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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on 11/06/2025. Applicant amended claim 10; and added claims 15-20. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined below.
PRIORITY
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of foreign priority to JP2023-089010, filed on 5/30/2023.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claim(s) 7, 10, 12, 15 and 20 is/are objected to because of claim informalities.
As to claims 7, 15 and 20, claim limitation “at least any of tires of a port vehicle, a bus or truck that repeatedly travels a specific route, and a mine vehicle” is in improper alternative form because the conjunctive and disjunctive elements are unclear. Examiner suggests amending to: “at least any of tires of a port vehicle, a bus or a truck that repeatedly travels a specific route, [[and]] or a mine vehicle”
As to claim 10, claim limitation “the risk of failure occurrence” lacks antecedent basis since claim 1 claims “a risk of tire failure occurrence.” Examiner suggests amending claim 10 to follow the established antecedent basis of claim 1.
As to claim 12, claim limitation “the controller generates a notification including a method for increasing similarity” constitutes an informality because the usage of “method” invites confusion given that a method is a form of a statutory category; the claim rather appears to be using the word in the ordinary sense of a way of doing something. Examiner suggests replacing method with “measure,” “instruction” or the like; Applicant may also consider following the language in [0077] of the instant specification describing that a notification transmits a determination to decelerate.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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 are: “a position detector configured to detect,” “a vehicle communication interface configured to transmit,” and “a terminal device configured to report” in claim 10 (with dependent claims 11-14); “an acquisition interface configured to acquire” in claim 11; and “an acquisition unit configured to acquire” in claim 12.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function at least includes:
position detector: GPS (Global Positioning System) receiver (¶ 26)
terminal device: Computer; smartphone; display; controller; storage (¶ 41)
Note that there appears to be no sufficient structure for the vehicle communication interface, acquisition interface and acquisition unit — see §§ 112(a),(b) rejections below.
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.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 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 U.S.C. § 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 10-14 is/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 claims contain 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 joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 10, 11 and 12, claim elements “vehicle communication interface,” “acquisition interface” and “acquisition unit” are limitations that invoke 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 some of the claimed functions.
Regarding the vehicle communication interface, the specification at most states that a communication interface may comprise a communication module compatible with various communication standards (see para. [0032]). However, no actual structure for the interface or the module is provided.
Regarding the acquisition interface/unit, the specification at most ties the foregoing to the communication interface (see para. [0066]). However, there is no actual structure provided for the communication interface, and therefore there is no structure provided for the acquisition interface/unit.
Therefore, claims 10, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Claims 11-14 depend on claim 10.
Therefore, claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 2-6 and 10-20 is/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.
As to claim 2, the recitation “identifies … positions at which the quantified difference in acceleration is relatively large as risk locations” is vague and indefinite (emphasis added). The claim lacks a reference value (e.g., threshold) to determine an acceleration as “relatively large.” The specification does not provide clarity on this front (see ¶¶ 7, 50). Therefore, it is unclear what is being claimed in light of Applicant’s original disclosure.
As to claims 10, 11 and 12, claim elements “vehicle communication interface,” “acquisition interface” and “acquisition unit” are limitations that invoke 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 some of the claimed functions.
Regarding the vehicle communication interface, the specification at most states that a communication interface may comprise a communication module compatible with various communication standards (see para. [0032]). However, no actual structure for the interface or the module is provided.
Regarding the acquisition interface/unit, the specification at most ties the foregoing to the communication interface (see para. [0066]). However, there is no actual structure provided for the communication interface, and therefore there is no structure provided for the acquisition interface/unit.
Claims 3-6 and 15-20 depend on claim 2.
Claims 11-14 depend on claim 10.
Therefore, claims 2-6 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant may:
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;
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
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:
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
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 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims fail to pass the Alice/Mayo test for determining patent eligibility.
The patent eligibility test is performed below for independent claim(s) 1 and 9.
Step 1—Does the claim fall within a statutory category?
Claim 1: Yes, the claim recites a machine or manufacture.
Claim 9: Yes, the claim recites a process.
Step 2A, Prong One—Is a judicial exception recited?
Claims 1 and 9 are provided below with the abstract idea indicated in bold and additional elements without bold.
1. A risk evaluation apparatus comprising:
a storage configured to store first travel data for a plurality of first tires in which a predetermined failure occurred, the first travel data accumulating information on position and acceleration when a vehicle, on which each of the first tires was mounted, traveled a travel route in the past, and second travel data for a plurality of second tires in which the predetermined failure has not occurred, the second travel data accumulating information on position and acceleration when a vehicle, on which each of the second tires was mounted, traveled the travel route in the past; and
a controller configured to evaluate a risk of tire failure occurrence on the travel route based on a difference between the acceleration included in the first travel data and the acceleration included in the second travel data.
9. A risk evaluation method to be executed by a computer, comprising:
acquiring first travel data for a plurality of first tires in which a predetermined failure occurred, the first travel data accumulating information on position and acceleration when a vehicle, on which each of the first tires was mounted, traveled a travel route in the past, and second travel data for a plurality of second tires in which the predetermined failure has not occurred, the second travel data accumulating information on position and acceleration when a vehicle, on which each of the second tires was mounted, traveled the travel route in the past; and
evaluating a risk of tire failure occurrence on the travel route based on a difference between the acceleration included in the first travel data and the acceleration included in the second travel data.
The above shows: yes, a judicial exception is recited.
But for the additional elements, the claim limitation pertaining to evaluating a risk of tire failure based on a difference between acceleration included in first travel data and acceleration included in second travel data is a process which can practically be performed in the human mind with or without the use of a physical aid. Specifically, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim encompasses performing an evaluation/judgment over obtained data. The courts have held such forms of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion to represent the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, the bolded limitations represent a mental process; therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong Two—Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application?
No. The claims as a whole merely use generic computer components—i.e., a risk evaluation apparatus, a controller, a computer—that are recited at a high level of generality such that they cannot be considered more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B—Does the claim provide an inventive concept?
No. The additional elements of the claims amount to:
Insignificant pre-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering:
store first travel data and second travel data
Generic computing components used to carry out insignificant extra-solution activity
a storage
Finally, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. The claim recites generic components and tools (e.g., the trained models) that either merely serve as the technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed or merely carry out insignificant extra-solution activity. The ordering of these elements reflects no more than the logical sequence associated with performing the recited abstract ideas and does not amount to a non-conventional or non-generic arrangement. Therefore, the claim neither provides an inventive concept nor constitutes significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims 2-8 and 10-20 depend on claim 1 but do not render the claimed invention patent eligible because they are directed to:
Additional abstract ideas
quantifies the difference between the acceleration in the first travel data and the acceleration in the second travel data
identifies, from the travel route, positions at which the quantified difference in acceleration is relatively large as risk locations
ranks the risk locations based on a magnitude of the difference in the acceleration
extracts a predetermined number of the risk locations
identifies the risk locations on the travel route based on map information of the travel route
generates, selects, or determines one or more measures for suppressing the predetermined failure at the risk locations
generates a notification including a method for increasing similarity between the third travel data and the second travel data
generates the notification based on similarity between the third travel data and the first travel data
Insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., gathering data)
detect position
detect acceleration
transmit information on the position and the acceleration
report a notification transmitted from the risk evaluation apparatus
generates the notification based on the evaluation of the risk of failure occurrence
transmits the notification to the terminal device for reporting
acquire, as third travel data, information on position and acceleration when the vehicle has traveled the travel route
transmits the notification to the terminal device
transmits the notification to the terminal device
accumulates the information on the position and the acceleration acquired from the vehicle
updates the first travel data or the second travel data using the accumulated information on the position and the acceleration
reports the notification by at least one of text, sound, light, and vibration
Field of use indication
a vehicle
wherein the terminal device includes at least one of a display, a speaker, a light emitter, and a vibrator
wherein the first tires and the second tires are at least any of tires of a port vehicle, a bus or truck that repeatedly travels a specific route, and a mine vehicle
Mere specification of type of data operated on
wherein the acceleration includes three-dimensional directional components
Claims 1-20 do not pass the patent eligibility test. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under § 101.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-10 and 13-16 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Patnaik et al. (US20220253913A1; “Patnaik”) in view of Sudo (JP2008065753A; “Sudo”), in view of Hara et al. (US20080115572A1; “Hara”) and in view of Barfield et al. (US20160035150A1; “Barfield”).
As to independent claim 1, Patnaik discloses a risk evaluation apparatus comprising:
A storage configured to store first travel data for a plurality of first tires in which a predetermined tires in which a predetermined failure occurred, the first travel data accumulating information on position (“[T]he vehicle may receive alerts from across an autonomous truck fleet about locations where tire blowout have occurred on a certain route. This information may be received directly from other nearby trucks or from a backend system” ¶ 66.); and
a controller configured to evaluate a risk of tire failure occurrence on the travel route based on the first travel data when a vehicle, on which each of the first tires was mounted, traveled a travel route in the past (“[T]he vehicle may receive alerts from across an autonomous truck fleet about locations where tire blowout have occurred on a certain route. This information may be received directly from other nearby trucks or from a backend system. In one scenario, the fleet may share information about conditions that might increase the risk of tire blowout or other tire failure. This can include using a shared database or a map to which vehicles can append information (e.g., in real time or upon reaching a destination or way point) and then use this database to inform routing decisions or decisions about which lane to drive in” ¶ 66.).
Patnaik fails to explicitly disclose: a storage configured to store first travel data for a plurality of first tires in which a predetermined failure occurred, the first travel data accumulating information on position and acceleration.
Nevertheless, Sudo teaches: storing store first travel data for a plurality of first tires, the first travel data accumulating information on position and acceleration (“[T]he system reads the current vehicle position P transmitted sequentially from the vehicle 10 (step 201), compares the current vehicle position P with the location Pg where an abnormal acceleration G occurred, which is stored in the database 30 (step 202).” ¶ 36. “[T]he amount of tire wear D increases in proportion to the square of the longitudinal acceleration GA and the lateral acceleration Gl of the vehicle body 11.” ¶ 46.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Patnaik to include the feature of: storing store first travel data for a plurality of first tires, the first travel data accumulating information on position and acceleration, as taught by Sudo, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for allowing “the operator to perform driving operations that prevent the occurrence of abnormal acceleration G at position Pg where abnormal acceleration G occurred” (Sudo, ¶ 36). As both Patnaik and Sudo collect vehicle sensor data across a fleet which travels through common routes and store said data against route positions, combining the two would have yielded the predictable result of locating where time-damaging forces occur.
The combination of Patnaik and Sudo fails to explicitly disclose: a controller configured to evaluate a risk of tire failure occurrence on the travel route based on a difference between the acceleration included in the first travel data and the acceleration included in the second travel data.
Nevertheless, Hara teaches: evaluating a risk of tire failure based on a difference between acceleration included in first data and acceleration included in second data (“The tire trouble is classified mainly into a trouble in the bead portion accompanying a deformation of the entire tire (case) and a trouble in the tread portion accompanying heat generation in the tread portion including the belt.” ¶ 59. “Among the accelerations acting on the tire in the up-and-down, back-and-forward and lateral (right-and-left) directions, the accelerations in the up-and-down and right-and-left directions act in a direction in which shear strain is caused between the bead portion of the tire and the rim, so that it seriously affects the trouble in the bead portion” ¶ 62; see also ¶ 63. Continuing, an index “representing the tendency of causing trouble in the bead portion” is based on at least “frequencies Gverf(0.1) of acceleration in the up-and-down direction …and frequencies Glonf(0.1) of acceleration in the back-and-forward direction” ¶ 71.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Patnaik and Sudo to include the feature of: evaluating a risk of tire failure based on a difference between acceleration included in first data and acceleration included in second data, as taught by Hara, with a reasonable expectation of success because Hara teaches that vertical and longitudinal acceleration yield an index of how readily tire trouble occurs (see Hara, ¶¶ 62-63, 71-73). Applying Hara’s acceleration-based failure quantification to Patnaik-Sudo would have yielded the predictable result of identifying route positions at which tire failure is more likely to occur.
The combination of Patnaik, Sudo and Hara fails to explicitly disclose:
storing second travel data for a plurality of second tires in which the predetermined failure has not occurred, the second travel data accumulating information on position and acceleration when a vehicle, on which each of the second tires was mounted, traveled the travel route in the past; and
performing the evaluation of a risk of tire failure occurrence based on a difference between first travel data, representing when a predetermined failure occurred, and said second travel data.
Nevertheless, Barfield teaches: storing second travel data in which a predetermined failure has not occurred, when a vehicle traveled a travel route in the past; and evaluating risk of failure occurrence between a difference between first travel data, representing when a predetermined failure occurred, and said second travel data (“[I]t may be useful to perform a correlation analysis, on the certain features, with respect to the population and a selected subset of the population that corresponds to the vehicle issue. The correlation analysis may be useful in deciding whether to use supervised machine learning techniques and/or in deciding which features to use as inputs to the supervised machine learning models. The correlation analysis may be performed on the selected features between the subset of the population that experienced the vehicle issue (e.g., a particular DTC) and the remainder of the population (e.g., features corresponding to vehicles in which the particular DTC did not occur)” ¶ 41.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Patnaik, Sudo and Hara to include the feature of: storing second travel data in which a predetermined failure has not occurred, when a vehicle traveled a travel route in the past; and evaluating risk of failure occurrence between a difference between first travel data, representing when a predetermined failure occurred, and said second travel data, as taught by Barfield, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “finding statistically significant differences between the clusters generated with respect to drivers experiencing the DTC [a form of tire trouble] and not experiencing the DTC” (Barfield, ¶ 56). Hence, applying Barfield’s teaching to Patnaik-Sudo-Hara’s acceleration data collected across a fleet would have yielded the predictable result of distinguishing the acceleration conditions associated with tire failure from those associated from normal operation, thereby enhancing the determination of tire failure risk.
Independent claim 9 is rejected for at least the same reason as claim 1 as the claims recite similar subject matter but for minor differences.
As to claim 2, Patnaik fails to explicitly disclose: identifies, from the travel route, positions at which the quantified difference in acceleration is relatively large as risk locations.
Nevertheless, Sudo teaches: identifies, from the travel route, positions at which the quantified difference in acceleration is relatively large as risk locations (“[T]he system reads the current vehicle position P transmitted sequentially from the vehicle 10 (step 201), compares the current vehicle position P with the location Pg where an abnormal acceleration G occurred, which is stored in the database 30 (step 202).” ¶ 36. “[T]he amount of tire wear D increases in proportion to the square of the longitudinal acceleration GA and the lateral acceleration Gl of the vehicle body 11” ¶ 46.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Patnaik to include the feature of: identifies, from the travel route, positions at which the quantified difference in acceleration is relatively large as risk locations, as taught by Sudo, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for allowing “the operator to perform driving operations that prevent the occurrence of abnormal acceleration G at position Pg where abnormal acceleration G occurred” (Sudo, ¶ 36). As both Patnaik and Sudo collect vehicle sensor data across a fleet which travels through common routes and store said data against route positions, combining the two would have yielded the predictable result of locating where time-damaging forces occur.
The combination of Patnaik, Sudo and Hara fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the controller quantifies the difference between the acceleration in the first travel data and the acceleration in the second travel data.
Nevertheless, Barfield teaches: quantifying a difference between the sensor data in the first travel data and sensor data in the second travel data (“[I]t may be useful to perform a correlation analysis, on the certain features, with respect to the population and a selected subset of the population that corresponds to the vehicle issue. The correlation analysis may be useful in deciding whether to use supervised machine learning techniques and/or in deciding which features to use as inputs to the supervised machine learning models. The correlation analysis may be performed on the selected features between the subset of the population that experienced the vehicle issue (e.g., a particular DTC) and the remainder of the population (e.g., features corresponding to vehicles in which the particular DTC did not occur)” ¶ 41.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Patnaik, Sudo and Hara to include the feature of: quantifying a difference between the sensor data in the first travel data and sensor data in the second travel data, as taught by Barfield, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “finding statistically significant differences between the clusters generated with respect to drivers experiencing the DTC [a form of tire trouble] and not experiencing the DTC” (Barfield, ¶ 56). Barfield also contemplates acceleration among the sensor data available for such comparison (See ¶ 31). Hence, applying Barfield’s teaching to Patnaik-Sudo-Hara’s acceleration data collected across a fleet would have yielded the predictable result of distinguishing the acceleration conditions associated with tire failure from those associated from normal operation, thereby enhancing the determination of tire failure risk.
As to claim 5, Patnaik discloses: wherein the controller identifies the risk locations on the travel route based on map information of the travel route (“FIG. 8 illustrates an example 800 in which there may be a pothole 802, debris 804 or other obstacle 806. Depending on the obstacle and other factors, any of these could lead to a blowout, slow leak, or other failure of one or more tires. … Even though the system may classify an obstacle, information observed or otherwise know about the obstacle may be highly relevant to whether it can increase the likelihood of a blowout. … As shown by the double arrow in FIG. 8, information obtained by one vehicle may be passed on to other vehicles about the obstacle. … This obtained information may be transmitted directly or indirectly to one or more nearby vehicles on the roadway, or to a central system such as a remote assistance service for dissemination to other vehicles. As a result, potholes and other obstacles may be added to a map, for example on an obstacle or hazard layer of a roadgraph or other electronic map. Vehicles would then be able to identify the pothole based on its presence in the map” ¶ 63; see also ¶ 73.).
As to claim 6, Patnaik fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the controller generates, selects, or determines one or more measures for suppressing the predetermined failure at the risk locations based on the difference in the acceleration.
Nevertheless, Sudo teaches: generates, selects, or determines one or more measures for suppressing the predetermined failure at the risk locations based on the difference in the acceleration (“As a result, if it is determined that vehicle 10 is approaching position Pg where an abnormal acceleration G occurred, a warning is sent to vehicle 10 from the control station 20 via the wireless communication system 21. … this warning allows the operator to perform driving operations that prevent the occurrence of abnormal acceleration G at position Pg where abnormal acceleration G occurred,” wherein the operations may comprise “Reduce speed, or weaken acceleration or deceleration,” and etc. ¶¶ 36-39.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Patnaik to include the feature of: generates, selects, or determines one or more measures for suppressing the predetermined failure at the risk locations based on the difference in the acceleration, as taught by Sudo, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for allowing “the operator to perform driving operations that prevent the occurrence of abnormal acceleration G at position Pg where abnormal acceleration G occurred” (Sudo, ¶ 36). As both Patnaik and Sudo collect vehicle sensor data across a fleet which travels through common routes and store said data against route positions, combining the two would have yielded the predictable result of locating where time-damaging forces occur and performing an appropriate measure associated thereof.
As to claims 7 and 15, Patnaik fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the first tires and the second tires are at least any of tires of a port vehicle, a bus or truck that repeatedly travels a specific route, and a mine vehicle.
Nevertheless, Sudo teaches: wherein the tires are at least any of a mine vehicle (“At large-scale work sites such as quarries and mines, dump trucks are used to transport soil and sand” ¶ 2.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Patnaik to include the feature of: wherein the first tires are at least any of a mine vehicle, as taught by Sudo, with a reasonable expectation of success because a mine is a location associated with risk of tire failure.
As to claims 8 and 16, Patnaik fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the acceleration includes three-dimensional directional components.
Nevertheless, Sudo teaches: wherein the acceleration includes three-dimensional directional components (“In other words, by taking the second derivative of the position P of the vehicle body 11 in the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical directions, the acceleration G of the vehicle body 11 in the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical directions can be obtained (step 103).” ¶ 33.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Patnaik to include the feature of: wherein the acceleration includes three-dimensional directional components, as taught by Sudo, with a reasonable expectation of success because it is well-known in the art that acceleration may constitute three-dimensional components.
As to claim 10, Patnaik discloses a risk evaluation system comprising:
a vehicle having a position detector configured to detect position, an accelerometer configured to detect acceleration, and a vehicle communication interface configured to transmit information on the position and the acceleration to the risk evaluation apparatus (“The vehicle comprises a driving system, a perception system, a positioning system and a control system. … The positioning system is configured to determine a current position of the vehicle” ¶ 8. “[T]he perception system 224 may include … inertial sensors (e.g., gyroscopes or accelerometers)” ¶ 38. “The computing devices 202 may communicate with the sensor assemblies located on both the tractor unit 102 and the trailer 104 or distributed along the passenger vehicle 150” ¶ 39. “The communication system 234 may include one or more wireless network connections to facilitate communication with other computing devices, such as passenger computing devices within the vehicle, and computing devices external to the vehicle, such as in another nearby vehicle on the roadway or at a remote network.” ¶ 40; see also FIG 2A.);
the risk evaluation apparatus (see claim 1 rejection above); and
a terminal device configured to report a notification transmitted from the risk evaluation apparatus (“The vehicle's on-board control system may communicate with remote assistance, as well as with service personnel and human drivers or passengers of the vehicle. One example of this is shown in FIGS. 9A and 9B. In particular, FIGS. 9A and 9B are pictorial and functional diagrams, respectively, of an example arrangement 900 that includes a plurality of computing devices 902, 904, 906, 908” ¶ 77. “Although these computing devices may each comprise a full-sized personal computing device, they may alternatively comprise mobile computing devices capable of wirelessly exchanging data with a server over a network such as the Internet. By way of example only, computing device 908 may be mobile phones or devices such as a wireless-enabled PDA, a tablet PC, a wearable computing device (e.g., a smartwatch), or a netbook that is capable of obtaining information via the Internet or other networks” ¶ 81. “In a situation where there are passengers, the vehicle or remote assistance may communicate directly or indirectly with the passengers' client computing device. Here, for example, information may be provided to the passengers regarding a blowout situation, actions being taken or to be taken in response to the situation, etc.” ¶ 87. See also FIGS. 9A-9B.),
wherein the controller of the risk evaluation apparatus generates the notification based on the evaluation of the risk of failure occurrence and transmits the notification to the terminal device for reporting (“In addition to sensors capturing information about the tires' status in real time, a machine learning model for such sensor information could be applied to detect a blowout or other failure condition. In one example, the system (either onboard or remote) can construct an anomaly detection model. … For both cases, the system can bring a human into the loop should one or more threshold conditions for a failure be met. That is, when the model detects something, the vehicle is able to notify remote assistance urgently so that a trained human can also evaluate the situation before the vehicle takes corrective action” ¶ 74, emphasis added.).
Regarding the limitation “the risk evaluation apparatus according to claim 1,” see the rejection of claim 1 above.
As to claim 13, Patnaik fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the storage accumulates the information on the position and the acceleration acquired from the vehicle, and the controller updates the first travel data or the second travel data using the accumulated information on the position and the acceleration.
Nevertheless, Sudo teaches: accumulates the information on the position and the acceleration acquired from the vehicle, and updates the first travel data using the accumulated information on the position and the acceleration (“The data for the abnormal acceleration G and the location Pg where this abnormal acceleration G occurred are received by the control station 20's wireless communication system 21, and the abnormal acceleration G and the location Pg where this abnormal acceleration G occurred are associated with each other via the tire load monitoring system 22 and stored in the database 23. Furthermore, the data stored in database 23 is updated sequentially with the latest data” ¶ 35.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Patnaik to include the feature of: accumulates the information on the position and the acceleration acquired from the vehicle, and updates the first travel data using the accumulated information on the position and the acceleration, as taught by Sudo, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for allowing “the operator to perform driving operations that prevent the occurrence of abnormal acceleration G at position Pg where abnormal acceleration G occurred” (Sudo, ¶ 36). As both Patnaik and Sudo collect vehicle sensor data across a fleet which travels through common routes and store said data against route positions, combining the two would have yielded the predictable result of locating where time-damaging forces occur and performing an appropriate measure associated thereof.
As to claim 14, Patnaik discloses: wherein the terminal device includes at least one of a display, a speaker, a light, and a vibrator emitter (“Computing devices 202 may include all of the components normally used in connection with a computing device such as the processor and memory described above as well as a user interface subsystem 334. The user interface subsystem 334 may include … various electronic displays 338 (e.g., a monitor having a screen or any other electrical device that is operable to display information). … Output devices, such as speaker(s) 340 may also be located within the passenger vehicle” ¶ 47.).
Patnaik fails to explicitly disclose: reports the notification by at least one of text, sound, light, and vibration.
Nevertheless, Sudo teaches: reports the notification by at least one of text, sound, light, and vibration (“As a result, if it is determined that vehicle 10 is approaching position Pg where an abnormal acceleration G occurred, a warning is sent to vehicle 10 from the control station 20 via the wireless communication system 21. The warning is received by the vehicle 10's wireless communication system 15 and displayed on a monitor screen” ¶ 36.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Patnaik to include the feature of: reports the notification by at least one of text, sound, light, and vibration, as taught by Sudo, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for allowing “the operator to perform driving operations that prevent the occurrence of abnormal acceleration G at position Pg where abnormal acceleration G occurred” (Sudo, ¶ 36). As both Patnaik and Sudo collect vehicle sensor data across a fleet which travels through common routes and store said data against route positions, combining the two would have yielded the predictable result of locating where time-damaging forces occur and performing an appropriate measure associated thereof.
Claim(s) 3 and 17-20 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Patnaik in view of Sudo, in view of Hara and in view of Barfield as applied to claim 1 – further in view of Giovanardi et al. (US20230152106A1; “Giovanardi”).
As to claim 3, the combination of Patnaik, Sudo, Hara and Barfield fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the controller ranks the risk locations based on a magnitude of the difference in the acceleration.
Nevertheless, Giovanardi teaches: wherein the controller ranks the risk locations based on a magnitude of tire failure risk (“[A] metric may be based on a combination of multiple factors. Each factor may be scaled to a 0-1 relative scale with 1 being a value that is considered the highest, and 0 being a value that is considered the lowest. For example, when considering tire wear, a scaling factor of 0 may be assigned to road content that will not cause noticeable increase in tire wear above a completely flat road, for example a road with very low content near tire hop frequencies, while a scaling factor of 1 may be used for a road that may accelerate tire degradation by a factor between 1.5 and 3. … In some embodiments, a relative weighting may be applied to one or more factors. …by using a weighting for each value and multiplying the weighting by the scaled number for each factor and summing the total factors, a total number may be determined for each road segment. … In some embodiments, this total number may be used as a metric to rank road segments relative to each other, and to select the route that has the lowest total score as optimal for the current driver, vehicle, road conditions, and traffic and/or current situation” ¶ 61.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Patnaik, Sudo, Hara and Barfield to include the feature of: wherein the controller ranks the risk locations based on a magnitude of tire failure risk, as taught by Giovanardi, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for distinguishing which of the identified risk locations present the greatest risk of tire failure and therefore warrant attention. Applying this ranking to the risk locations identified from the acceleration difference would have yielded the predictable result of ordering those locations by the degree of tire failure risk each presents.
As to claim 17, Patnaik discloses: wherein the controller identifies the risk locations on the travel route based on map information of the travel route (“FIG. 8 illustrates an example 800 in which there may be a pothole 802, debris 804 or other obstacle 806. Depending on the obstacle and other factors, any of these could lead to a blowout, slow leak, or other failure of one or more tires. … Even though the system may classify an obstacle, information observed or otherwise know about the obstacle may be highly relevant to whether it can increase the likelihood of a blowout. … As shown by the double arrow in FIG. 8, information obtained by one vehicle may be passed on to other vehicles about the obstacle. … This obtained information may be transmitted directly or indirectly to one or more nearby vehicles on the roadway, or to a central system such as a remote assistance service for dissemination to other vehicles. As a result, potholes and other obstacles may be added to a map, for example on an obstacle or hazard layer of a roadgraph or other electronic map. Vehicles would then be able to identify the pothole based on its presence in the map” ¶ 63; see also ¶ 73.).
As to claim 18, Patnaik fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the controller generates, selects, or determines one or more measures for suppressing the predetermined failure at the risk locations based on the difference in the acceleration.
Nevertheless, Sudo teaches: generates, selects, or determines one or more measures for suppressing the predetermined failure at the risk locations based on the difference in the acceleration (“As a result, if it is determined that vehicle 10 is approaching position Pg where an abnormal acceleration G occurred, a warning is sent to vehicle 10 from the control station 20 via the wireless communication system 21. … this warning allows the operator to perform driving operations that prevent the occurrence of abnormal acceleration G at position Pg where abnormal acceleration G occurred,” wherein the operations may comprise “Reduce speed, or weaken acceleration or deceleration,” and etc. ¶¶ 36-39.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Patnaik to include the feature of: generates, selects, or determines one or more measures for suppressing the predetermined failure at the risk locations based on the difference in the acceleration, as taught by Sudo, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for allowing “the operator to perform driving operations that prevent the occurrence of abnormal acceleration G at position Pg where abnormal acceleration G occurred” (Sudo, ¶ 36). As both Patnaik and Sudo collect vehicle sensor data across a fleet which travels through common routes and store said data against route positions, combining the two would have yielded the predictable result of locating where time-damaging forces occur and performing an appropriate measure associated thereof.
As to claim 19, Patnaik fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the first tires and the second tires are at least any of tires of a port vehicle, a bus or truck that repeatedly travels a specific route, and a mine vehicle.
Nevertheless, Sudo teaches: wherein the tires are at least any of a mine vehicle (“At large-scale work sites such as quarries and mines, dump trucks are used to transport soil and sand” ¶ 2.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Patnaik to include the feature of: wherein the first tires are at least any of a mine vehicle, as taught by Sudo, with a reasonable expectation of success because a mine is a location associated with risk of tire failure.
As to claim 20, Patnaik fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the acceleration includes three-dimensional directional components.
Nevertheless, Sudo teaches: wherein the acceleration includes three-dimensional directional components (“In other words, by taking the second derivative of the position P of the vehicle body 11 in the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical directions, the acceleration G of the vehicle body 11 in the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical directions can be obtained (step 103).” ¶ 33.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Patnaik to include the feature of: wherein the acceleration includes three-dimensional directional components, as taught by Sudo, with a reasonable expectation of success because it is well-known in the art that acceleration may constitute three-dimensional components.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Patnaik in view of Sudo, in view of Hara, in view of Barfield and in view of Giovanardi as applied to claim 3 – further in view of Spears et al. (US20170303088A1; “Spears”).
As to claim 4, the combination of Patnaik, Sudo, Hara, Barfield and Giovanardi fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the controller extracts only a predetermined number of the risk locations in order from a largest difference in the acceleration among the risk locations subjected to ranking.
Nevertheless, Spears teaches: extracting only a predetermined number of locations in order among the locations subjected to ranking (“[T]he top N locations (N being a natural number) with the highest utility values are selected for presentation to the user” ¶ 223. See also ¶ 224 and FIG. 31 tying the locations to a vehicle route.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Patnaik, Sudo, Hara, Barfield and Giovanardi to include the feature of: extracting only a predetermined number of locations in order among the locations subjected to ranking, as taught by Spears, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so is useful for limiting the number of locations that a user can readily address, rather than presenting every location identified along the route. Hence, incorporating Spears would have yielded the predictable result of extracting a predetermined number of locations having the largest acceleration difference, thereby achieving Spears’ user friendliness in the context of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Patnaik in view of Sudo, in view of Hara and in view of Barfield as applied to claim 10 – further in view of DeLuca et al. (US20210174140A1; “DeLuca”).
As to claim 11, Patnaik fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the risk evaluation apparatus includes an acquisition interface configured to acquire, as third travel data, information on position and acceleration when the vehicle has traveled the travel route
Nevertheless, Sudo teaches: an acquisition interface configured to acquire, as travel data, information on position and acceleration when the vehicle has traveled the travel route (“[T]he system reads the current vehicle position P transmitted sequentially from the vehicle 10 (step 201), compares the current vehicle position P with the location Pg where an abnormal acceleration G occurred, which is stored in the database 30 (step 202).” ¶ 36. “[T]he amount of tire wear D increases in proportion to the square of the longitudinal acceleration GA and the lateral acceleration Gl of the vehicle body 11.” ¶ 46.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Patnaik to include the feature of: an acquisition interface configured to acquire, as travel data, information on position and acceleration when the vehicle has traveled the travel route, as taught by Sudo, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for allowing “the operator to perform driving operations that prevent the occurrence of abnormal acceleration G at position Pg where abnormal acceleration G occurred” (Sudo, ¶ 36). As both Patnaik and Sudo collect vehicle sensor data across a fleet which travels through common routes and store said data against route positions, combining the two would have yielded the predictable result of locating where time-damaging forces occur.
The combination of Patnaik, Sudo, Hara and Barfield fails to explicitly disclose: the controller generates the notification based on similarity between the third travel data and the first travel data and transmits the notification to the terminal device.
Nevertheless, DeLuca teaches: generates a notification based on similarity between the travel data, representative of current travel data, and the first travel data, representative of a trip wherein a predetermined tire failure occurred, and transmits the notification to a terminal device (“According to one embodiment, the acoustic detection program 108A, 108B may determine that the captured sound and sensor data has a certain degree of similarity to stored and/or online sound and sensor data that is specifically associated with a stored and/or online event that may be previously identified and/or pre-identified as a flat tire. According to one embodiment, the acoustic detection program 108A, 108B may determine the degree of similarity based on a threshold number of similarities between the captured sound and sensor data with the stored and online sound and sensor data, whereby the degree of similarity may be represented by a percentage. For example, based on a threshold number of similarities between the sound attributes and sensor data, the acoustic detection program 108A, 108B may determine that there is a 98% likelihood that the car vehicle has a flat tire, whereby the 98% may be a confidence score determined by the acoustic detection program 108A, 108B in response to the analysis and comparisons” ¶ 31. “According to one embodiment, in response to identifying the sensor triggering event, the acoustic detection program 108A, 108B may send and display an alert to a client computer 102 and/or to a device associated with a user and/or associated with the IoT device” ¶ 32.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Patnaik, Sudo, Hara and Barfield to include the feature of: generates a notification based on similarity between the travel data, representative of current travel data, and the first travel data, representative of a trip wherein a predetermined tire failure occurred, and transmits the notification to a terminal device, as taught by DeLuca, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for alerting an operator that a vehicle is currently exhibiting the conditions associated with failure occurrence, before the failure occurs again. Hence, applying DeLuca’s similarity determination to the position and acceleration data already accumulated for the failed tires in the combination of cited art would have yielded the predictable result of notifying the operator when current travel resembles travel that preceded a tire failure.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Patnaik in view of Sudo, in view of Hara and in view of Barfield as applied to claim 10 – further in view of Naiwala et al. (US20140212849A1; “Naiwala”).
As to claim 12, Patnaik fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the risk evaluation apparatus includes an acquisition unit configured to acquire, as third travel data, information on position and acceleration when the vehicle has traveled the travel route
Nevertheless, Sudo teaches: an acquisition unit configured to acquire, as travel data, information on position and acceleration when the vehicle has traveled the travel route (“[T]he system reads the current vehicle position P transmitted sequentially from the vehicle 10 (step 201), compares the current vehicle position P with the location Pg where an abnormal acceleration G occurred, which is stored in the database 30 (step 202).” ¶ 36. “[T]he amount of tire wear D increases in proportion to the square of the longitudinal acceleration GA and the lateral acceleration Gl of the vehicle body 11.” ¶ 46.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Patnaik to include the feature of: an acquisition interface configured to acquire, as travel data, information on position and acceleration when the vehicle has traveled the travel route, as taught by Sudo, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for allowing “the operator to perform driving operations that prevent the occurrence of abnormal acceleration G at position Pg where abnormal acceleration G occurred” (Sudo, ¶ 36). As both Patnaik and Sudo collect vehicle sensor data across a fleet which travels through common routes and store said data against route positions, combining the two would have yielded the predictable result of locating where time-damaging forces occur.
The combination of Patnaik, Sudo, Hara and Barfield fails to explicitly disclose: the controller generates a notification including a method for increasing similarity between the third travel data and the second travel data and transmits the notification to the terminal device.
Nevertheless, Naiwala teaches: generates a notification including a method for increasing similarity between the third travel data, representing current travel data, and the second travel data, representing travel data associated with normal operation, and transmits the notification to the terminal device (“[T]he similarity data acquisition unit 7 acquires, from the reference data storage unit 6, driving data that includes a driving skill higher than the driving skill in the input driving data, and is the most similar to the input driving data. The calculation of the similarity can be implemented, by using an algorithm such as principal component analysis (PCA), k-nearest neighbor algorithm, k-means clustering” ¶ 34. “The driving assistance unit 9 presents differences that are detected by the difference detection unit 8 as driving advice to an output device 10. Specifically, driving assistance unit 9 advises to correct the difference regarding the cause, and presents an effect that is obtained as the result” ¶ 37. “The driving assistance unit 9 prepares driving advice as shown in FIG. 7 on the basis of such a difference detection result. In the driving advice, the speed before the curve that is an operation amount that causes the difference is advised as a point to be corrected, among the differences detected by the difference detection unit 8 (FIG. 7A). Specifically, advice mentioning that the speed should be decelerated to 50 km an hour or less before the curve in a case of the curve of this traveling course is presented” ¶ 43.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Patnaik, Sudo, Hara and Barfield to include the feature of: generates a notification including a method for increasing similarity between the third travel data, representing current travel data, and the second travel data, representing travel data associated with normal operation, and transmits the notification to the terminal device, as taught by Naiwala, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for informing an operator that current travel differs from reference travel, and likewise a measure for remedying such. Hence, applying Naiwala’s teaching to the second travel data yielded by the cited combination would have yielded the predictable result of notifying an operator how to drive so that the current travel resembles travel in which no tire failure occurred.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/MARIO C GONZALEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 3668
