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 .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed on 3/7/2025. Claims 1-6 are currently pending.
Priority
1. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 3/7/2025 and 9/22/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
3. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
4. 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.
5. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations in Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are:
A position judging unit (Claims 1 and 5-6)
An abutment judging unit (Claims 1 and 5-6)
A direction judging unit (Claim 2)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
6. Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The disclosure does not describe the claimed functions of “a position judging unit configured to make a judgment whether a vehicle is present at a guide area including a guide having a recess-projection structure provided on a road surface,” “an abutment judging unit configured to make a judgment whether a wheel of the vehicle abuts on an obstacle using detection result,” and “a direction judging unit configured to judge a guiding direction defined by the guide on the basis of a direction of a load from the guide received by the wheel of the vehicle,” which is critical or essential to the practice of the invention. The omitted subject matter is critical for one of ordinary skill in the art to know what specific computer components may accomplish the claimed functionality. Any claim not specifically mentioned, including Claims 3-4, has been included based on its dependency.
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.
7. Claims 1-2 and 5-6 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned, including Claims 3-4, has been included based on its dependency.
8. Claims 1, 5 and 6 limitations includes “a position judging unit configured to make a judgment whether a vehicle is present at a guide area including a guide having a recess-projection structure provided on a road surface” and “an abutment judging unit configured to make a judgment whether a wheel of the vehicle abuts on an obstacle using detection result,” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The position judging unit and abutment judging unit are being interpreted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, as a traveling guide vehicle for assisting the steering the vehicle.
8. Claim 2 limitation includes “a direction judging unit configured to judge a guiding direction defined by the guide on the basis of a direction of a load from the guide received by the wheel of the vehicle,” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The direction judging unit are being interpreted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, as a sensor for detecting a load from the guide received by the wheel of the vehicle.
10. The disclosure does not explicitly define the structure of the position judging unit, abutment judging unit, and direction judging unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tominaga (JP 2002019603 A; already of record) in view of Akatsuka (US 20200198624 A1).
15. Regarding Claim 1, Tominaga teaches a system comprising: a position judging unit configured to make a judgment whether a vehicle is present at a guide area including a guide having a recess-projection structure provided on a road surface (Tominaga: [0008] and [0017] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the traveling guide vehicle judges whether a vehicle is present at a guide area based on the storage or retraction of the guide wheel.);
An abutment judging unit configured to make a judgment whether a wheel of the vehicle abuts on an obstacle using detection result… (Tominaga: [0050] The automatic traveling vehicle 10 engage with guide rails 12.);
And a controller configured to control running of the vehicle in response to result of the judgment by the position judging unit and result of the judgment by the abutment judging unit (Tominaga: [0010] and [0021] “The two guide rails are provided on the road and the two guide rails are provided” and “The signal generating means for generating a signal for causing the automatic traveling vehicle to perform automatic serpentine traveling is disposed between the two”),
And if the position judging unit judges that the vehicle is present at the guide area and if the abutment judging unit judges that the wheel of the vehicle abuts on the obstacle, the controller performs second control for causing the vehicle to run in such a manner as to follow the obstacle (Tominaga: [0015] and [0048] The stable joint steering is equivalent to the second control because the guide wheels are engaged with the guide rails.).
Tominaga fails to explicitly teach using detection result from a vehicle-mounted sensor mounted on the vehicle or using detection result from an external sensor located external to the vehicle; and wherein if the position judging unit judges that the vehicle is not present at the guide area and if the abutment judging unit judges that the wheel of the vehicle abuts on the obstacle, the controller performs first control for causing the vehicle to run in such a manner as to follow a target track or for stopping the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Akatsuka teaches using detection result from a vehicle-mounted sensor mounted on the vehicle or using detection result from an external sensor located external to the vehicle (Akatsuka: [0072] and [0081] Surrounding situation sensor 32);
And wherein if the position judging unit judges that the vehicle is not present at the guide area and if the abutment judging unit judges that the wheel of the vehicle abuts on the obstacle, the controller performs first control for causing the vehicle to run in such a manner as to follow a target track or for stopping the vehicle (Akatsuka: [0067], [0095], and [0096] “When the remaining distance DR to the target stop position PT is long, the vehicle guidance control can be executed”).
Tominaga and Akatsuka are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tominaga to incorporate the teachings of Akatsuka to perform control for causing the vehicle to follow a target track or stop the vehicle when the vehicle is not present at the guide area and when the vehicle abuts the obstacle because it provides the benefit of efficient guidance control and avoiding going beyond a target stop position while passing the difference in level as explicitly explained in [0067] of Akatsuka.
16. Regarding Claim 6, Tominaga teaches a vehicle comprising: a position judging unit configured to make a judgment whether the vehicle is present at a guide area including a guide having a recess-projection structure provided on a road surface (Tominaga: [0008] and [0017] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the traveling guide vehicle judges whether a vehicle is present at a guide area based on the storage or retraction of the guide wheel.);
An abutment judging unit configured to make a judgment whether a wheel of the vehicle abuts on an obstacle using detection result… (Tominaga: [0050] The automatic traveling vehicle 10 engage with guide rails 12.);
And a running controller configured to control running of the vehicle in response to result of the judgment by the position judging unit and result of the judgment by the abutment judging unit (Tominaga: [0010] and [0021] “The two guide rails are provided on the road and the two guide rails are provided” and “The signal generating means for generating a signal for causing the automatic traveling vehicle to perform automatic serpentine traveling is disposed between the two”),
And if the position judging unit judges that the vehicle is present at the guide area and if the abutment judging unit judges that the wheel of the vehicle abuts on the obstacle, the running controller performs second control for causing the vehicle to run in such a manner as to follow the obstacle (Tominaga: [0015] and [0048] The stable joint steering is equivalent to the second control because the guide wheels are engaged with the guide rails.).
Tominaga fails to explicitly teach using detection result from a vehicle-mounted sensor mounted on the vehicle or using detection result from an external sensor located external to the vehicle; and wherein if the position judging unit judges that the vehicle is not present at the guide area and if the abutment judging unit judges that the wheel of the vehicle abuts on the obstacle, the running controller performs first control for causing the vehicle to run in such a manner as to follow a target track or for stopping the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Akatsuka teaches using detection result from a vehicle-mounted sensor mounted on the vehicle or using detection result from an external sensor located external to the vehicle (Akatsuka: [0072] and [0081] Surrounding situation sensor 32);
And wherein if the position judging unit judges that the vehicle is not present at the guide area and if the abutment judging unit judges that the wheel of the vehicle abuts on the obstacle, the running controller performs first control for causing the vehicle to run in such a manner as to follow a target track or for stopping the vehicle (Akatsuka: [0067], [0095], and [0096] “When the remaining distance DR to the target stop position PT is long, the vehicle guidance control can be executed”).
Tominaga and Akatsuka are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tominaga to incorporate the teachings of Akatsuka to perform control for causing the vehicle to follow a target track or stop the vehicle when the vehicle is not present at the guide area and when the vehicle abuts the obstacle because it provides the benefit of efficient guidance control and avoiding going beyond a target stop position while passing the difference in level as explicitly explained in [0067] of Akatsuka.
17. Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tominaga (JP 2002019603 A; already of record), in view of Akatsuka (US 20200198624 A1), and in further view of Yanobu (US 20160264156 A1).
18. Regarding Claim 2, Tominaga and Akatsuka remain as applied above in Claim 1.
Tominaga and Akatsuka fail to explicitly teach a direction judging unit configured to judge a guiding direction defined by the guide on the basis of a direction of a load from the guide received by the wheel of the vehicle, wherein the controller causes the vehicle to run in such a manner as to conform to the guiding direction.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yanobu teaches a direction judging unit configured to judge a guiding direction defined by the guide on the basis of a direction of a load from the guide received by the wheel of the vehicle, wherein the controller causes the vehicle to run in such a manner as to conform to the guiding direction (Yanobu: [0061] The guide apparatus 13 applied a force the steerable wheels to be oriented in the current direction.).
Tominaga, Akatsuka, and Yanobu are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tominaga and Akatsuka to incorporate the teachings of Yanobu to conform to the guiding direction on the basis of a direction of a load from the guide received by the wheel of the vehicle because it provides the benefit of limiting a reaction force by a guide at high speeds by assisting steering of the vehicle as explicitly explained in [0012] and [0066] of Yanobu.
19. Regarding Claim 3, Tominaga, Akatsuka, and Yanobu remain as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Yanobu teaches if the guiding direction differs from the target track, the controller corrects the target track so as to conform to the guiding direction (Yanobu: [0061] The guide apparatus 13 applied a force the steerable wheels to be oriented in the current direction to conform to the guiding direction.).
20. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tominaga (JP 2002019603 A; already of record), in view of Akatsuka (US 20200198624 A1), and in further view of Tatebe (JP 2021099539 A).
21. Regarding Claim 4, Tominaga and Akatsuka remain as applied above in Claim 1.
Tominaga and Akatsuka fail to explicitly teach the position judging unit judges whether the vehicle is present at the guide area using recognition result about a signboard corresponding to the guide area or a road marking corresponding to the guide area on the basis of an image captured by a front-facing camera of the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tatebe teaches the position judging unit judges whether the vehicle is present at the guide area using recognition result about a signboard corresponding to the guide area or a road marking corresponding to the guide area on the basis of an image captured by a front-facing camera of the vehicle (Tatebe: [0011] and [0039] “The driving support ECU 21 satisfies each of the specific area entry condition and the specific area exit condition based on the determination result in the above-described processing for detecting the road sign”).
Tominaga, Akatsuka, and Tatebe are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tominaga and Akatsuka to incorporate the teachings of Tatebe to judge whether the vehicle is present at the guide area using a recognition result of a signboard or road markings on a basis of an image because it provides the benefit of determining vehicle position without the need for a roadside communicator as explicitly explained in [0011] of Tatebe.
22. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tominaga (JP 2002019603 A; already of record), in view of Akatsuka (US 20200198624 A1), and in further view of Kim (US 20230251652 A1).
23. Regarding Claim 6, Tominaga teaches a position judging unit configured to make a judgment whether the vehicle is present at a guide area including a guide having a recess-projection structure provided on a road surface (Tominaga: [0008] and [0017] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the traveling guide vehicle judges whether a vehicle is present at a guide area based on the storage or retraction of the guide wheel.);
An abutment judging unit configured to make a judgment whether a wheel of the vehicle abuts on an obstacle using detection result… (Tominaga: [0050] The automatic traveling vehicle 10 engage with guide rails 12.);
And a… controller configured to… control running of the vehicle in response to result of the judgment by the position judging unit and result of the judgment by the abutment judging unit (Tominaga: [0010] and [0021] “The two guide rails are provided on the road and the two guide rails are provided” and “The signal generating means for generating a signal for causing the automatic traveling vehicle to perform automatic serpentine traveling is disposed between the two”),
And if the position judging unit judges that the vehicle is present at the guide area and if the abutment judging unit judges that the wheel of the vehicle abuts on the obstacle, the… controller performs second control for causing the vehicle to run in such a manner as to follow the obstacle (Tominaga: [0015] and [0048] The stable joint steering is equivalent to the second control because the guide wheels are engaged with the guide rails.).
Tominaga fails to explicitly teach using detection result from a vehicle-mounted sensor mounted on the vehicle or using detection result from an external sensor located external to the vehicle; and wherein if the position judging unit judges that the vehicle is not present at the guide area and if the abutment judging unit judges that the wheel of the vehicle abuts on the obstacle, the running controller performs first control for causing the vehicle to run in such a manner as to follow a target track or for stopping the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Akatsuka teaches using detection result from a vehicle-mounted sensor mounted on the vehicle or using detection result from an external sensor located external to the vehicle (Akatsuka: [0072] and [0081] Surrounding situation sensor 32);
And wherein if the position judging unit judges that the vehicle is not present at the guide area and if the abutment judging unit judges that the wheel of the vehicle abuts on the obstacle, the… controller performs first control for causing the vehicle to run in such a manner as to follow a target track or for stopping the vehicle (Akatsuka: [0067], [0095], and [0096] “When the remaining distance DR to the target stop position PT is long, the vehicle guidance control can be executed”).
Tominaga and Akatsuka are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tominaga to incorporate the teachings of Akatsuka to perform control for causing the vehicle to follow a target track or stop the vehicle when the vehicle is not present at the guide area and when the vehicle abuts the obstacle because it provides the benefit of efficient guidance control and avoiding going beyond a target stop position while passing the difference in level as explicitly explained in [0067] of Akatsuka.
Tominaga and Akatsuka fail to explicitly teach a server and a remote controller configured to remote control running of the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches a server comprising: a remote controller configured to remote control running of the vehicle (Kim: [0053] “The communication device 111 may perform communication by using a server”).
Tominaga, Akatsuka, and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tominaga and Akatsuka to incorporate the teachings of Kim to include a server and remote controller because it provides the benefit of enabling the vehicle to be able to be controlled remotely. This improves control of the vehicle in impossible situations as explicitly explained in [0030] of Kim.
Conclusion
24. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maeyama (US 20140290525 A1)
25. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
