DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This office action is in response to application with case number 18/999,215 filed on 12/23/2024, in which claims 1-5 are presented for examination.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-223218, filed on 12/28/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 12/23/2024 has/have been received and considered.
Examiner Notes
5. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP §2163.06). Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1-5
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
8. The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
9. Claim(s) 1-5 is/are directed to an apparatus.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-5 is/are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
10. 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. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c).
11. Independent claim(s) 1 include(s) limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]). Claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
a remote monitoring apparatus for monitoring an operation of a vehicle based on values set for one or more parameters related to automated driving of the vehicle, the remote monitoring apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store in advance first information indicating values of the one or more parameters transmitted from the vehicle at a first timing; and
a controller configured to:
compare, upon acquiring second information indicating values of the one or more parameters transmitted from the vehicle at a second timing later than the first timing, the first information stored in the memory with the second information [mental process/step]; and
generate update information indicating that a value of a parameter has been updated according to a comparison result [mental process/step].
12. The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers steps that could be carried out in the human mind. For example, “compare, upon acquiring second information …” and “generate update information …” step(s) encompass(es) a user making observation, evaluation or judgement about data, could all be carried out in one’s mind. The same user looking at the data collected, could form a simple judgement and conclude whether to update the data based on the comparison. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
13. Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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.”
14. In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
a remote monitoring apparatus for monitoring an operation of a vehicle based on values set for one or more parameters related to automated driving of the vehicle, the remote monitoring apparatus comprising [generic linking to technical field, 2106.05(h)]:
a memory configured to store in advance first information indicating values of the one or more parameters transmitted from the vehicle at a first timing [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, Apply it 2106.05(f)]; and
a controller configured to [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, Apply it 2106.05(f)]:
compare, upon acquiring second information indicating values of the one or more parameters transmitted from the vehicle at a second timing later than the first timing, the first information stored in the memory with the second information [mental process/step]; and
generate update information indicating that a value of a parameter has been updated according to a comparison result [mental process/step].
15. 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.
16. Regarding the additional limitations of “a memory …” and “a controller” the examiner submits that these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
17. Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “a remote monitoring apparatus for monitoring an operation of a vehicle …” the Examiner submits that these limitation(s) is/are an attempt to generally link additional element(s) to a technological environment.
18. 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. see 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 – Step 2B
19. Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of “a memory …” and “a controller” using a vehicle controller to perform the evaluating… amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As discussed above, in regard to the additional limitations of “a remote monitoring apparatus for monitoring an operation of a vehicle …” the examiner submits that this/these limitation(s) is/are an attempt to generally link additional element(s) to a technological environment.
20. Dependent claim(s) 2-5 does/do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of 1.
21. Therefore, claim(s) 1-5 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
22. 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.
23. Claim(s) 1
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suyama et al. (JP-2022045502-A).
In regard to claim 1
, Suyama discloses a remote monitoring apparatus for monitoring an operation of a vehicle based on values set for one or more parameters related to automated driving of the vehicle, the remote monitoring apparatus comprising (See at least Fig.1, and [0019-0024]: The operation control system 600 [i.e., remote monitoring apparatus] is a system that remotely manages and monitors the operation status of the vehicle 200, and includes at least the vehicles 200A to 200C, a server (information processing device) 100, and a display device 170. The receiving unit 121 receives from the vehicle 200 a plurality of parameters related to the operation of the vehicle. Parameters related to the autonomous driving function [i.e., one or more parameters related to automated driving of the vehicle] are parameters related to functions that are necessary to realize autonomous driving):
a memory configured to store in advance first information indicating values of the one or more parameters transmitted from the vehicle at a first timing (See at least Fig. 1, and [0030-0031 & 0056]: The storage unit 190 [i.e., memory] stores various programs and data required for the operation of the server 100. The storage unit 190 includes a flash memory, or the like. A warning condition table 191 is stored in the storage unit 190 which stores parameters received from the vehicle 200 in association with the parameter state, warning condition, and priority. The parameters are transmitted at regular intervals. Examiner notes, as mentioned above, the parameters are stored in the warning condition table 191. Since the parameters are received at a regular interval, a at any given time, when the new parameters are received from the vehicle, the previous stored set of parameters is the first information indicating values of the one or more parameters transmitted from the vehicle at a first timing. That means, when new parameters arrive, the previous set has been stored in advance. The first timing is the time for receiving the previous set of parameters); and
a controller configured to (See at least Fig. 2, and [0023]: The server 100 includes a control unit 110 [i.e., controller]):
compare, upon acquiring second information indicating values of the one or more parameters transmitted from the vehicle at a second timing later than the first timing, the first information stored in the memory with the second information (See at least [0052]: When the state of a parameter changes, the administrator 400 checks the state inside or outside the vehicle, which helps to determine the cause of the change in the state of the parameter, i.e., the cause of the malfunction. Examiner notes, to determine whether the state of a parameter has changed or not, the current state of the parameter [i.e., second information indicating values of the one or more parameters transmitted from the vehicle at a second timing later than the first timing] must be necessarily compared with the previous state of the parameter [i.e., first information stored in the memory with the second information]); and
generate update information indicating that a value of a parameter has been updated according to a comparison result (See at least [0058]: Parameters that satisfy the warning conditions are displayed in a blinking manner or in an enlarged scale. Furthermore, if parameters cannot be received from the vehicle 200 due to a malfunction, the parameters displayed on the management screen may be displayed in gray. Examiner notes, the limitation above was interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Applicant' s specification and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art as generating an error when the parameters satisfy a warning condition and displaying the warning or the error on a screen. According to paragraphs 0054-0055 of Applicant’s disclosure, “the controller 21 of the remote monitoring apparatus 20 may create, as the update information D3, information indicating an error in relation to a parameter that is determined to have a difference in value in S6. […] Alternatively, if the controller 21 of the remote monitoring apparatus 20 generates an error message as the update information D3, it may control the display of the generated message on the display, which is the interface for output as the output interface 25 of the remote monitoring apparatus 20”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
24. 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.
25. Claim(s) 2-4
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suyama et al. (JP-2022045502-A) in view of Cheremushkina et al. (US-20180247541-A1).
In regard to claim 2
, Suyama discloses the remote monitoring apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the controller is configured to (See at least Fig. 2, and [0023]: The server 100 includes a control unit 110 [i.e., controller]):
determine whether there is a difference by comparing the values indicated by the first information with the values indicated by the second information for the one or more parameters (See at least [0052]: When the state of a parameter changes, the administrator 400 checks the state inside or outside the vehicle, which helps to determine the cause of the change in the state of the parameter, i.e., the cause of the malfunction. Examiner notes, to determine whether the state of a parameter has changed or not, the current state of the parameter [i.e., second information indicating values of the one or more parameters transmitted from the vehicle at a second timing later than the first timing] must be necessarily compared with the previous state of the parameter [i.e., first information stored in the memory with the second information]); and
generate the update information (See at least [0058]: Parameters that satisfy the warning conditions are displayed in a blinking manner or in an enlarged scale. Furthermore, if parameters cannot be received from the vehicle 200 due to a malfunction, the parameters displayed on the management screen is displayed in gray. Examiner notes, the limitation above was interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Applicant' s specification and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art as generating an error when the parameters satisfy a warning condition and displaying the warning or the error on a screen. According to paragraphs 0054-0055 of Applicant’s disclosure, “the controller 21 of the remote monitoring apparatus 20 may create, as the update information D3, information indicating an error in relation to a parameter that is determined to have a difference in value in S6. […] Alternatively, if the controller 21 of the remote monitoring apparatus 20 generates an error message as the update information D3, it may control the display of the generated message on the display, which is the interface for output as the output interface 25 of the remote monitoring apparatus 20”).
Suyama is silent on a corresponding time stamp indicating a latest time at which values of the one or more parameters are set in the vehicle is attached to each of the first information and the second information, and
compare a first time stamp attached to the first information with a second time stamp attached to the second information;
in a case in which the first time stamp and the second time stamp are different; and
in a case in which it is determined that there is a difference.
However, Cheremushkina teaches the road event maximum relative time constraint determination is based on a timestamp generated by each vehicle and reported along with, or just before or just after, the indication of the acceleration exceeding the threshold. The estimating computing device 126 makes the time constraint determination by comparing a timestamp of when the first report 502 [i.e., first time stamp] was generated relative to a timestamp of when the second report 506 [i.e., second time stamp] was generated (See at least Fig. 5, and [0048 & 0057]). Examiner notes, as mentioned above, a timestamp is associated with the report and the timestamps associated with the first and second report are compared to determine whether the timestamps are different or not.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Suyama, by incorporating the teachings of Cheremushkina, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that a time stamp is associated with the transmitted parameters of Suyama, and the timestamps are compared to determine whether they are different and warning conditions are displayed only when the timestamps are different.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Cheremushkina, automatically detecting and responding to address such detected dangerous road events and/or conditions in an efficient and intelligent manner (See at least [0003]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows to keep the passengers or goods safe.
In regard to claim 3
, Suyama, as modified by Cheremushkina, teaches the remote monitoring apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to:
select a predetermined parameter set in advance among the one or more parameters in a case in which the first time stamp and the second time stamp are different; and
compare a value indicated by the first information with a value indicated by the second information for the selected predetermined parameter.
Further, Cheremushkina teaches the road event maximum relative time constraint determination is based on a timestamp generated by each vehicle and reported along with, or just before or just after, the indication of the acceleration exceeding the threshold. The estimating computing device 126 makes the time constraint determination by comparing a timestamp of when the first report 502 [i.e., first time stamp] was generated relative to a timestamp of when the second report 506 [i.e., second time stamp] was generated. The estimating computing device 126 also determines that the first report 502 indicates a location [i.e., predetermined parameter set] that is within the maximum relative location constraint relative to the location indicated in the second report 506 (See at least Figs. 1, 5, and [0048 & 0057-0058]). Examiner notes, to determine whether the locations indicated by the first report is within the maximum relative location constraint relative to the location indicated in the second report, the locations must necessarily be compared.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Suyama, as modified by Cheremushkina, by further incorporating the teachings of Cheremushkina, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that a parameter, such as the location of the vehicle, is selected and the locations in the received reports are compared, when the timestamps of the reports are different.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Cheremushkina in regard to claim 2.
In regard to claim 4
, Suyama, as modified by Cheremushkina, teaches the remote monitoring apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to:
create, as the update information, information indicating a value indicated by the second information as a value of a parameter in a case in which it is determined that there is a difference between a value indicated by the first information and a value indicated by the second information for the parameter (See at least [0052 & 0058]: When the state of a parameter changes, the administrator 400 checks the state inside or outside the vehicle, which helps to determine the cause of the change in the state of the parameter, i.e., the cause of the malfunction. Parameters that satisfy the warning conditions are displayed in a blinking manner or in an enlarged scale. Examiner notes, to determine whether the state of a parameter has changed or not, the current state of the parameter [i.e., value indicated by the second information] must be necessarily compared with the previous state of the parameter [i.e., value indicated by the first information]. Furthermore, when the value of the second information is different and satisfies the warning condition, then a warning is displayed. That is, creating the update information by using information indicating a value indicated by the second information as a value of a parameter in a case in which it is determined that there is a difference between a value indicated by the first information and a value indicated by the second information for the parameter); and
control output of the created update information (See at least [0058]: Parameters that satisfy the warning conditions are displayed in a blinking manner or in an enlarged scale. Examiner notes, the limitation above was interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Applicant' s specification and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art as generating an error when the parameters satisfy a warning condition and displaying the warning or the error on a screen. According to paragraphs 0054-0055 of Applicant’s disclosure, “the controller 21 of the remote monitoring apparatus 20 may create, as the update information D3, information indicating an error in relation to a parameter that is determined to have a difference in value in S6. […] Alternatively, if the controller 21 of the remote monitoring apparatus 20 generates an error message as the update information D3, it may control the display of the generated message on the display, which is the interface for output as the output interface 25 of the remote monitoring apparatus 20.” As such, displaying the waning condition in a blinking manner is controlling output of the created update information).
26. Claim(s) 5
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suyama et al. (JP-2022045502-A) in view of Cheremushkina et al. (US-20180247541-A1) and further in view of Shostak et al. (US-20050192727-A1).
In regard to claim 5
, Suyama, as modified by Cheremushkina, teaches the remote monitoring apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to:
calculate, based on a difference in value, an amount of change that has occurred in actual traveling of the vehicle in relation to a parameter for which it is determined that there is the difference; and
control output of update information (See at least [0058]: Parameters that satisfy the warning conditions are displayed in a blinking manner or in an enlarged scale. Examiner notes, the limitation above was interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Applicant' s specification and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art as generating an error when the parameters satisfy a warning condition and displaying the warning or the error on a screen. According to paragraphs 0054-0055 of Applicant’s disclosure, “the controller 21 of the remote monitoring apparatus 20 may create, as the update information D3, information indicating an error in relation to a parameter that is determined to have a difference in value in S6. […] Alternatively, if the controller 21 of the remote monitoring apparatus 20 generates an error message as the update information D3, it may control the display of the generated message on the display, which is the interface for output as the output interface 25 of the remote monitoring apparatus 20”).
Further, Cheremushkina teaches the estimating computing device 126 also determines that the first report 502 indicates a location that is within the maximum relative location constraint relative to the location indicated in the second report 506. Having both vehicle locations, the estimating computing device 126 then determine that the vehicle locations are less than the maximum relative location constraint apart (See at least Fig. 1, and [0058]). Examiner notes, to determine that the vehicle locations are less than the maximum relative location constraint apart, an amount of change that has occurred in actual traveling of the vehicle must be necessarily calculated. As such, Cheremushkina teaches calculating, based on a difference in value, an amount of change that has occurred in actual traveling of the vehicle in relation to a parameter for which it is determined that there is the difference.
Suyama, as modified by Cheremushkina, is silent on control output of information indicating the calculated amount of change.
However, Shostak teaches the the fuel and oil levels, engine temperature, battery condition, the status of seatbelts, doors, brakes, lights, high beams, and turn signals as well as fuel economy, distance traveled [i.e., information indicating the calculated amount of change], average speed, distance to empty, etc. are displayed. As such, Shostak teaches controlling output of information indicating the calculated amount of change, where the distance traveled is the calculated amount of change between the locations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Suyama, as modified by Cheremushkina, by incorporating the teachings of Cheremushkina and Shostak, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that the difference between the locations indicated by the first and second reports is calculated and the calculated distance, is displayed.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Cheremushkina in regard to claim 2.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Shostak, to minimize breakdowns on the road and to notify the operator and a service facility of the pending failure so that it is prevented (See at least [0032-0033]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows to keep the vehicle running in an optimized condition.
Conclusion
27. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Phillips et al. (US-20080027590-A1) teaches a method for enhancing operational efficiency of a remote vehicle using a diagnostic behavior.
28. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Preston J Miller whose telephone number is (703)756-1582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
29. 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.
30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571) 272-6011. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
31. 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.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661