DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed 7/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 7-10, and 14-17 are amended. Claim 21 is newly added. Claims 1-21 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 5/1/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, with respect to the cited prior art not teaching the amended features have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee (US 20220032904 A1) and Jia (US 20240010129 A1).
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 1-21 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.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “the first controller has a first requirement that is higher than a second requirement of the second controller, and the second sensor data meets the first requirement rather than the second requirement.” The claim limitation is unclear because when the second sensor data meets the higher requirement of the two requirements, one would assume that it satisfies both requirements, however, the term “rather” makes it seem that the requirements are mutually exclusive. For example, paragraph [0064] recites “the first controller 210 may have a high safety requirement, high real time processing requirement, and low evolution speed requirement, while the second controller 220 may have a low safety requirement, low real time processing requirement, and high evolution speed requirement.” Based on these example requirements, a sensor that satisfies the requirements of the first controller would inherently satisfy the more lenient requirements of the second controller. Therefore, how does the second sensor data meet the first requirement rather than the second requirement? For examination purposes, it is interpreted that the second sensor data meets the first requirement and also meets the second requirement. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 are also rejected because they do not resolve the deficiencies of the parent claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220032904 A1) in view of Jia (US 20240010129 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Lee teaches
A vehicle system comprising: a first sensor; a second sensor; a first controller connected to the first sensor and the second sensor; (“An advanced driver assistant system (ADAS) SoC may include an agent, a PCIe communicator, a DSM, a safety manager, a navigation assistant, and a synchronization manager. An ADAS may include a light detection and ranging (lidar), a radio detection and ranging (radar), a camera, a GPS device, and a data provider.” See at least [0192]; Also see at least figs. 8 and 9 (provided below) illustrating the ADAS SoC (first controller) connected to the sensors (e.g., LIDAR, RADAR, Camera))
PNG
media_image1.png
640
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
444
748
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and a second controller connected to the first controller, (“the CID SoC and the ADAS SoC are connected to each other.” See at least [0193], wherein the CID SoC is the second controller.)
wherein the first controller is configured to utilize first sensor data from the first sensor to perform a first operation, (“An ADAS may include a light detection and ranging (lidar), a radio detection and ranging (radar), a camera, a GPS device, and a data provider.” See at least [0192]; “The ADAS SoC may i) combine information generated from the ADAS and the CID, ii) detect and predict risk factors, iii) generate a vehicle control signal and transmit the vehicle control signal to the car controller.” See at least [0201])
wherein the second controller is configured to utilize second sensor data from the second sensor to perform a second operation via the first controller, wherein the second sensor is not connected to the second controller such that the second controller receives the second sensor data from the second sensor via the first controller, (“i) When network and GPS connections are disconnected due to travel through a tunnel during driving on a navigation route, a navigation app requests corrected navigation information to the navigation assistant of the ADAS SoC through the agent in order to continuously update the route. ii) Upon receipt of an information update request from the CID navigator, the navigation assistant of the ADAS SoC receives ADAS information (e.g., information of the radar, the lidar, and the camera) from the ADAS provider, calculates a current speed and position, and transmits information about the current sped and position to the navigation app of the CID SoC through the agent. In the case of autonomous driving, the navigation assistant also calculates whether lane change is necessary and, when the lane change is necessary, transmits a lane change command to the CAN manager of the car controller through the agent. iii) The navigation app of the CID SoC updates a screen based on the information received from the navigation assistant of the ADAS SoC. When the network and GPS connections are disconnected, the navigation app of the CID SOC continuously requests information to the ADAS SoC to update the screen.” See at least [0225])
Lee does not explicitly teach, but Jia teaches
and wherein the first controller has a first requirement that is higher than a second requirement of the second controller, and the second sensor data meets the first requirement rather than the second requirement. (“a function safety level required by the intelligent driving domain control unit for controlling the sensor is ASIL B (that is, a safety level is B), and a control requirement of the human-machine interaction domain control unit for the sensor is QM (QM represents a quality control level, and there is no requirement on a safety level), a safety level requirement of the intelligent driving domain control unit is higher than a safety level requirement of the human-machine interaction domain control unit. The synchronization signal and the control signal of the intelligent driving domain control unit are transmitted to an external sensor connected to the sensor interface unit, in other words, the sensor is taken over by the intelligent driving domain control unit with a high priority.” See at least [0141], wherein the intelligent driving domain control unit is equivalent to the first controller and the human-machine interaction domain control unit is equivalent to the second controller.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Lee to further include the teachings of Jia with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure high safety with improved sensor priority. (See at least [0077] and [0203])
Regarding Claim 8,
Lee teaches
A method comprising: (“the method of controlling the CID SoC by the ADAS SoC may be performed” See at least [0224])
receiving, by a first controller connected to a first sensor and a second sensor, first sensor data from the first sensor and second sensor data from the second sensor; (“An advanced driver assistant system (ADAS) SoC may include an agent, a PCIe communicator, a DSM, a safety manager, a navigation assistant, and a synchronization manager. An ADAS may include a light detection and ranging (lidar), a radio detection and ranging (radar), a camera, a GPS device, and a data provider.” See at least [0192]; Also see at least figs. 8 and 9 illustrating the ADAS SoC (first controller) connected to the sensors (e.g., LIDAR, RADAR, Camera); “the navigation assistant of the ADAS SoC receives ADAS information (e.g., information of the radar, the lidar, and the camera) from the ADAS provider,” See at least [0225]))
utilizing, by the first controller, the first sensor data from the first sensor to perform a first operation; (“An ADAS may include a light detection and ranging (lidar), a radio detection and ranging (radar), a camera, a GPS device, and a data provider.” See at least [0192]; “The ADAS SoC may i) combine information generated from the ADAS and the CID, ii) detect and predict risk factors, iii) generate a vehicle control signal and transmit the vehicle control signal to the car controller.” See at least [0201])
and sending, by the first controller connected to a second controller, first controller data from the first controller to the second controller, wherein the first controller data from the first controller comprises the second sensor data from the second sensor such that the second controller performs a second operation using the second sensor data, (“i) When network and GPS connections are disconnected due to travel through a tunnel during driving on a navigation route, a navigation app requests corrected navigation information to the navigation assistant of the ADAS SoC through the agent in order to continuously update the route. ii) Upon receipt of an information update request from the CID navigator, the navigation assistant of the ADAS SoC receives ADAS information (e.g., information of the radar, the lidar, and the camera) from the ADAS provider, calculates a current speed and position, and transmits information about the current sped and position to the navigation app of the CID SoC through the agent. In the case of autonomous driving, the navigation assistant also calculates whether lane change is necessary and, when the lane change is necessary, transmits a lane change command to the CAN manager of the car controller through the agent. iii) The navigation app of the CID SoC updates a screen based on the information received from the navigation assistant of the ADAS SoC. When the network and GPS connections are disconnected, the navigation app of the CID SOC continuously requests information to the ADAS SoC to update the screen.” See at least [0225])
Lee does not explicitly teach, but Jia teaches
and wherein the first controller has a first requirement that is higher than a second requirement of the second controller, and the second sensor data meets the first requirement rather than the second requirement. (“a function safety level required by the intelligent driving domain control unit for controlling the sensor is ASIL B (that is, a safety level is B), and a control requirement of the human-machine interaction domain control unit for the sensor is QM (QM represents a quality control level, and there is no requirement on a safety level), a safety level requirement of the intelligent driving domain control unit is higher than a safety level requirement of the human-machine interaction domain control unit. The synchronization signal and the control signal of the intelligent driving domain control unit are transmitted to an external sensor connected to the sensor interface unit, in other words, the sensor is taken over by the intelligent driving domain control unit with a high priority.” See at least [0141], wherein the intelligent driving domain control unit is equivalent to the first controller and the human-machine interaction domain control unit is equivalent to the second controller.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Lee to further include the teachings of Jia with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure high safety with improved sensor priority. (See at least [0077] and [0203])
Regarding Claim 15,
Lee teaches
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon instructions executable by at least one processor to cause the at least one processor to perform a method comprising: (“In a firmware or software configuration, the methods according to the embodiments of the present disclosure may be implemented in the form of a module, a procedure, a function, or the like. Software code may be stored in a memory unit and executed by a processor. The memory unit is located at the interior or exterior of the processor and may transmit and receive data to and from the processor via various known means.” See at least [0248]; “The present disclosure described above may be implemented as a computer-readable code on a medium on which a program is recorded. The computer-readable medium includes all types of recording devices that store data readable by a computer system. Examples of the computer-readable medium includes hard disk drive (HDD), solid state disk (SSD), silicon disk drive (SDD), ROM, RAM, CD-ROM, magnetic tape, floppy disk, optical data storage device, and carrier wave (e.g., transmission over the Internet).” See at least [0253])
receiving, by a first controller connected to a first sensor and a second sensor, first sensor data from the first sensor and second sensor data from the second sensor; (“An advanced driver assistant system (ADAS) SoC may include an agent, a PCIe communicator, a DSM, a safety manager, a navigation assistant, and a synchronization manager. An ADAS may include a light detection and ranging (lidar), a radio detection and ranging (radar), a camera, a GPS device, and a data provider.” See at least [0192]; Also see at least figs. 8 and 9 illustrating the ADAS SoC (first controller) connected to the sensors (e.g., LIDAR, RADAR, Camera); “the navigation assistant of the ADAS SoC receives ADAS information (e.g., information of the radar, the lidar, and the camera) from the ADAS provider,” See at least [0225]))
utilizing, by the first controller, the first sensor data from the first sensor to perform a first operation; (“An ADAS may include a light detection and ranging (lidar), a radio detection and ranging (radar), a camera, a GPS device, and a data provider.” See at least [0192]; “The ADAS SoC may i) combine information generated from the ADAS and the CID, ii) detect and predict risk factors, iii) generate a vehicle control signal and transmit the vehicle control signal to the car controller.” See at least [0201])
and sending, by the first controller connected to a second controller, first controller data from the first controller, wherein the first controller data from the first controller comprises the second sensor data from the second sensor such that the second controller performs a second operation using the second sensor data, (“i) When network and GPS connections are disconnected due to travel through a tunnel during driving on a navigation route, a navigation app requests corrected navigation information to the navigation assistant of the ADAS SoC through the agent in order to continuously update the route. ii) Upon receipt of an information update request from the CID navigator, the navigation assistant of the ADAS SoC receives ADAS information (e.g., information of the radar, the lidar, and the camera) from the ADAS provider, calculates a current speed and position, and transmits information about the current sped and position to the navigation app of the CID SoC through the agent. In the case of autonomous driving, the navigation assistant also calculates whether lane change is necessary and, when the lane change is necessary, transmits a lane change command to the CAN manager of the car controller through the agent. iii) The navigation app of the CID SoC updates a screen based on the information received from the navigation assistant of the ADAS SoC. When the network and GPS connections are disconnected, the navigation app of the CID SOC continuously requests information to the ADAS SoC to update the screen.” See at least [0225])
Lee does not explicitly teach, but Jia teaches
wherein the first controller has a first requirement that is higher than a second requirement of the second controller, and the second sensor data meets the first requirement rather than the second requirement. (“a function safety level required by the intelligent driving domain control unit for controlling the sensor is ASIL B (that is, a safety level is B), and a control requirement of the human-machine interaction domain control unit for the sensor is QM (QM represents a quality control level, and there is no requirement on a safety level), a safety level requirement of the intelligent driving domain control unit is higher than a safety level requirement of the human-machine interaction domain control unit. The synchronization signal and the control signal of the intelligent driving domain control unit are transmitted to an external sensor connected to the sensor interface unit, in other words, the sensor is taken over by the intelligent driving domain control unit with a high priority.” See at least [0141], wherein the intelligent driving domain control unit is equivalent to the first controller and the human-machine interaction domain control unit is equivalent to the second controller.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Lee to further include the teachings of Jia with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure high safety with improved sensor priority. (See at least [0077] and [0203])
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16
Lee does not specifically teach
wherein the first controller is connected to the first sensor and the second sensor such that the first sensor data from the first sensor and the second sensor data from the second sensor are transmitted to the first controller unidirectionally.
However, Lee teaches the ADAS/sensors providing the data from the sensor to the first controller via a data provider (“The ADAS may include a lidar that detects the distance to an object and various physical properties of the object by projecting laser light to the target object, a radar that detects a remote target such as a ship, an aircraft, or rain cloud based on straightness and reflectivity of pulsed waves and provides information about the distance and direction of the target, a GPS device that calculates the current position of a user by receiving signals from GPS satellites, and a data provider that transmits ADAS information to the ADAS SoC.” See at least [0202]) and does not mention the controller sending the data from the sensors to the sensors and therefore it may be interpreted that the sensor data is transmitted unidirectionally.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Lee to exchange the data unidirectionally for improved system simplicity.
Regarding Claim 3,
Lee does not specifically teach
wherein the second controller is connected to the first controller such that first controller data from the first controller is transmitted to the second controller unidirectionally, and wherein the first controller data from the first controller comprises the second sensor data from the second sensor.
However, Lee teaches the ADAS SoC (first controller) transmitting speed and position data from the sensors to the CID SoC (second controller) (“ii) Upon receipt of an information update request from the CID navigator, the navigation assistant of the ADAS SoC receives ADAS information (e.g., information of the radar, the lidar, and the camera) from the ADAS provider, calculates a current speed and position, and transmits information about the current sped and position to the navigation app of the CID SoC through the agent.” See at least [0225]) and does not mention the CID SoC transmitting speed and position data to the ADAS SoC and therefore it may be interpreted that the speed and position data from the sensors is transmitted unidirectionally.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Lee to exchange the data unidirectionally for improved system simplicity.
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18,
Lee further teaches
wherein the first controller comprises a first system on chip (SoC), and wherein the second controller comprises a second SoC separated from the first SoC. (“a method of controlling a vehicle in a multi-system-on-chip (multi-SoC) system includes requesting information to a second SoC or an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) by a first SoC, receiving the information from the second SoC or the ADAS in response to the request, by the first SoC.” See at least [0007])
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 19,
Lee further teaches
wherein the first SoC comprises a safety-critical SoC, and wherein the second SoC comprises a non-safety-critical SoC. (“i) During autonomous driving, the driver is concentrating on an entertainment application (e.g., a video, a game, or the like) of the CID, and the ADAS SoC is monitoring the risk of accidents in real time through the safety manager. ii) When the safety manager of ADAS SoC detects an accident risk, the safety manager notifies the agent of the CID SoC of an event of the occurrence of the accident risk through the agent of the ADAS SoC. iii) The agent of the CID SoC discontinues the use of the entertainment application in the CID, displays a warning pop-up, and emits a warning sound. iv) When the accident risk disappears, the safety manager of the ADAS SoC transmits an event termination pop-up to the agent of the CID SoC to resume the use of the entertainment application.” See at least [0220], wherein the ADAS SoC is a safety-critical SoC and the CID SoC is a non-safety critical SoC.)
Regarding Claim 7,
Lee further teaches
wherein all sensors in the vehicle system are connected to the first controller. (See at least figs. 8 and 9 (provided above for claim 1) wherein all the of the sensors are connected to the ADAS.)
Regarding Claims 10 and 17,
Lee does not specifically teach
wherein the second controller is connected to the first controller such that the first controller data from the first controller is transmitted to the second controller unidirectionally.
However, Lee teaches the ADAS SoC (first controller) transmitting speed and position data from the sensors to the CID SoC (second controller) (“ii) Upon receipt of an information update request from the CID navigator, the navigation assistant of the ADAS SoC receives ADAS information (e.g., information of the radar, the lidar, and the camera) from the ADAS provider, calculates a current speed and position, and transmits information about the current sped and position to the navigation app of the CID SoC through the agent.” See at least [0225]) and does not mention the CID SoC transmitting speed and position data to the ADAS SoC and therefore it may be interpreted that the speed and position data from the sensors is transmitted unidirectionally.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Lee to exchange the data unidirectionally for improved system simplicity.
Regarding Claim 14,
Lee further teaches
wherein all sensors in a vehicle system are connected to the first controller. (See at least figs. 8 and 9 (provided above for claim 1) wherein all the of the sensors are connected to the ADAS.)
Regarding Claim 21,
Lee does not explicitly teach, but Jia teaches
wherein: the first requirement is a first safety requirement of the first controller and the second requirement is a second safety requirement of the second controller, (“a function safety level required by the intelligent driving domain control unit for controlling the sensor is ASIL B (that is, a safety level is B), and a control requirement of the human-machine interaction domain control unit for the sensor is QM (QM represents a quality control level, and there is no requirement on a safety level), a safety level requirement of the intelligent driving domain control unit is higher than a safety level requirement of the human-machine interaction domain control unit. The synchronization signal and the control signal of the intelligent driving domain control unit are transmitted to an external sensor connected to the sensor interface unit, in other words, the sensor is taken over by the intelligent driving domain control unit with a high priority.” See at least [0141], wherein the intelligent driving domain control unit is equivalent to the first controller and the human-machine interaction domain control unit is equivalent to the second controller.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of modified Lee to further include the teachings of Jia with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure high safety with improved sensor priority. (See at least [0077] and [0203])
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220032904 A1) in view of Jia (US 20240010129 A1) and Yen (US 20230339480 A1).
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 20,
Lee further teaches
wherein the first sensor comprises a safety-related sensor, (“iii) The safety manager of the ADAS SoC receives ADAS information from the ADAS data provider (e.g., information of the lidar, the radar, the camera, and the GPS), checks information about a currently driving lane, determine whether there is an accident risk due to a lane change when a lane change is necessary” See at least [0243])
Modified Lee does not explicitly teach, but Yen teaches
and wherein the second sensor comprises a non-safety-related sensor. (“the sensor 702 may include one or more non-critical sensors configured to measure input from an environment not associated with a critical task. For example, the sensor 702 may measure the state of a radio, a door, a seatbelt, a display screen, and the like. In some cases, separate cross connectors 720 may communicate non-critical sensor data and critical sensor data to the processors 716, 718. In other cases, one cross connector 720 may communicate both critical and non-critical sensor data to the processors 716, 718. In some embodiments, critical and non-critical sensors may be case-specific. For example, at slower speeds (e.g., such as when picking up children from school), the camera sensor may be a critical sensor as it can indicate the closeness of pedestrians or other obstacles. In such cases, long-range LiDAR sensors may be less critical. The opposite may be true when the vehicle is operating a highway speeds.” See at least [0131])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Lee to further include the teachings of Yen with a reasonable expectation of success to classify critical and non-critical sensors and tasks to improve prioritization of driving tasks for improved handling of faults and improved safety. (“can advantageously lead to an avoidance of drastic safety measures (e.g., ceasing operation of the autonomous vehicle or causing the vehicle to pull over), and improve operation of an autonomous vehicle.” See at least [0026]; Also see at least [0027-0028] and [0162])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhou (US 20230091758 A1) is pertinent because it discusses “vehicle sensor data processing system processes and fuses, by using a plurality of levels of control units, a signal sensed by a sensor, and a higher-level control unit makes a control decision based on received data of a plurality of types or a plurality of processing levels. In addition, a priority of a sensor may be further configured based on a vehicle function that needs to be implemented by the system, thereby implementing more stable and reliable vehicle control and ensuring safe driving while satisfying a delay requirement.” (Abstract)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karston G Evans whose telephone number is (571)272-8480. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571)270-3976. 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.
/KARSTON G. EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights