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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al., US 10,745,867 B2 in view of Buschmann et al., US 8,998,530 B2, Filla et al., US 2021/0140147 A1, and EP 3 124 698 A1 (hereinafter will be referred to as “EP ‘698”).
Regarding claim 1, Weber teaches a road paver for producing a paving layer, comprising:
a chassis (3);
a paving screed (7) for compacting a paving material, the paving screed having a control station (6) with a control device which has an operating panel (column 4 lines 10-15) for setting process parameters of the paving screed; and
a projector (9).
While Weber appears to show (looking at Figure 11) an external control station but fails to explicitly disclose such and fails to disclose an input and display for displaying process parameters set on the paving screed, Buschmann discloses an input and display section provided on the road paver and the screed coupled with a control system for inputting or displaying parameters (column 7 lines 7-14 and column 12 lines 50-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weber’s road paver to include an external control station to allow the operator to operate from different locations and an input and display section for inputting and displaying process parameters set on the paving screed to further help the screed operator in view of Buschmann’s disclosure.
While the resulting combination fails to explicitly disclose that the screed is mounted in a height-adjustable manner, Applicant admits in the specification that it is known in the art that screed operators can adjust the paving thickness, which means that screeds mounted in a height-adjustable manner are known in the art in order for paving thickness to be adjusted. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the screed be mounted in a height-adjustable manner since it is known in the art to be able to vary the paving thickness.
While the resulting combination includes a projector but is only disclosed for navigation aid, Filla teaches providing a projection arrangement on a working machine to help an operator of the machine with not only driving instructions but also current or future task instructions or information for using an implement of the machine (Figure 4; [0016]-[0017]). 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 projector and use of the projector to project at least one of the process parameters set on the operating panel based on the resulting combination with Buschmann to better help the screed operator.
While the resulting combination fails to disclose that the projection area is formable by a paving layer producible by the road paver, EP ‘698 teaches a road paver for producing a paving layer and discloses that on the road paver is a projection unit 34 that projects onto the newly-formed pavement 10 (Figure 4; description of Figure 4 on page 9 of the English translation; and (presumably) claim 4 “the display device (26) is a projection unit (34) which is adapted to project…on the new road surface (10) behind the screed (9)). 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 resulting combination to have the projection area be formable by a paving layer producible by the road paver in view of EP ‘698’s disclosure that the newly-formed pavement can be a projection surface since the information displayed is merely at a different known location which the operator would be looking at, since the point of an operator working at the external control station would be to monitor the newly formed pavement. The resulting combination includes the projected parameter projected onto the projection area being visible to a screed operator of the paving screed when the screed operator is at the external control station looking at the newly-formed pavement.
Regarding claim 3, Filla further discloses an image projector projecting onto a surface of a construction working machine to allow for projection of information for assisting the operator, the construction working machine having a surface of the working machine used as a “canvas” for presenting the assisting information ([0008]-[0010]). Since the resulting combination comprises a road paver, 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 resulting combination to include a second projection area formed on the road paver in view of Filla’s disclosure of using a surface of the working machine as a canvas for presenting information to the machine operator to allow the operator to place his focus at the “right place” ([0008]-[0010]) since the resulting combination includes an external control station in addition to the conventional cabin control station for convenience to the operator.
Regarding claim 4, Filla further discloses an image projector projecting onto a surface of a construction working machine to allow for projection of information for assisting the operator, the construction working machine having a surface of the working machine used as a “canvas” for presenting the assisting information ([0008]-[0010]). Since the resulting combination comprises a road paver with a paving screed, 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 resulting combination to include a second projection area for imaging the at least one process parameter formed on the paving screed in view of Filla’s disclosure of using a surface of the working machine as a canvas for presenting information to the machine operator to allow the operator to place his focus at the “right place” ([0008]-[0010]) since the resulting combination includes an external control station on the screed in addition to the conventional cabin control station for convenience to the operator.
Regarding claim 5, Weber additionally discloses an alternate type of road paver (Figures 11-12; column 10 lines 4-13) with a paving screed having a base screed body (unnumbered center portion, shown in Figure 12) which has an upper cover and laterally extendable extending units (30 on either side, shown in Figure 12) attached thereto for varying a pave width (column 10 lines 9-11). 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 road paver of the resulting combination to have the paving screed comprise a base screed body and laterally extendable extending units attached thereto for varying a pave width in view of Weber’s further disclosure as detailed above when a wider paving width or variable paving width is needed. Since the resulting combination from claim 4 includes the second projection area being on the paving screed for when the operator is working from the external control station, and looking at Buschmann’s Figure 1 which shows the placement of control panel (P’) of the external control station on the screed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second projection area be on the upper cover of the base screed body since that is the general location of where the operator would be facing when working from the external control station.
Regarding claim 7, while the resulting combination fails to disclose a layer thickness measuring device, the Examiner took Official Notice in the office action dated 3/1/2024 that a layer thickness measuring device for determining a layer thickness of the paving layer producible by a road paver is old and well-known. Applicant failed to challenge the Official Notice in their arguments. Under the guidelines of MPEP 2144.03, to adequately traverse Official Notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action including stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice would be inadequate. Since applicant did not adequately traverse the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, the facts are now considered to be admitted prior art (MPEP 2144.03). Applicant’s traversal is considered inadequate because there was no reference to the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice. 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 road paver of the resulting combination to include a layer thickness measuring device for determining a layer thickness of the paving layer producible by the road paver since it is known implement to be able to determine the thickness of the paved layer. 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 resulting combination to have the projector be attached to the layer thickness measuring device in view of Weber’s disclosure that the projector can basically be mounted anywhere on the paver as long as it does not collide with any moving part (column 2 lines 53-66).
Regarding claim 8, Weber discloses that the projector can be mounted on a roof structure of the operator stand. Pertaining to the projector being part of a thermal imaging camera, the Examiner took Official Notice in the office action dated 3/1/2024 that a projector that is an integral part of a thermal imaging camera is old and well-known. Applicant failed to challenge the Official Notice in their arguments. Under the guidelines of MPEP 2144.03, to adequately traverse Official Notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action including stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice would be inadequate. Since applicant did not adequately traverse the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, the facts are now considered to be admitted prior art (MPEP 2144.03). Applicant’s traversal is considered inadequate because there was no reference to the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a projector that is integrated with a thermal imaging camera to be able to also monitor temperature segregation during paving.
Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the control device of the external control station comprise the projector, since it has been held that relocation of parts involves only routine skill in the art and is a matter of obviousness. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 11, the Examiner took Official Notice in the office action dated 3/1/2024 that voice control is old and well-known. Applicant failed to challenge the Official Notice in their arguments. Under the guidelines of MPEP 2144.03, to adequately traverse Official Notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action including stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice would be inadequate. Since applicant did not adequately traverse the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, the facts are now considered to be admitted prior art (MPEP 2144.03). Applicant’s traversal is considered inadequate because there was no reference to the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a voice control module by means of which operation of the projector can be controlled by the operator in an alternate way.
Regarding claim 12, in view of Filla further disclosing that the working machine can have sensors or cameras to further provide information such as obstacles to the operator via projection ([0018]), 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 paving screed to comprise a detection unit and have the projector display process parameters of the paving screed detectable by means of the detection unit during operation of the paving screed on the projection area in view of Filla’s further disclosure to further help the operator.
Regarding claim 13, while the resulting combination fails to disclose that the process parameters of the paving screed detectable by means of the detection unit comprise a temperature, the Examiner took Official Notice in the office action dated 3/1/2024 that detecting a temperature in paving is old and well-known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the detection unit detect a temperature to be able to monitor temperature segregation during paving.
Regarding claim 14, the resulting combination includes the at least one process parameter comprising at least one set process parameter setting of the paving screed in view of Buschmann’s disclosure (column 7 lines 7-14). Filla further discloses allowing for any projection of information for assisting the operator and the projected image comprises information for the operator to control the working machine ([0008]-[0009]). 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 resulting combination to have the projector be configured to project the at least one process parameter in dependence on the setting of the at least one process parameter in view of Filla’s further disclosure of allowing for any projection of information for assisting the operator and the projected image comprises information for the operator to control the working machine to further help the operator. The resulting combination makes obvious the setting via the operating panel of the control device of the external control station (as modified by Buschmann with external control panel P’ on external control station).
Regarding claim 25, Weber teaches a road paver for producing a paving layer, comprising:
a chassis (3);
a paving screed (7) for compacting a paving material, the paving screed having a control station (6) with a control device which has an operating panel (column 4 lines 10-15) for setting process parameters of the paving screed; and
a projector (9).
While Weber appears to show (looking at Figure 11) an external control station but fails to explicitly disclose such and fails to disclose an input and display for displaying process parameters set on the paving screed, Buschmann discloses an input and display section provided on the road paver and the screed coupled with a control system for inputting or displaying parameters (column 7 lines 7-14 and column 12 lines 50-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weber’s road paver to include an external control station to allow the operator to operate from different locations and an input and display section for inputting and displaying process parameters set on the paving screed to further help the screed operator in view of Buschmann’s disclosure.
While the resulting combination fails to explicitly disclose that the screed is mounted in a height-adjustable manner, Applicant admits in the specification that it is known in the art that screed operators can adjust the paving thickness, which means that screeds mounted in a height-adjustable manner are known in the art in order for paving thickness to be adjusted. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the screed be mounted in a height-adjustable manner since it is known in the art to be able to vary the paving thickness.
While the resulting combination includes a projector but is only disclosed for navigation aid, Filla teaches providing a projection arrangement on a working machine to help an operator of the machine with not only driving instructions but also current or future task instructions or information for using an implement of the machine (Figure 4; [0016]-[0017]). 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 projector and use of the projector to project at least one of the process parameters set on the operating panel based on the resulting combination with Buschmann to better help the screed operator.
While the resulting combination fails to explicitly disclose that the projector is controllable by means of the control device of the external control station, EP ‘698 teaches a road paver for producing a paving layer and discloses that on the road paver is a projection unit and that the projection unit comprises at least one laser light which can be configured to vary the color so that the projection is visible during daytime and night time work, and that an operator of the paver could manually adjust the laser light color of the projection unit (middle paragraph on page 4 of the English translation). 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 resulting combination to have the projector be controllable by means of the control device of the external control station since the operator could work at the external control station and may need to adjust the light of the projector to make the projection visible regardless of daytime or night time work in view of EP ‘698’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 26, while the resulting combination fails to disclose that the projection area is formable by a paving layer producible by the road paver, EP ‘698 further discloses the projection unit 34 projects onto the newly-formed pavement 10 (Figure 4; description of Figure 4 on page 9 of the English translation; and (presumably) claim 4 “the display device (26) is a projection unit (34) which is adapted to project…on the new road surface (10) behind the screed (9)). 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 resulting combination to have the projection area be formable by a paving layer producible by the road paver in view of EP ‘698’s disclosure that the newly-formed pavement can be a projection surface.
Regarding claim 27, Filla further discloses that the projection image can be projected onto a part of the working machine (which is the road paver in the resulting combination) so that the working machine is the “canvas” for presenting the assisting information to the operator [0009]. 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 resulting combination to have the projection area be formed on the road paver in view of Filla’s suggestion of using the working machine as the canvas on which to present information.
Regarding claim 28, since Filla explicitly discloses that the projection should be projected to face the operator so that the operator does not have to re-focus his gaze ([0010]), and that the projection image can be projected onto a part of the working machine so that the working machine is the “canvas” for presenting the assisting information to the operator [0009], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the paving screed form the projection area for imaging the at least one process parameter.
Regarding claim 29, the resulting combination includes the paving screed comprising a base screed body and laterally extendable extending units attached thereto for varying a pave width (shown in Weber’s Figure 12), and makes obvious that the projection area is provided on an upper cover of the base screed body since that is the “canvas” area of the machine directly in front of the operator while at the external control station.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al., US 10,745,867 B2 in view of Buschmann et al., US 8,998,530 B2, and Filla et al., US 2021/0140147 A1.
Regarding claim 21, Weber teaches a road paver for producing a paving layer, comprising:
a chassis (3);
a paving screed (7) for compacting a paving material, the paving screed having a control station (6) with a control device which has an operating panel (column 4 lines 10-15) for setting process parameters of the paving screed; and
a projector (9).
While Weber appears to show (looking at Figure 11) an external control station but fails to explicitly disclose such and fails to disclose an input and display for displaying process parameters set on the paving screed, Buschmann discloses an input and display section provided on the road paver and the screed coupled with a control system for inputting or displaying parameters (column 7 lines 7-14 and column 12 lines 50-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weber’s road paver to include an external control station to allow the operator to operate from different locations and an input and display section for inputting and displaying process parameters set on the paving screed to further help the screed operator in view of Buschmann’s disclosure.
While the resulting combination fails to explicitly disclose that the screed is mounted in a height-adjustable manner, Applicant admits in the specification that it is known in the art that screed operators can adjust the paving thickness, which means that screeds mounted in a height-adjustable manner are known in the art in order for paving thickness to be adjusted. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the screed be mounted in a height-adjustable manner since it is known in the art to be able to vary the paving thickness.
While the resulting combination includes a projector but is only disclosed for navigation aid, Filla teaches providing a projection arrangement on a working machine to help an operator of the machine with not only driving instructions but also current or future task instructions or information for using an implement of the machine (Figure 4; [0016]-[0017]), and Filla explicitly discloses that the projection should be projected to face the operator so that the operator does not have to re-focus his gaze ([0010]), and that the projection image can be projected onto a part of the working machine so that the working machine is the “canvas” for presenting the assisting information to the operator [0009]. 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 projector and use of the projector in view of Filla’s disclosures to project at least one of the process parameters set on the operating panel and shown onto a projection area (a part of the working machine which is the road paver in the resulting combination) based on the resulting combination with Buschmann to better help the screed operator.
Filla further discloses a control unit adapted to adjust a position of the image projected at the surface of the working machine based on the position of the user ([0014]). 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 resulting combination in view of Filla’s further disclosure to adjust the position of the image projected based on the position of the user (screed operator in the resulting combination) to have the projector be configured to automatically displace a position of the projection area in dependence on a detected position of the screed operator (the position must be detected to be able to know the position of the user) relative to the external control station to allow the operator move around the working machine to perform his tasks and still view the projection with assisting information since the resulting combination allows for the screed operator to alternatively work at the external control station.
Regarding claim 22, the resulting combination includes the projection area being formed on the road paver (detailed above in claim 21 based on Filla’s disclosure).
Regarding claim 23, since Filla discloses that the projection image can be projected onto a part of the working machine ([0009]) and the projection should be projected to face the operator so that the operator does not have to re-focus his gaze ([0010]), and since the paving screed is part of the road paver, it is an obvious modification to have the paving screed form the projection area for imaging the at least one process parameter for when the screed operator is at the external control station.
Regarding claim 24, the resulting combination includes the paving screed comprising a base screed body and laterally extendable extending units attached thereto for varying a pave width (shown in Weber’s Figure 12), and makes obvious that the projection area is provided on an upper cover of the base screed body since that is the “canvas” area of the machine directly in front of the operator while at the external control station.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant provides arguments against Weber (bottom of the page numbered “8”), but Applicant is arguing the reference individually. Weber was not used to teach a control panel at an external control station at the screed. Buschmann was used for that teaching.
Applicant argues that Buschmann does not teach a projector at all (third statement at the top of the page numbered “9”), but Buschmann was not used for that teaching. Weber, the primary reference, discloses a projector, EP ‘698 was used for the disclosure of projecting onto a newly-formed paving layer, and Filla was used for the disclosure of projecting onto a surface of the working machine.
Applicant additionally argues that even if Buschmann discloses an input and display section provided on the screed, there is no suggestion that it forms a control device for a projector. Buschmann explicitly discloses the input and display section as the “external control panel” (P’ in Figure 1; column 7 lines 7-14; column 12 line 42). Since the purpose of the external control panel is for the convenience of the operator to control working aspects of the paver without having to run back to the cabin, it is obvious that if the paver of the resulting combination has a projector, that the paver of the resulting combination would allow for the operator to use the external control panel to control the projector.
Regarding Applicant’s argument in the third to last paragraph on the page numbered “9”, Applicant appears to be arguing only with the combination of Weber and Buschmann, which is not the entire combination. Additionally, Applicant appears to be arguing the limitations of claim 14 which include newly-added limitations.
Applicant argues (at the top of the page numbered “10”) that Filla does not use a control panel of an external control station to control the projector. This is an argument of bodily incorporation. The resulting combination yields the control panel of the external control station controlling the projector.
Applicant argues (in the middle of the page numbered “10” to the bottom of the page) that EP ‘698 discloses the projected image on the pavement is “exclusively for” the driver of the vehicle following the paver. This is a matter of intended use. A bird flying by would be able to view it, too. EP ‘698 discloses that the image projector projects an image onto the newly-laid paving layer. Anyone who is looking at the newly-laid paving layer can see the projected image. As stated in the rejection above, it is known to have an external control station on a screed of a paver so that an operator can monitor the newly-laid paving layer and operate the paver without having to run back to the cabin.
Applicant argues in the third paragraph on the page numbered “11” that Weber teaches a projector projecting navigation aid. Again, this is arguing the reference alone. The rejection modifies the projected information.
Applicant argues with a lot of emphasis in the fourth paragraph on the page numbered “11” through the top of page “12” that Weber and Buschmann do not disclose double presentation. This argument pertains to claims 3-5, which previously were not examined because the claims were written to be unclear thus indefinite, and failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Since Applicant amended the claims, the claims have been examined and the rejections to claims 3-5 are detailed above.
Applicant’s argument in the second full paragraph on the page numbered “12” that none of the references disclose a projector that is controllable by a screed-side external control device is not persuasive since it ignores Buschmann’s disclosure as applied in the rejection that a paver can have a control panel P in the cabin and also an external control panel P’ on the screed. Again, since the purpose of the external control panel is for the convenience of the operator to control working aspects of the paver without having to run back to the cabin, it is obvious that if the paver of the resulting combination has a projector, that the paver of the resulting combination would allow for the operator to use the external control panel to control the projector.
Applicant argues at the bottom of the page numbered “12” that the limitations of claim 14 are not disclosed, taught, or suggested in the prior art. This is not persuasive since Applicant did not provide evidence to support this argument, and as stated above, claim 14 includes newly-added limitations which have been addressed in the rejection above.
Applicant does not provide arguments to other dependent claims.
Conclusion
See attached Notice of References Cited sheet. Graham, US 9,045,871 B2 teaches a paving machine and discloses user interfaces to allow operators to enter and receive information concerning operation of the paver that may be located at various different locations such as the operator station and additional user interfaces at a lower position on the screed assembly on the rear walkway (column 5 lines 28-39).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J CHU whose telephone number is 571-272-7819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 9:30-5:30.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/KATHERINE J CHU/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights