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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Claims 11-20 are currently pending.
2. Claims 1-10 are canceled.
3. Claims 11 and 19 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
4. Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned, including Claims 12-18 and 20, has been included based on its dependency.
5. The limitation in Claim 1 with new matter recites: “updating the object hypothesis only when ultrasonic echoes reflected by the object represented by the object hypothesis are received by the at least two ultrasonic sensors and a lateration-based position of the object is determined and assigned to the object hypothesis” Note that a lack of literal basis in the specification for a negative limitation may not be sufficient to establish a prima facie case for lack of descriptive support (See MPEP 2173.05(i)). There is nothing in the specification that explicitly indicates the updating the object hypothesis occurs only when ultrasonic echoes are received by at least two ultrasonic sensors and a lateration-based position of the object is determined and assigned to the object hypothesis.
6. Claim 19 has the same limitations as Claim 1 except for they are separate independent claims but are rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
10. Claims 11-12 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuman (US 20160116586 A1), in view of Vallespi-Gonzalez (US 20190079526 A1), in view of Loehlein (US 20090103779 A1), and in further view of Thunert (WO 2018177978 A1).
11. Regarding Claim 11, Fukuman teaches a method for classifying objects in surroundings of a vehicle using ultrasonic sensors which emit ultrasonic pulses and receive back ultrasonic echoes reflected by objects, the method comprising: ascertaining, using at least two ultrasonic sensors having at least partially overlapping fields of vision, distances between each respective ultrasonic sensor of the at least two sensors and objects in the surroundings reflecting ultrasonic pulses (Fukuman: [0027], [0028], and [0029]);
Determining a position of the reflecting objects using lateration (Fukuman: [0031]);
Assigning received ultrasonic echoes to object hypotheses… and carrying out a height classification… represented by an object hypothesis of the object hypotheses, based on an update rate of the object hypothesis, a stability of the position of the object represented by the object hypothesis (Fukuman: [0036], [0046], and [0055] Note that the time between the current and previous detection cycle is equivalent to the update rate because the object detection difference is determined after each cycle. Therefore, the hypothesis is updated after each current detection cycle. Also, note that in Figure 7, in between each time (ex: 1, 2, etc.) is the update rate of the object hypothesis.),
An amplitude of the ultrasonic echoes assigned to the object hypothesis (Fukuman: [0028]),
And a likelihood of the at least two ultrasonic sensors receiving an ultrasonic echo from the object represented by the object hypothesis, as classification parameters (Fukuman: [0048] and [0056]).
Fukuman fails to explicitly teach assigning received ultrasonic echoes to object hypotheses for distinguishing between extensive objects and point-like objects; updating the object hypothesis only when ultrasonic echoes reflected by the object represented by the object hypothesis are received by the at least two ultrasonic sensors and a lateration-based position of the object is determined and assigned to the object hypothesis; and carrying out a height classification of a point-like object… wherein a low update rate of the object hypothesis is indicative of a low point- like object as compared with a higher update rate of the object hypothesis which is indicative of a higher point-like object.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vallespi-Gonzalez teaches determining a position of the reflecting objects using lateration; assigning received ultrasonic echoes to object hypotheses for distinguishing between extensive objects and point-like objects (Vallespi-Gonzalez: [0030] and [0036]);
Updating the object hypothesis… when ultrasonic echoes reflected by the object represented by the object hypothesis are received by the at least two ultrasonic sensors and a lateration-based position of the object is determined and assigned to the object hypothesis (Vallespi-Gonzalez: [0031], [0036], and [0107] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a sonar sensor is a type of ultrasonic sensor.);
And carrying out a height classification of a point-like object represented by an object hypothesis of the object hypotheses, based on an update rate of the object hypothesis (Vallespi-Gonzalez: [0100], [0101], and [0107]).
Fukuman and Vallespi-Gonzalez are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of object detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukuman to incorporate the teachings of Vallespi-Gonzalez to distinguish between extensive object and point like objects to carry out a height classification of a point like object because it provides the benefit of improved detection and classification performance by determining the difference between objects and disturbances as the sensor field of view changes. This provides the additional benefit of improved object avoidance and improved situational awareness with respect to objects, which leads to increased safety of the vehicle, passengers, and surroundings.
Fukuman and Vallespi-Gonzalez fail to explicitly teach updating the object hypothesis only when… echoes reflected by the object represented by the object hypothesis are received by the at least two… sensors.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Loehlein teaches updating the object hypothesis only when… echoes reflected by the object represented by the object hypothesis are received by the at least two… sensors and a lateration-based position of the object is determined and assigned to the object hypothesis (Loehlein: [0006], [0008], and [0019]).
Fukuman, Vallespi-Gonzalez, and Loehlein are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of object detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukuman and Vallespi-Gonzalez to incorporate the teachings of Loehlein to update the object hypothesis only when two echoes are received by at least two sensors and a lateration-based position of the object is determined and assigned to the object hypothesis because it provides the benefit of fusing signal streams to simplify the evaluation and shorten computation times, as explained in [0006] of Loehlein. Additionally, the possible error sources in the evaluation are minimized.
Fukuman, Vallespi-Gonzalez, and Loehlein fail to explicitly teach the low update rate of the object hypothesis is indicative of a low point- like object as compared with a higher update rate of the object hypothesis which is indicative of a higher point-like object.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Thunert teaches a low update rate of the object hypothesis is indicative of a low point- like object as compared with a higher update rate of the object hypothesis which is indicative of a higher point-like object (Thunert: [0024], [0049], and [0120] Note that Thunert uses a first ultrasonic sensor to detect low objects and a second ultrasonic sensor to detect higher objects. The frequency of the first ultrasonic sensor for classifying objects is equivalent to a low update rate of the object hypothesis indicative of a low point like object. The frequency of the second ultrasonic sensor being higher than the first ultrasonic sensor frequency is equivalent to a higher update rate of the object hypothesis indicative of a higher point like object. Therefore, the first ultrasonic sensor has a lower update rate compared to the higher update rate of the second ultrasonic sensor for classifying low or high point like objects. Also, note that the update rate is broadly interpreted as detecting and classifying objects (e.g., high or low).).
Fukuman, Vallespi-Gonzalez, Loehlein, and Thunert are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of object detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukuman, Vallespi-Gonzalez, and Loehlein to incorporate the teachings of Thunert to have a higher update rate of the object hypothesis indicative of a higher point like object compared to a low point like object because it provides the benefit of determining the high object early to provide collision mitigation control to avoid the high object that cannot be run over by the vehicle. This provides the additional benefit of increased safety for the vehicle, passengers, and surroundings.
12. Regarding Claim 12, Fukuman, Vallespi-Gonzalez, Loehlein, and Thunert remains as applied above in Claim 12, and further, Fukuman teaches the likelihood of each ultrasonic sensor receiving an ultrasonic echo for the object represented by the object hypothesis is determined based on at least one of the position of the object relative to the field of vision of the ultrasonic sensor, and/or an ascertained expansion of the object or a respective detection threshold of the ultrasonic sensor (Fukuman: [0028] and [0036]).
13. Regarding Claim 15, Fukuman, Vallespi-Gonzalez, Loehlein, and Thunert remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further Fukuman teaches a confidence value for the classification as a point-like object is taken into consideration as a further classification parameter for the height classification (Fukuman: [0036] and [0038]).
14. Regarding Claim 16, Fukuman, Vallespi-Gonzalez, Loehlein, and Thunert remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further Fukuman teaches an update of each object hypothesis takes place when a further ultrasonic echo is added to the object hypothesis (Fukuman: [0046]).
15. Regarding Claim 17, Fukuman, Vallespi-Gonzalez, Loehlein, and Thunert remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further Fukuman teaches the height classification takes place using a statistical evaluation method or a machine learning method (Fukuman: [0034] and [0036]).
16. Regarding Claim 18, Fukuman, Vallespi-Gonzalez, Loehlein, and Thunert remains as applied above in Claim 17, and further Vallespi-Gonzalez teaches the height classification takes place using the machine learning method, a random forest method being used as the machine learning method (Vallespi-Gonzalez: [0031] and [0040]).
17. Regarding Claim 19, Fukuman teaches a driver assistance system, comprising: at least two ultrasonic sensors having overlapping fields of vision (Fukuman: [0008] and [0028]);
A control unit; wherein the driver assistance system is configured to classify objects in surroundings of a vehicle using the ultrasonic sensors, the ultrasonic sensors being configured to emit ultrasonic pulses and receive back ultrasonic echoes reflected by objects, the driver assistance system configured to: ascertain, using the at least two ultrasonic sensors, distances between each respective ultrasonic sensor of the sensors and objects in the surroundings reflecting ultrasonic pulses (Fukuman: [0027], [0028], and [0029]);
Determine a position of the reflecting objects using lateration (Fukuman: [0031]);
Assign received ultrasonic echoes to object hypotheses… and carry out a height classification… represented by an object hypothesis of the object hypotheses, based on an update rate of the object hypothesis, a stability of the position of the object represented by the object hypothesis (Fukuman: [0036], [0046], and [0055] Note that the time between the current and previous detection cycle is equivalent to the update rate because the object detection difference is determined after each cycle. Therefore, the hypothesis is updated after each current detection cycle. Also, note that in Figure 7, in between each time (ex: 1, 2, etc.) is the update rate of the object hypothesis.),
An amplitude of the ultrasonic echoes assigned to the object hypothesis (Fukuman: [0028]),
And a likelihood of the ultrasonic sensors receiving an ultrasonic echo from the object represented by the object hypothesis, as classification parameters (Fukuman: [0048] and [0056]).
Fukuman fails to explicitly teach to assign received ultrasonic echoes to object hypotheses for distinguishing between extensive objects and point-like objects; update the object hypothesis only when ultrasonic echoes reflected by the object represented by the object hypothesis are received by the at least two ultrasonic sensors and a lateration-based position of the object is determined and assigned to the object hypothesis; and carry out a height classification of a point-like object… wherein a low update rate of the object hypothesis is indicative of a low point- like object as compared with a higher update rate of the object hypothesis which is indicative of a higher point-like object.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vallespi-Gonzalez teaches to determine a position of the reflecting objects using lateration; assign received ultrasonic echoes to object hypotheses for distinguishing between extensive objects and point-like objects (Vallespi-Gonzalez: [0030] and [0036]);
Update the object hypothesis… when ultrasonic echoes reflected by the object represented by the object hypothesis are received by the at least two ultrasonic sensors and a lateration-based position of the object is determined and assigned to the object hypothesis (Vallespi-Gonzalez: [0031], [0036], and [0107] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a sonar sensor is a type of ultrasonic sensor.);
And carry out a height classification of a point-like object represented by an object hypothesis of the object hypotheses, based on an update rate of the object hypothesis (Vallespi-Gonzalez: [0100], [0101], and [0107]).
Fukuman and Vallespi-Gonzalez are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of object detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukuman to incorporate the teachings of Vallespi-Gonzalez to distinguish between extensive object and point like objects to carry out a height classification of a point like object because it provides the benefit of improved detection and classification performance by determining the difference between objects and disturbances as the sensor field of view changes. This provides the additional benefit of improved object avoidance and improved situational awareness with respect to objects, which leads to increased safety of the vehicle, passengers, and surroundings.
Fukuman and Vallespi-Gonzalez fail to explicitly teach updating the object hypothesis only when… echoes reflected by the object represented by the object hypothesis are received by the at least two… sensors.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Loehlein teaches updating the object hypothesis only when… echoes reflected by the object represented by the object hypothesis are received by the at least two… sensors and a lateration-based position of the object is determined and assigned to the object hypothesis (Loehlein: [0006], [0008], and [0019]).
Fukuman, Vallespi-Gonzalez, and Loehlein are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of object detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukuman and Vallespi-Gonzalez to incorporate the teachings of Loehlein to update the object hypothesis only when two echoes are received by at least two sensors and a lateration-based position of the object is determined and assigned to the object hypothesis because it provides the benefit of fusing signal streams to simplify the evaluation and shorten computation times, as explained in [0006] of Loehlein. Additionally, the possible error sources in the evaluation are minimized.
Fukuman, Vallespi-Gonzalez, and Loehlein fail to explicitly teach a low update rate of the object hypothesis is indicative of a low point- like object as compared with a higher update rate of the object hypothesis which is indicative of a higher point-like object.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Thunert teaches a low update rate of the object hypothesis is indicative of a low point- like object as compared with a higher update rate of the object hypothesis which is indicative of a higher point-like object (Thunert: [0024], [0049], and [0120] Note that Thunert uses a first ultrasonic sensor to detect low objects and a second ultrasonic sensor to detect higher objects. The frequency of the first ultrasonic sensor for classifying objects is equivalent to a low update rate of the object hypothesis indicative of a low point like object. The frequency of the second ultrasonic sensor being higher than the first ultrasonic sensor frequency is equivalent to a higher update rate of the object hypothesis indicative of a higher point like object. Therefore, the first ultrasonic sensor has a lower update rate compared to the higher update rate of the second ultrasonic sensor for classifying low or high point like objects. Also, note that the update rate is broadly interpreted as detecting and classifying objects (e.g., high or low).).
Fukuman, Vallespi-Gonzalez, Loehlein, and Thunert are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of object detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukuman, Vallespi-Gonzalez, and Loehlein to incorporate the teachings of Thunert to have a higher update rate of the object hypothesis indicative of a higher point like object compared to a low point like object because it provides the benefit of determining the high object early to provide collision mitigation control to avoid the high object that cannot be run over by the vehicle. This provides the additional benefit of increased safety for the vehicle, passengers, and surroundings.
18. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuman (US 20160116586 A1), in view of Vallespi-Gonzalez (US 20190079526 A1), in view of Loehlein (US 20090103779 A1), in view of Thunert (WO 2018177978 A1), and in further view of Schmidt (EP 3299845 A1).
19. Regarding Claim 13, Fukuman, Vallespi-Gonzalez, Loehlein, and Thunert remains as applied above in Claim 12.
Fukuman and Vallespi-Gonzalez fail to explicitly teach the respective detection threshold of each of the at least two ultrasonic sensors is adapted to an instantaneous noise level in such a way that a rate for an incorrect classification of an ultrasonic echo as the echo of an object is constant.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Schmidt teaches the respective detection threshold of each of the at least two ultrasonic sensors is adapted to an instantaneous noise level in such a way that a rate for an incorrect classification of an ultrasonic echo as the echo of an object is constant (Schmidt: [0070], [0079], and [0124]).
Fukuman, Vallespi-Gonzalez, Loehlein, Thunert, and Schmidt are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of object detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukuman, Vallespi-Gonzalez, Loehlein, and Thunert to incorporate the teachings of Schmidt to include a detection threshold of ultrasonic sensors that are adapted to an instantaneous noise level to have a constant incorrect classification rate because it provides the benefit of improved detection and classification performance by determining the difference between objects and disturbances as the sensor field of view changes. This provides the additional benefit of improved object avoidance and improved situational awareness with respect to objects, which leads to increased safety of the vehicle, passengers, and surroundings and increased accuracy of the hypothesis using the detection threshold.
20. Regarding Claim 14, Fukuman, Vallespi-Gonzalez, Loehlein, and Thunert remains as applied above in Claim 11.
Fukuman and Vallespi-Gonzalez fail to explicitly teach a correction of the amplitude of an ultrasonic echo takes place as a function of an ascertained expansion of the object represented by the object hypothesis.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Schmidt teaches a correction of the amplitude of an ultrasonic echo takes place as a function of an ascertained expansion of the object represented by the object hypothesis (Schmidt: [0070] and [0079]).
Fukuman, Vallespi-Gonzalez, Loehlein, Thunert, and Schmidt are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of object detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukuman, Vallespi-Gonzalez, Loehlein, and Thunert to incorporate the teachings of Schmidt to correct the amplitude of an ultrasonic echo as a function of the object represented by the hypothesis because it provides the benefit of improved detection and classification performance by determining the difference between objects and disturbances as the sensor field of view changes. This provides the additional benefit of improved object avoidance and improved situational awareness with respect to objects, which leads to increased safety of the vehicle, passengers, and surroundings and increased accuracy of the hypothesis using the detection threshold.
21. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuman (US 20160116586 A1), in view of Vallespi-Gonzalez (US 20190079526 A1), in view of Loehlein (US 20090103779 A1), in view of Thunert (WO 2018177978 A1), and in further view of Ihara (JP 2009151649 A).
22. Regarding Claim 20, Fukuman, Vallespi-Gonzalez, Loehlein, and Thunert remains as applied above in Claim 19, and further, Fukuman teaches the driver assistance system includes a display function and a safety function… and the safety function being configured to carry out an intervention in a driving function when a hazardous situation is present (Fukuman: [0049]).
Fukuman fails to explicitly teach the display function representing information about the objects in the surroundings of the vehicle on a display device… wherein different weightings of the classification parameters are in each case provided for the display function and the safety function.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ihara teaches the driver assistance system includes a display function and a safety function, the display function representing information about the objects in the surroundings of the vehicle on a display device (Ihara: [0012] and [0024]),
And the safety function being configured to carry out an intervention in a driving function when a hazardous situation is present, wherein different weightings of the classification parameters are in each case provided for the display function and the safety function (Ihara: [0030] and [0037]).
Fukuman, Vallespi-Gonzalez, Loehlein, Thunert, and Ihara are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of object detection and vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukuman, Vallespi-Gonzalez, Loehlein, and Thunert to incorporate the teachings of Ihara to include a display function to display information representing information about the object in the surroundings of the vehicle and use different weightings of classification parameters for the display and safety functions because it provides the benefit of obtaining highly reliable object detection to reduce the confusion of the driver. This provides the additional benefit collision mitigation which increases the safety of the vehicle, passengers, and surroundings.
Response to Arguments
23. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 11-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Loehlein (US 20090103779 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of updating the hypothesis only when echoes are received by at least two sensors in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0006], [0008], and [0019]. Loehlein teaches to recognize an object only with at least two sensor signal streams to generate an object hypothesis.
24. The prior art cited in the rejections above teach all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
25. Claims 11-20 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
26. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
27. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights