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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 24, 2025 is considered by the
examiner.
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)(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 1-2, 4-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miranda, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220306149).
Regarding claim 1, Miranda, et al. teaches: A computer system for verifying primary and secondary motion control systems of an automated or semi-automated vehicle, the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: (Paragraph [0091]: "…the primary controller (12), the secondary controller (15), and the reference controller (18) comprise internal computation instructions which make it possible to obtain commands [processing circuitry] that are identical to each other in the absence of a failure. Preferably, these instructions are coded in a different manner on the three controllers. This makes it possible to prevent the non-detection of code errors propagated across the three controllers which would in fact become undetectable [computer system for verifying primary and secondary control systems of vehicle]." ; Paragraph [0048]: "…the control device (4) is designed to automatically pilot the vehicle (1) by modifying a steering angle of the steered wheel [control system of automated vehicle].")
send a manoeuvring request to each of the primary motion control system and the secondary motion control system; (Paragraph [0063]: "…programmed to compute a trajectory that the vehicle (1) must follow and to generate, at each instant of sampling of the control device (4), an automatic vehicle driving instruction [manoeuvring request]. In the first embodiment, the automatic driving instruction delivered by the system (10) is a steering instruction (CNS1) [instruction sent to primary motion control system] and (CNS2) relating to the angle of the steered wheel [instruction sent to secondary motion control system].")
acquire a first response to the manoeuvring request for the primary motion control system; (Paragraph [0066]: "The primary controller (12) is capable of sending the primary command (CMD1) so generated on the third bus (CAN3), intended to be received by the primary actuator (14) [controller sending out request for response for manoeuvring request for primary control system]" ; Paragraph [0068]: "The primary actuator (14) incorporates a motor that is capable of exerting a mechanical torque that makes it possible to modify the angle of steering of the steered wheel. This torque is generated on the basis of the primary command (CMD1), directly received from the primary controller (12) [example - method of acquiring first response].")
acquire a second response to the manoeuvring request for the secondary motion control system; (Paragraph [0081]: "The secondary controller (15) is for example a computer comprising a memory storage unit and a processor. It is programmed to generate a secondary command (CMD2) according to the instruction (CNS1) received from the system (10) and/or the instruction (CNS2) [controller sending out request for response for manoeuvring request for secondary control system]." ; Paragraph [0083]: "…the secondary actuator (16) receives an activation signal from the secondary controller (15). Once activated, the secondary actuator (16) is capable of taking into account the secondary command (CMD2), directly received from the secondary controller (15). It then applies a torque that confers a steering angle to the steered wheel in place of the primary actuator (14). The steering angle applied is a function of the secondary command (CMD2) [example - method of acquiring second response].")
and determine if each of the first and second responses are within a threshold of a reference response; (Paragraph [0089]: "It is programmed to compare this reference command with the primary command (CMD1) received from the primary controller (12) for the same time step [comparing first response with reference response]." ; Paragraph [0092]: "When the primary command (CMD1) differs from the reference command, considering thus then that the primary controller (12) is faulty, the reference controller (18) sends a failure signal (DEF1) to the operation module (20) [issues faulty signal if first response does not meet threshold]." ; Paragraph [0093]: "The reference controller (18) is also programmed to compare this reference command with the secondary command (CMD2) received from the secondary controller (15) for the same time step [comparing second response with reference response]."; Paragraph [0094]: "When the secondary command (CMD2) differs from the reference command, considering thus then that the secondary controller (15) is faulty, the reference controller (18) sends a failure signal (DEF2) to the additional operation module (22) [issues faulty signal if second response does not meet threshold].")
wherein the reference response is based on the respective manoeuvring request and/or the other of the acquired first and second responses (Paragraph [0088]: "The reference controller (18) is for example a computer comprising a memory storage unit and a processor. It is programmed to compute a reference command on the basis of the instruction (CNS1) and/or (CNS2) received from the system (10) [reference response based on acquired first and second responses liked to manoeuvring requests].").
Regarding claim 2, Miranda, et al. teaches: The computer system of claim 1, wherein the primary and secondary motion control systems comprise steering systems (Paragraph [0100]: "The interrupt signal (INT1) produced is applied to the primary controller (12). When the level of the signal (INT1) is low, the primary controller (12) remains activated and it is the primary command chain (11) that manages the steering of the steered wheel [primary motion control system comprises steering system]. When the level of the signal (INT1) is high, which corresponds to the reception by the module (20) of both the signal (DEF1) and the signal (DEF4), the primary controller (12) is deactivated and the secondary controller (15) is activated and it is the secondary command chain (13) that manages the steering of the steered wheel [secondary motion control system comprises steering system].").
Regarding claim 4, Miranda, et al. teaches: The computer system of claim 2, wherein the manoeuvring request comprises a steering angle for the primary steering system that is equal in magnitude and direction to the steering angle for the secondary steering system (Paragraph [0058]: "The second bus (CAN2) is optional. It makes it possible to enhance the safety of the control device (4) by preferably supplying the same signal as the first bus (CAN1) [signal containing steering angle is the same for primary as it is for secondary steering system]." ; Paragraph [0022]: "the secondary command chain in addition comprising a secondary actuator, which acts to serve as redundancy for the primary actuator when the primary controller is interrupted, the secondary actuator being configured to generate a torque that confers a steering angle to the steered wheel [secondary system steering angle is same as primary system steering angle].").
Regarding claim 5, Miranda, et al. teaches: The computer system of claim 2, wherein the manoeuvring request comprises a steering angle for the front axle of the vehicle (Paragraph [0068]: "The primary actuator (14) incorporates a motor that is capable of exerting a mechanical torque that makes it possible to modify the angle of steering of the steered wheel [wheel attached to front axle; ref. Fig. 1]. This torque is generated on the basis of the primary command (CMD1), directly received from the primary controller (12) [steering angle for front axle for vehicle as a function of command].").
Regarding claim 6, Miranda, et al. teaches: The computer system of claim 1, wherein the primary and secondary motion control systems comprise braking systems (Paragraph [0129]: "The control device (4) thus preferably comprises a primary actuator (14′) which is an electrically controlled brake and a primary actuator (14″) which is a regenerative brake integrated in an electric motor, not represented, of the vehicle (1) [primary motion control system has braking system])." ; Paragraph [0130]: "The control device (4) comprises a secondary actuator (16′) which is an auxiliary brake [secondary motion control system has braking system].").
Regarding claim 7, Miranda, et al. teaches: The computer system of claim 6, wherein the manoeuvring request comprises a braking request for one of the primary and secondary braking systems and a subsequent braking request for using the other of the primary and secondary braking systems (Paragraph [0144]: "…the primary controller (12) is configured to activate the secondary actuator (16′) so as to generate the hydraulic pressure to the brake (32) [subsequent manoeuvering request for braking request for secondary braking systems], after a predetermined time period from braking to the stopping of the vehicle (1) during which the primary actuator (14′) generates the hydraulic pressure. The predetermined duration is for example 120 seconds [initial manoeuvring request for braking request for primary braking system].").
Regarding claim 9, Miranda, et al. teaches: The computer system of claim 1, wherein the acquired responses comprise information relating to one or more or of an implemented wheel speed, an implemented steering torque, an implemented steering angle, resultant accelerometer data, and resultant yaw rate data (Paragraph [0072]: "The primary actuator (14) further comprises an internal sensor capable of generating an internal measurement signal, corresponding to a measurement of the steering angle conferred by the primary actuator (14) [acquired response comprises information related to implemented steering angle]" ; Paragraph [0073]: "Serving as redundancy for the internal sensor of the primary actuator (14), the first angle sensor (24) measures a steering angle that is actually conferred by the primary actuator (14) to the steered wheel [acquired response comprises information related to implemented steering angle].").
Regarding claim 10, Miranda, et al. teaches: The computer system of claim 1, wherein: a reference response for the primary motion control system is based on the manoeuvring request for the primary motion control system and/or the second response; (Paragraph [0092]: "When the primary command (CMD1) differs from the reference command, considering thus then that the primary controller (12) is faulty, the reference controller (18) sends a failure signal (DEF1) to the operation module (20) [reference response for primary control system is based on manoeuvring request from primary motion control system].")
and a reference response for the secondary motion control system is based on the manoeuvring request for the secondary motion control system and/or the first response (Paragraph [0094]: "When the secondary command (CMD2) differs from the reference command, considering thus then that the secondary controller (15) is faulty, the reference controller (18) sends a failure signal (DEF2) to the additional operation module (22) [reference response for secondary control system is based on manoeuvring request from secondary motion control system].").
Regarding claim 11, Miranda, et al. teaches: The computer system of claim 1, wherein the threshold comprises an absolute value or a value determined relative to the reference response (Paragraph [0076]: "The first current sensor (28) is connected to the third bus (CAN3) so as to transmit, to the primary controller (12), a measurement signal for measuring the electrical power supply to the primary actuator (14) that enables the primary controller (12) to command the stopping of the primary actuator (14) when the torque on the steered wheel is to be exerted by the secondary actuator (16), in the event of the measurement signal comprising a value for the current intensity as measured by the first current sensor (28) that is greater than a threshold value [condition in which value of signal from first current determined relative to reference response].").
Regarding claim 12, Miranda, et al. teaches: A vehicle comprising the computer system of claim 1 (Paragraph [0047]: "In FIG. 1, an autonomous motor vehicle (1) [vehicle] according to a first embodiment comprises a control device (4) [computer system]").
Regarding claim 13, Miranda, et al. teaches: A computer-implemented method for verifying primary and secondary motion control systems of an automated or semi-automated vehicle, the computer-implemented method comprising: sending, by processing circuitry of a computer system, a manoeuvring request to each of the primary motion control system and the secondary motion control system; (Paragraph [0063]: "….programmed to compute a trajectory that the vehicle (1) must follow and to generate, at each instant of sampling of the control device (4) [processing circuitry of computer system], an automatic vehicle driving instruction [manoeuvring request]. In the first embodiment, the automatic driving instruction delivered by the system (10) is a steering instruction (CNS1) [instruction sent to primary motion control system] and (CNS2) relating to the angle of the steered wheel [instruction sent to secondary motion control system].")
acquiring, by the processing circuitry, a first response to the manoeuvring request for the primary motion control system; (Paragraph [0066]: "The primary controller (12) is capable of sending the primary command (CMD1) so generated on the third bus (CAN3), intended to be received by the primary actuator (14) [controller sending out request for response for manoeuvring request for primary control system]" ; Paragraph [0068]: "The primary actuator (14) incorporates a motor that is capable of exerting a mechanical torque that makes it possible to modify the angle of steering of the steered wheel. This torque is generated on the basis of the primary command (CMD1), directly received from the primary controller (12) [example - method of acquiring first response].")
acquiring, by the processing circuitry, a second response to the manoeuvring request for the secondary motion control system; (Paragraph [0081]: "The secondary controller (15) is for example a computer comprising a memory storage unit and a processor. It is programmed to generate a secondary command (CMD2) according to the instruction (CNS1) received from the system (10) and/or the instruction (CNS2) [controller sending out request for response for manoeuvring request for secondary control system]." ; Paragraph [0083]: "…the secondary actuator (16) receives an activation signal from the secondary controller (15). Once activated, the secondary actuator (16) is capable of taking into account the secondary command CMD2, directly received from the secondary controller (15). It then applies a torque that confers a steering angle to the steered wheel in place of the primary actuator (14). The steering angle applied is a function of the secondary command (CMD2) [example - method of acquiring second response].")
and determining, by the processing circuitry, if each of the first and second responses are within a threshold of a reference response; (Paragraph [0089]: "It is programmed to compare this reference command with the primary command (CMD1) received from the primary controller (12) for the same time step [comparing first response with reference response]." ; Paragraph [0092]: "When the primary command (CMD1) differs from the reference command, considering thus then that the primary controller (12) is faulty, the reference controller (18) sends a failure signal (DEF1) to the operation module (20) [issues faulty signal if first response does not meet threshold]." ; Paragraph [0093]: "The reference controller (18) is also programmed to compare this reference command with the secondary command (CMD2) received from the secondary controller (15) for the same time step [comparing second response with reference response]." ; Paragraph [0094]: "When the secondary command (CMD2) differs from the reference command, considering thus then that the secondary controller (15) is faulty, the reference controller (18) sends a failure signal (DEF2) to the additional operation module (22) [issues faulty signal if second response does not meet threshold].")
wherein the reference response is based on the respective manoeuvring request and/or the other of the acquired first and second responses (Paragraph [0088]: "The reference controller (18) is for example a computer comprising a memory storage unit and a processor. It is programmed to compute a reference command on the basis of the instruction (CNS1) and/or (CNS2) received from the system (10) [reference response based on acquired first and second responses liked to manoeuvring requests].").
Regarding claim 14, Miranda, et al. teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein the primary and secondary motion control systems comprise steering systems (Paragraph [0100]: "The interrupt signal (INT1) produced is applied to the primary controller (12). When the level of the signal (INT1) is low, the primary controller (12) remains activated and it is the primary command chain (11) that manages the steering of the steered wheel [primary motion control system comprises steering system]. When the level of the signal (INT1) is high, which corresponds to the reception by the module (20) of both the signal (DEF1) and the signal (DEF4), the primary controller (12) is deactivated and the secondary controller (15) is activated and it is the secondary command chain (13) that manages the steering of the steered wheel [secondary motion control system comprises steering system].").
Regarding claim 16, Miranda, et al. teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein the primary and secondary motion control systems comprise braking systems (Paragraph [0129]: "The control device (4) thus preferably comprises a primary actuator (14′) which is an electrically controlled brake and a primary actuator (14″) which is a regenerative brake integrated in an electric motor, not represented, of the vehicle (1) [primary motion control system has braking system])." ; Paragraph [0130]: "The control device (4) comprises a secondary actuator (16′) which is an auxiliary brake [secondary motion control system has braking system].").
Regarding claim 17, Miranda, et al. teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 16, wherein the manoeuvring request comprises a braking request for one of the primary and secondary braking systems and a subsequent braking request for using the other of the primary and secondary braking systems (Paragraph [0144]: "…the primary controller (12) is configured to activate the secondary actuator (16′) so as to generate the hydraulic pressure to the brake (32) [subsequent manoeuvering request for braking request for secondary braking systems], after a predetermined time period from braking to the stopping of the vehicle (1) during which the primary actuator (14′) generates the hydraulic pressure. The predetermined duration is for example 120 seconds [initial manoeuvring request for braking request for primary braking system].").
Regarding claim 19, Miranda, et al. teaches: A computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by processing circuitry, the computer-implemented method of claim 13 (Paragraph [0063]: "The automatic piloting system (10) is for example a computer comprising a memory storage unit and a processor. It is for example programmed to compute [computer program product] a trajectory that the vehicle (1) must follow and to generate, at each instant of sampling of the control device (4), an automatic vehicle driving instruction [program code for performing method].").
Regarding claim 20, Miranda, et al. teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the computer-implemented method of claim 13 (Paragraph [0063]: "The automatic piloting system (10) is for example a computer comprising a memory storage unit [non-transitory computer-readable storage medium] and a processor. It is for example programmed to compute a trajectory that the vehicle (1) must follow and to generate, at each instant of sampling of the control device (4), an automatic vehicle driving instruction [instructions].").
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 8, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miranda, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220306149) in view of Schumann, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12195082).
Regarding claim 3, Miranda, et al. does not teach the computer system of claim 2, wherein the manoeuvring request comprises a steering angle for the primary steering system that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to a steering angle for the secondary steering system.
In a similar field of endeavor (using secondary braking system to steer a vehicle), Schumann, et al. teaches: The computer system of claim 2, wherein the manoeuvring request comprises a steering angle for the primary steering system that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to a steering angle for the secondary steering system (Col. 10, lines 29-32: "FIG. 6 illustrates a flowchart of at least one variation of a method including using brakes to steer a vehicle if a primary, secondary, or other redundant steering system fails or is unable to perform a requested function [primary versus secondary system]." ; Col. 9, lines 45-49: "Applicants recognize that each steered wheel of an axle set of steered wheels may, when braked, exhibit wheel steering torque opposite the other. Thus, simultaneous brake apply at such an axle pair of steered wheels may result in a net brake-steer force of substantially zero [steering angle that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction]." ; Col. 9, lines 15-20: ""Applicants believe the higher minimum pressure pulses are often effective to check large steered wheel movements back toward zero steering angle. From FIG. 5, the steering angle oscillations are seen to be substantially attenuated and a clear trending of increasing steering angles is apparent [example - adjusting steering angles].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miranda, et al. to include the teaching of Schumann, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the usage of brake pressure in order to provide secondary steering for an autonomous vehicle (Schumann, et al. Col. 1, lines 17-39).
Regarding claim 8, Miranda, et al. does not teach the computer system of claim 7, wherein the braking requests are to be implemented while the vehicle is accelerating.
In a similar field of endeavor (using secondary braking system to steer a vehicle), Schumann, et al. teaches: The computer system of claim 7, wherein the braking requests are to be implemented while the vehicle is accelerating (Col. 3, lines 51-57: "In a number of variations, the brake [brake request] to steer feature may function by converting a steer request into a desired […] yaw rate acceleration [while vehicle is accelerating], which is then converted into at least one of appropriate brake pressures or propulsion energy to yaw the vehicle at the desired […] yaw rate acceleration [example].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miranda, et al. to include the teaching of Schumann, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the usage of brake pressure in order to provide secondary steering for an autonomous vehicle (Schumann, et al. Col. 1, lines 17-39).
Regarding claim 15, Miranda, et al. does not teach the computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein the manoeuvring request comprises a steering angle for the primary steering system that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to a steering angle for the secondary steering system.
In a similar field of endeavor (using secondary braking system to steer a vehicle), Schumann, et al. teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein the manoeuvring request comprises a steering angle for the primary steering system that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to a steering angle for the secondary steering system (Method (200), Col. 10, lines 29-32: "FIG. 6 illustrates a flowchart of at least one variation of a method including using brakes to steer a vehicle if a primary, secondary, or other redundant steering system fails or is unable to perform a requested function [primary versus secondary system]." ; Col. 9, lines 45-49: "Applicants recognize that each steered wheel of an axle set of steered wheels may, when braked, exhibit wheel steering torque opposite the other. Thus, simultaneous brake apply at such an axle pair of steered wheels may result in a net brake-steer force of substantially zero [steering angle that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction]." ; Col. 9, lines 15-20: "Applicants believe the higher minimum pressure pulses are often effective to check large steered wheel movements back toward zero steering angle. From FIG. 5, the steering angle oscillations are seen to be substantially attenuated and a clear trending of increasing steering angles is apparent [example - adjusting steering angles].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miranda, et al. to include the teaching of Schumann, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the usage of brake pressure in order to provide secondary steering for an autonomous vehicle (Schumann, et al. Col. 1, lines 17-39).
Regarding claim 18, Miranda, et al. does not teach the computer-implemented method of claim 17, wherein the braking requests are to be implemented while the vehicle is accelerating.
In a similar field of endeavor (using secondary braking system to steer a vehicle), Schumann, et al. teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 17, wherein the braking requests are to be implemented while the vehicle is accelerating (Col. 3, lines 51-57: "In a number of variations, the brake [brake request] to steer feature may function by converting a steer request into a desired […] yaw rate acceleration [while vehicle is accelerating], which is then converted into at least one of appropriate brake pressures or propulsion energy to yaw the vehicle at the desired […] yaw rate acceleration [example].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miranda, et al. to include the teaching of Schumann, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the usage of brake pressure in order to provide secondary steering for an autonomous vehicle (Schumann, et al. Col. 1, lines 17-39).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Egnor, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9195232) teaches methods and systems which compensate for failures in operational systems dealing with vehicle propulsion, braking, and steering.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TORRENCE S MARUNDA II whose telephone number is (571)272-5172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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 Y 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.
/TORRENCE S MARUNDA II/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights