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 .
Application Status
This Office action has been issued in response to application filed on 06/11/2025.
Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 1- 17 are rejected.
Priority
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. DE10 2022 134 156.9, filed on 12/20/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/11/2025 and 07/11/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-17 recite a method and system for approximating a coefficient of friction between wheels of a vehicle in a current vehicle configuration and a roadway system, therefore claims 1-17 fall within one of the four statutory categories of an invention, a vehicular machine.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The claims amount to determining a trajectory of a vehicle, determining the expected steering angle and the actual steering angle, and determining at least one deviation between the expected and actual steering angles and approximating a coefficient of friction based on the determined deviation. These limitations recite an abstract idea because they are directed towards collecting information, analyzing and organizing the information and estimating a result through comparison, which is an abstract idea of information analysis and organization.
Step 2A Prong 2:
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims merely apply the abstract data analysis comparison workflow in the field of vehicle friction calculation. The claims do not apply the calculated friction approximation to improve vehicle control or effect a physical transformation of the vehicle. The recited vehicle, wheels, roadway, steering angle and trajectory merely provide the technological environment and data context in which the abstract idea is performed. There is no recitation of any specific technological improvements to the computers functionality or a particular machine, or any specific control action that changes the vehicles operation. The disclosed system uses generic components and performs routine functions of processing and transmitting data. There is no improvement to any underlying technology or specific technical solution. Accordingly the claims are an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claims 1-17, taken individually or collectively do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. All the disclosed components and steps are conventional and routine in nature as discussed above. This alone cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1-17 are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1-17 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of claims 1-17, otherwise styled as other means, would be subject to the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nehaoua et al. (Backstepping based approach for the combined longitudinal-lateral vehicle control).
Regarding claim 1, Nehaoua discloses a method for approximating a coefficient of friction between wheels of a vehicle in a current vehicle configuration and a roadway (C. Control robustification, it will be shown that this approach allows to design a control feedback robust against the external side wind force while estimating the road friction coefficient µ), the method comprising: determining a trajectory of the vehicle for a driving situation (II. VEHICLE DYNAMIC, in order to develop a controller for a driving assistance system, it is essential to know the vehicle positioning variables with respect to the road lanes. It had make-up a close tracking of the reference trajectories issued by a planning module and minimize the position and orientation errors relative to the planned trajectory), determining a steering angle expected value, which is a predicted value of a steering angle to be set on the vehicle in order to follow the trajectory (II. VEHICLE DYNAMICS, therefore, the state representation of the lateral vehicle’s dynamic is given by x =Ax+µBδ+Dfwy (2) where x = [vy, ˙ψ] is the state vector, µ is the road friction and δ is the tire steering angle); See Fig 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
325
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
determining a steering angle actual value, which is set on the vehicle in the driving situation (B. Lateral control, the error dynamics ˙e is stabilized by considering the vector x as the system input and afterward, the vehicle state dynamics ˙x is stabilized by using the tire steering angle δ); determining a vehicle position of the vehicle in the driving situation (II. VEHICLE DYNAMICS, in order to develop a controller for a driving assistance system, it is essential to know the vehicle positioning variables with respect to the road lanes), determining at least one of a manipulated variable deviation between the steering angle expected value and the steering angle actual value (II. VEHICLE DYNAMICS, the vehicle axis should be parallel to the planned trajectory tangent axis and the vehicle lateral deviation should be close to the nearest trajectory point, which implies that the heading error ψL … should converge in finite time to zero), and a setpoint-actual deviation between the vehicle position during the driving situation and the trajectory (II. VEHICLE DYNAMICS, the vehicle axis should be parallel to the planned trajectory tangent axis and the vehicle lateral deviation should be close to the nearest trajectory point, which implies that … the lateral error ψL should converge in finite time to zero) and, approximating the coefficient of friction based on the determined at least one of the manipulated variable deviation and the determined setpoint-actual deviation (IV. SIMULATIONS RESULTS, Finally, Fig.4.9 demonstrates the effectiveness of the adaptive law for the estimation of the real road friction. This estimation is used to robustify the lateral backstepping control).
Regarding claim 2, Nehaoua discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the setpoint-actual deviation is or includes a transverse offset of the vehicle from a path included in the trajectory (II. VEHICLE DYNAMICS, minimize the position and orientation errors relative to the planned trajectory. This means that at any time … the vehicle lateral deviation should be close to the nearest trajectory point).
Regarding claim 3, Nehaoua discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the setpoint-actual deviation is or includes a directional error of the vehicle in relation to a setpoint alignment of the vehicle included in the trajectory (II. VEHICLE DYNAMICS, this means that at any time, the vehicle axis should be parallel to the planned trajectory tangent axis) … (II. VEHICLE DYNAMICS, heading error ψL).
Regarding claim 5, Nehaoua discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising performing a trajectory planning to obtain the trajectory (Abstract, a planning module sends a safe and low energy reference trajectory to a control module that permits to manage the trajectory tracking under 50 km/h).
Regarding claim 11, Nehaoua discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said approximating the coefficient of friction takes place using a learned reference coefficient of friction (IV. SIMULATIONS RESULTS, Finally, Fig.4.9 demonstrates the effectiveness of the adaptive law for the estimation of the real road friction. This estimation is used to robustify the lateral backstepping control, however, the achieved estimation is not exact. This effect results from the small road friction variation assumption where the friction estimation error dynamics is taken to be µ ≈ ˙ ˆµ).
Regarding claim 15, Nehaoua discloses a driver assistance system for a vehicle, which is configured to carry out the method of claim 1 (V. Conclusion, The ABV project aims at integrating several functions of automation under automated driving assistance systems (ADAS) in a human-machine cooperation).
Regarding claim 16, Nehaoua discloses a vehicle comprising: at least two axles (II. VEHICLE DYNAMICS, the vehicle is represented by one rigid body where the suspensions degrees of freedom (DOF) are neglected, the equivalent wheel is considered at the longitudinal vehicle axis (this leads to the so-called bicycle model), an autonomous unit (I. INTRODUCTION, Automated Driving Assistance Systems (ADAS) either for autonomous or cooperative light or heavy road vehicles), a steering system (III. BACKSTEPPING BASED VEHICLE CONTROL, the vehicle state dynamics ˙x is stabilized by using the tire steering angle), a driver assistance system including a non-transitory computer readable medium having program code stored thereon for approximating a coefficient of friction between wheels of the vehicle in a current vehicle configuration and a roadway (Abstract, This paper presents an integrated control method of a light road vehicle) … (C. Control robustification, It will be shown that this approach allows to design a control feedback robust against the external side wind force while estimating the road friction coefficient µ); said program code being configured, when executed by a processor, to: determine a trajectory of the vehicle for a driving situation (II. VEHICLE DYNAMIC, in order to develop a controller for a driving assistance system, it is essential to know the vehicle positioning variables with respect to the road lanes. It had make-up a close tracking of the reference trajectories issued by a planning module and minimize the position and orientation errors relative to the planned trajectory), determine a steering angle expected value, which is a predicted value of a steering angle to be set on the vehicle in order to follow the trajectory (II. VEHICLE DYNAMICS, therefore, the state representation of the lateral vehicle’s dynamic is given by x =Ax+µBδ+Dfwy (2) where x = [vy, ˙ψ] is the state vector, µ is the road friction and δ is the tire steering angle) See Fig 2; determine a steering angle actual value, which is set on the vehicle in the driving situation; (B. Lateral control, the error dynamics ˙e is stabilized by considering the vector x as the system input and afterward, the vehicle state dynamics ˙x is stabilized by using the tire steering angle δ); determine a vehicle position of the vehicle in the driving situation (II. VEHICLE DYNAMICS, in order to develop a controller for a driving assistance system, it is essential to know the vehicle positioning variables with respect to the road lanes), determine at least one of a manipulated variable deviation between the steering angle expected value and the steering angle actual value (II. VEHICLE DYNAMICS, the vehicle axis should be parallel to the planned trajectory tangent axis and the vehicle lateral deviation should be close to the nearest trajectory point, which implies that the heading error ψL … should converge in finite time to zero), and a setpoint-actual deviation between the vehicle position during the driving situation and the trajectory (II. VEHICLE DYNAMICS, the vehicle axis should be parallel to the planned trajectory tangent axis and the vehicle lateral deviation should be close to the nearest trajectory point, which implies that … the lateral error ψL should converge in finite time to zero) and, approximate the coefficient of friction based on the determined at least one of the manipulated variable deviation and the determined setpoint-actual deviation (IV. SIMULATIONS RESULTS, Finally, Fig.4.9 demonstrates the effectiveness of the adaptive law for the estimation of the real road friction. This estimation is used to robustify the lateral backstepping control).
Regarding claim 17, Nehaoua discloses a computer program product comprising: program code for approximating a coefficient of friction between wheels of a vehicle in a current vehicle configuration and a roadway (Abstract, This paper presents an integrated control method of a light road vehicle) … (C. Control robustification, It will be shown that this approach allows to design a control feedback robust against the external side wind force while estimating the road friction coefficient µ); wherein said program code is stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Abstract, This paper presents an integrated control method of a light road vehicle) said program code being configured, when executed by a processor, to: determine a trajectory of the vehicle for a driving situation (II. VEHICLE DYNAMIC, in order to develop a controller for a driving assistance system, it is essential to know the vehicle positioning variables with respect to the road lanes. It had make-up a close tracking of the reference trajectories issued by a planning module and minimize the position and orientation errors relative to the planned trajectory), determine a steering angle expected value, which is a predicted value of a steering angle to be set on the vehicle in order to follow the trajectory (II. VEHICLE DYNAMICS, therefore, the state representation of the lateral vehicle’s dynamic is given by x =Ax+µBδ+Dfwy (2) where x = [vy, ˙ψ] is the state vector, µ is the road friction and δ is the tire steering angle) See Fig 2; determine a steering angle actual value, which is set on the vehicle in the driving situation (B. Lateral control, the error dynamics ˙e is stabilized by considering the vector x as the system input and afterward, the vehicle state dynamics ˙x is stabilized by using the tire steering angle δ); determine a vehicle position of the vehicle in the driving situation (II. VEHICLE DYNAMICS, in order to develop a controller for a driving assistance system, it is essential to know the vehicle positioning variables with respect to the road lanes), determine at least one of a manipulated variable deviation between the steering angle expected value and the steering angle actual value (II. VEHICLE DYNAMICS, the vehicle axis should be parallel to the planned trajectory tangent axis and the vehicle lateral deviation should be close to the nearest trajectory point, which implies that the heading error ψL … should converge in finite time to zero), and a setpoint- actual deviation between the vehicle position during the driving situation and the trajectory (II. VEHICLE DYNAMICS, the vehicle axis should be parallel to the planned trajectory tangent axis and the vehicle lateral deviation should be close to the nearest trajectory point, which implies that … the lateral error ψL should converge in finite time to zero) and, approximate the coefficient of friction based on the determined at least one of the manipulated variable deviation and the determined setpoint-actual deviation (IV. SIMULATIONS RESULTS, Finally, Fig.4.9 demonstrates the effectiveness of the adaptive law for the estimation of the real road friction. This estimation is used to robustify the lateral backstepping control).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Nehaoua et al. (Backstepping based approach for the combined longitudinal-lateral vehicle control), in view of Zagorski et al. (US20150251664A1).
Regarding claim 4, Nehaoua discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed supra. Additionally, Zagorski who is in the same field of endeavor of autonomous vehicle paths during autonomous braking discloses the coefficient of friction is only approximated if both the manipulated variable deviation and the setpoint-actual deviation are present (0060, When the actual path of the vehicle is heading towards a different lane or off the road, then the vehicle is not on the intended path, in which case the method proceeds to process 264. Therefore, as long as the actual vehicle path is within or on the intended vehicle path, method 200 loops back to decision point 208 via process 256) … (0061, At process 264, a new friction ellipse is calculated by the CPS adjustment controller 224 based on an apparent new coefficient of friction).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nehaoua with Zagorski to calculate a new friction ellipse based on an apparent coefficient of friction only when the actual path is outside the intended path.
Further justification for combining Nehaoua with Zagorski not only comes from the state of the art but from Zagorski (0078, the foregoing detailed description will provide those skilled in the art with a convenient road map for implementing the exemplary embodiment or exemplary embodiments).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Nehaoua et al. (Backstepping based approach for the combined longitudinal-lateral vehicle control), in view of Gao et al. (US20240227793A1).
Regarding claim 6, Nehaoua discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed supra. Additionally, Gao who is in the same field of endeavor of adaptive path following discloses determining at least one load characteristic of the current vehicle configuration (0012, Also, the path following behavior can be adjusted in dependence of, e.g., vehicle load).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nehaoua with Gao to improve the expected steering/control model used in Nehaoua by determining load characteristics.
Further justification for combining Nehaoua with Gao not only comes from the state of the art but from Gao (0012, the path following behavior can be adjusted in dependence of, e.g., vehicle load. The first tuning parameter can, for instance, also be adjusted in dependence of a curvature of the reference path. This way vehicle path following in curves can be adjusted for an improved path following behavior).
Regarding claim 7, Nehaoua and Gao disclose the method of claim 6, as discussed supra. Additionally, Gao discloses (0012, Also, the path following behavior can be adjusted in dependence of, e.g., vehicle load) .. (0003, Path following is the process concerned with how to determine vehicle speed and steering at each instant of time for the vehicle to adhere to a certain reference path to be followed).
Regarding claim 8, Nehaoua discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed supra. Additionally, Gao discloses the steering angle expected value is determined based on at least one of a curvature of the trajectory (0004, the algorithm computes a set of vehicle controls, comprising steering angle, by which the vehicle moves from its current position towards a point at a predetermined “preview” distance away along the path to be followed), and a wheelbase of the vehicle, (0047, the general idea behind the pure pursuit approach is to calculate the curvature that will take the vehicle from its current position x to a goal point G on the reference path P), a number of axles of the vehicle, (0007, It is a still further object to provide an easily scalable control unit, to be able to accommodate a lower or higher number of axles and/or vehicle units of a vehicle combination), and a steerability of axles of the vehicle (0083, the path following algorithms disclosed herein may be applied for steering vehicle units other than the tractor 110. For instance, an articulated vehicle may comprise other steerable vehicle units, such as self-powered dolly vehicle units or powered trailers. These vehicle units may also be controlled according to the techniques disclosed herein).
Regarding claim 9, Nehaoua discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed supra. Additionally, Nehaoua discloses determining a trajectory deviation rate of change based on the setpoint-actual deviations determined during the monitoring. However Nehaoua does not explicitly disclose monitoring the setpoint-actual deviation, wherein the setpoint-actual deviation is continuously determined or is determined at multiple successive points in time during the monitoring.
Nevertheless, Gao discloses monitoring the setpoint-actual deviation, wherein the setpoint-actual deviation is continuously determined (0066, it is proposed to adjust the preview distance continuously based on an expanded set of criteria which also comprises lateral deviation γ from the reference path), or is determined at multiple successive points in time during the monitoring (0069, The techniques described herein may be arranged to operate as a ‘preview point supervisor’ which acts in real time according to speed, curvature and lateral offset (or deviation)).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Nehaoua et al. (Backstepping based approach for the combined longitudinal-lateral vehicle control), in view of Zagorski et al. (US20150251664A1), further in view of in view of Gao et al. (US20240227793A1).
Regarding claim 10, Nehaoua and Gao disclose the method of claim 9, as discussed supra. Additionally, Zagorski discloses approximating the coefficient of friction only takes place if the trajectory deviation rate of change characterizes an increasing setpoint-actual deviation of the vehicle position from the trajectory (0061, as long as the actual vehicle path is within or on the intended vehicle path, method 200 loops back to decision point 208 via process 256) … (0061, At process 264, a new friction ellipse is calculated by the CPS adjustment controller 224 based on an apparent new coefficient of friction).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nehaoua and Gao with Zagorski to calculate a new friction ellipse based on an apparent coefficient of friction only when the actual path is outside the intended path.
Further justification for combining the combination of Nehaoua and Gao with Zagorski not only comes from the state of the art but from Zagorski (0078, the foregoing detailed description will provide those skilled in the art with a convenient road map for implementing the exemplary embodiment or exemplary embodiments).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Nehaoua et al. (Backstepping based approach for the combined longitudinal-lateral vehicle control), in view of Dahlke et al. (DE102015119415B4).
Regarding claim 12, Nehaoua discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed supra. Additionally, Dahlke who is in the same field of endeavor of providing a coefficient of friction discloses detecting a control system intervention of a stability control system of the vehicle (Description, 18, Situations in which a new target coefficient of friction is to be set are preferably recognized when a control system intervention is reported by a stabilization program); determining a coefficient of friction using control system data provided by the stability control system (Description, 17, calculates the current driving situation of a respective vehicle in Dependence on changes in values measured by the respective sensors and used to select a respective method for providing the target coefficient of friction. For this purpose, it is provided that vehicle parameters, such as … signals from a chassis control system); and, wherein the approximation of the coefficient of friction is alternatively or additionally performed based on the coefficient of friction if a control system intervention is detected (Description, 18, Situations in which a new target coefficient of friction is to be set are preferably recognized when a control system intervention is reported by a stabilization program).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nehaoua with Dahlke to improve the system of Nehaoua ability to allocate longitudinal and lateral control commands while maintaining trajectory tracking and vehicle stability.
Further justification for combining Nehaoua with Dahlke not only comes from the state of the art but from Dahlke (Description, 21, it is provided that the target coefficient of friction in the event that the vehicle is not in a specified driving situation is determined by means of a mathematical model that determines the longitudinal and/or lateral forces applied to the vehicle for each wheel or axle or modeled, is determined).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Nehaoua et al. (Backstepping based approach for the combined longitudinal-lateral vehicle control), in view of Varunjikar et al. (US20200262474A1).
Regarding claim 13, Nehaoua discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed supra. Additionally, Varunjikar who is in the same field of endeavor of road friction coefficient estimation using steering system signals discloses performing at least one of the following operation using the approximated coefficient of friction; and, wherein the following operation is or includes at least one of providing a warning signal (0061, Further yet, a user notification can be provided, such as via a tactile feedback, an audio-visual feedback, and the like), putting a stability control system into a preventative control mode (0061, the updated road-friction coefficient value is broadcast to a brake module, an electronic stability control module, and other such modules in the vehicle 100 that control one or more vehicle maneuvers based on an input from the operator), redetermining the trajectory of the vehicle (0061, the ADAS 110 receives the updated road-friction coefficient value to adjust trajectory for the vehicle 100), determining a movement degree of freedom limiting value (0064, if the updated road-friction coefficient is below a predetermined threshold, the controller 16 deems that the vehicle 100 is traveling along a slippery surface, such as wet, icy etc. in such a case, the controller 16 limits the steering angle value), limiting a movement degree of freedom of the vehicle (0067, the steering wheel maneuvers can be prohibited by generating torque that prevents an operator from moving the steering wheel) and validating a coefficient of friction sensor (0066, The calculated rack force is compared with an estimated rack force from a steering observer or from a tie rod sensor. The road-friction coefficient is calculated using both rack forces. In one or more examples, the road-friction coefficient is updated only when learning enable conditions are met).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nehaoua with Varunjikar because Varunjikar shows that when the updated road friction coefficient is below a threshold the controller identifies a slippery surface and limits steering in order to protect the driver from dangerous maneuvers.
Further justification for combining Nehaoua with Varunjikar not only comes from the state of the art but from Varunjikar (0064, the overlay torque prevents, and at least limits, the operator from maneuvering the vehicle 100, which may improve safety of the vehicle 100).
Regarding claim 14, Nehaoua and Varunjikar disclose the method of claim 13, as discussed supra. Additionally, Varunjikar discloses the following operation is only performed if the approximated coefficient of friction falls below a coefficient of friction limiting value (0064, if the updated road-friction coefficient is below a predetermined threshold, the controller 16 deems that the vehicle 100 is traveling along a slippery surface, such as wet, icy etc. in such a case, the controller 16 limits the steering angle value).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE E DOUGLAS whose telephone number is (703)756-1417. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Christian Chace can be reached on (571) 272-4190. 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.
/S.E.D./
Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights