hardware or computing technology. Therefore, the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea using generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the ordered combination does not add anything already present when the elements are considered separately and merely recites plural steps performed by a processor at a high level of generality.
(101 Analysis - Step 2B - Significantly More / Inventive Concept) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As above, the additional elements in the claim are operating of an information processing apparatus, and recitations of the mimic program executing and control operation by a control program.
For the same reasons as presented above, these elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, at a high level of generality, such that the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the functions using a generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, such elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see MPEP 2106.05(d) computer functions which are recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity include: ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to amount to significantly more for the same reasons presented above as the ordered combination is merely a multi-step mental process applied by generic computer components.
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent Claims 8 and 15 recite the same abstract idea. The Claims recite additional elements of a memory and controller in Claim 8, and non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program in Claim 15. These are recitations of generic computer components at a high level of generality and therefore the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more for the same reasons as presented above with respect to Claim 1. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not recite further limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 recite further details of the part of the situations. These are further details of the abstract idea as a person can consider, e.g. the speed of an object (a slow-moving vehicle ahead vs stopped vehicle) and road surface (driver knowing braking distance will be longer for slippery surface). The claims do not recite any new additional elements.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite the part of the control operation is acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle on a predetermined travel route, which is further details of the abstract idea as a person can control or think of acceleration and deceleration for a particular commute. The claims do not recite any new additional elements.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 recite the predetermined state is that a closest approach distance between the vehicle and the object satisfies a first criterion. This is a further detail of the abstract idea as a person can predict a closest approach for two actions. The claims do not recite any new additional elements.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 recite performing the simulation process. This is a further detail of the abstract idea as a person can envision the particular driving action before performing it. The claims do not recite any new additional elements.
Claims 7 and 14 recite wherein in the simulation process, whether a closest approach distance between the vehicle and the object satisfies a second criterion is determined. This is a further detail of the abstract idea as a person can envision the particular driving action and determine whether a second closest approach (such as a 0 distance approach – a collision) will occur, before it happens. The claims do not recite any new additional elements.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 11-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Publication US2022/0348198A1 (Kamoshita et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Kamoshita et al. discloses a method (see Figure 4) of operating an information processing apparatus (see Figure 1, [0024-0025] performed by processor of trajectory generation device), the method comprising:
operating in a plurality of pseudo situations (see [0046] in S30 and S40 evaluating plural trajectory candidates) by a mimic program (see [0025] implemented as program from memory) that executes, according to a part of situations of a surrounding environment in which a vehicle travels (see Figure 4, [0046] according to “recognized information” from S10 which [0020] includes LIDAR and camera image data), a part of control operation by a control program for controlling travel of the vehicle according to the situations (see Figure 4, the evaluation of S40 being part of an overall control operation, which [0047] generates fixed future trajectory which [0054] is driven by ECU 40 [0021] autonomous driving or assistance); and
extracting, from the plurality of pseudo situations, a first pseudo situation in which the vehicle and an object exhibit a predetermined state (see [0046-0047] S40 and S50, extract/select acceptable trajectory candidate as the “provisional future trajectory”, and see [0039] finding trajectory in which closest distance between the vehicle A and the other object is at or above a preset margin (a predetermined state)), for a simulation process by the control program (see Figure 4, the provisional future trajectory further being optimized/fixed in S60, [0041], e.g. optimizing to minimize jerk (mathematically simulating jerk) or performing constrained optimization to constrain within area (spatial simulation)),
wherein in the simulation process, the control operation by the control program is executed in the first pseudo situation (see [0041] the fixing/optimization being of the provisional future trajectory (the first pseudo situation)).
Regarding Claim 4, Kamoshita et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the part of the control operation is acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle (see [0021]) on a predetermined travel route (see [0054] ECU executes fixed trajectory).
Regarding Claim 5, Kamoshita et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined state is that a closest approach distance between the vehicle and the object satisfies a first criterion (see [0039] closest distance between the vehicle A and the other object is at or above a preset margin).
Regarding Claim 6, Kamoshita et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising the simulation process (see Figure 4, including S60).
Regarding Claims 8, 11-13, 15, and 18-20, all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claims 1 and 4-6, respectively. Claims 8 and 11-13 pertain to an apparatus corresponding to the method of Claims 1 and 4-6, respectively. Claims 15, and 18-20 pertain to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions corresponding to the method of Claims 1 and 4-6, respectively. Claims 8, 11-13, 15, and 18-20 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claims 1 and 4-6, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2022/0348198A1 (Kamoshita et al.) in view of Publication US2023/0339459A1 (Chi-Johnston et al.).
Regarding Claim 2, Kamoshita et al. does not explicitly recite the method according to claim 1, wherein the part of the situations includes a movement speed of the object, an acceleration and deceleration of the object, a movement route of the object, a blind spot location of the vehicle, a dimension of the vehicle, and/or a shape of the vehicle.
However, Chi-Johnston et al. teaches situation data that is useful to simulate vehicle travel (see Figure 4),
wherein the part of the situations includes a movement speed of the object (see [0071] kinematic data of object [0072] e.g. speed), an acceleration and deceleration of the object (see [0071] kinematic data of object [0072] e.g. acceleration and deceleration), a movement route of the object (see [0071] path of object), a blind spot location of the vehicle, a dimension of the vehicle, and/or a shape of the vehicle.
Examiner's note: since the claim uses the conjunction "or," only one of the recited alternatives is necessary in the prior art to read on this claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulation(s) of Kamoshita et al. to further consider situation data as taught by Chi-Johnston et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving driving safety (see Chi-Johnston et al., [0019]).
Regarding Claim 3, Kamoshita et al. does not explicitly recite the method according to claim 2, wherein the part of the situations further includes visibility and/or a road surface condition.
However, Chi-Johnston et al. teaches the situation data as above,
wherein the part of the situations further includes visibility and/or a road surface condition (see [0071] road condition, [0077] e.g. ice patches, flooding, slipperiness).
Examiner's note: since the claim uses the conjunction "or," only one of the recited alternatives is necessary in the prior art to read on this claim.
The motivation to combine Kamoshita et al. and Chi-Johnston et al. was provided in the rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claims 9, 10, 16, and 17 all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claims 2 and 3, respectively. Claims 9 and 10 pertain to an apparatus corresponding to the method of Claims 2 and 3, respectively. Claims 16 and 17 pertain to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions corresponding to the method of Claims 2 and 3, respectively. Claims 9, 10, 16, and 17 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claims 2 and 3, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2022/0348198A1 (Kamoshita et al.) in view of Published Application US2024/0317313A1 (Iida et al.).
Regarding Claim 7, Kamoshita et al. does not explicitly recite the method according to claim 6, wherein in the simulation process, whether a closest approach distance between the vehicle and the object satisfies a second criterion is determined.
However, Iida et al. teaches a technique to correct a trajectory,
wherein in the simulation process, whether a closest approach distance between the vehicle and the object satisfies a second criterion is determined (see Figure 9, [0118], S108, The correction module 107 further corrects the corrected path 81 such that the distance to the obstacle detected anew is equal to or greater than the threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fixing/optimization of the trajectory of Kamoshita et al. to include the criteria as taught by Iida et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the usefulness of the control system to extend to parking operations and improve user convenience (see Iida et al., [0006]).
Regarding Claim 14, Kamoshita et al. does not explicitly recite the information processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the controller is configured to determine, in the simulation process, whether a closest approach distance between the vehicle and the object satisfies a second criterion.
However, Iida et al. teaches a technique to correct a trajectory,
wherein the controller is configured to determine, in the simulation process, whether a closest approach distance between the vehicle and the object satisfies a second criterion (see Figure 9, [0118], S108, The correction module 107 further corrects the corrected path 81 such that the distance to the obstacle detected anew is equal to or greater than the threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fixing/optimization of the trajectory of Kamoshita et al. to include the criteria as taught by Iida et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the usefulness of the control system to extend to parking operations and improve user convenience (see Iida et al., [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669