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 .
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 06/02/2026
Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-10 are pending.
Claims 2 and 7 were cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-10 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see page 4, filed 06/02/2026, with respect to the claim rejection the amendment has been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see page 16, filed 07/29/2025, with respect to the claim rejection the amendment has been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully disagrees at least because the claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application”. Examiner notes that the limitations amount to merely the words “apply it” (or equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims 1, 3-6, and 8-10 rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 8-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, necessitated by the change of the claimed scope of the amendment, does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 8 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.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitation "when executed by the one or more processors of the computer device”. It is unclear from the claim language whether the steps that follow “when” are positively performed. Correction is required. For compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the claim as follows
“execute the instructions by the one or more processors of the computer device to cause the computer device to”.
Dependent claims do not resolve the issues in the independent claim and thus are also rejected under 112(b) by virtue of their dependence on the rejected independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite a mental process and a mathematical calculation; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 1:
Claims 1, 3-6 and 8 are directed to the statutory category of medium.
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 1:
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions for use in material processing of a two-dimensional sheet like material using a computer device, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors of the computer device, cause the computer device to: obtain information related to a desired design of a three-dimensional object;
obtain information related to material characteristics of the two-dimensional sheet metal material;
define a primary surface and a secondary surface of the desired design of the three- dimensional object; and
define a geometrical relationship between said primary surface and secondary surface;
wherein the secondary surface is a reflection of the primary surface in a two-dimensional plane, and wherein said primary surface is concave and said secondary surface is convex, or when said primary surface is convex and said secondary surface is concave; and
provide, or otherwise create, a digital instruction for a fully developed spreading and subsequent folding of the two-dimensional sheet mental material into the obtained desired design of the three-dimensional object,
wherein said digital instruction is based on the defined primary and secondary surfaces, respectively, and said obtained material characteristics,
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors of the computer device, cause the computer device to:
transmit, via a transmitter, said digital instruction to an industrial robot for the spreading and subsequent folding of the two-dimensional sheet metal material by the industrial robot.
The limitations “define a primary surface and a secondary surface of the desired design of the three- dimensional object”, “define a geometrical relationship between said primary surface and secondary surface”, and “provide, or otherwise create, a digital instruction for a fully developed spreading and subsequent folding the of a two-dimensional sheet metal material into the obtained desired design of the three-dimensional object” are abstract ideas because it is directed to a mathematical model. The limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed using mathematical equations” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Also, the limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could, mentally or on paper, observe, evaluate or analyze to make the determination of a model and its output.
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
“A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions for use in material processing of a two-dimensional sheet metal material using a computer device, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors of the computer device, cause the computer device to: obtain information related to a desired design of a three-dimensional object” (general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“obtain information related to material characteristics of the two-dimensional sheet metal material” (general field of use and data gathering – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“wherein the secondary surface is a reflection of the primary surface in a two-dimensional plane, and wherein when said primary surface is concave and said secondary surface is convex, or when said primary surface is convex and said secondary surface is concave” (Field of Use, MPEP 2106.05(h))
“wherein said digital instruction is based on the defined primary and secondary surfaces, respectively, and said obtained material characteristics” (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f))
“wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors of the computer device, cause the computer device to: transmit, via a transmitter, said digital instruction to an industrial robot for the spreading and subsequent folding of the two-dimensional sheet metal material by the industrial robot” (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Claim 1 Step 2B:
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations considered directed towards field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP2106.05(g).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites “wherein said material characteristics are any one or a combination of thickness, type of material, hardness toughness, tensile strength, yield strength, elongation, fatigue strength, corrosion, plasticity, malleability, creep and structure of the material and dimension of material, and wherein said material characteristics define boundary conditions for said folding of said two- dimensional sheet metal material” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the material characteristics under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4 recites “wherein said primary surface is the surface that controls the desired design of the three-dimensional object”. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the primary surface that are being defined (mental observation of defining) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5 recites “wherein a curvature of the primary surface and a curvature of the secondary surface controls the desired design of three-dimensional object” This limitation is considered to be a field of use limitation, because it defines the type of data the designer has selected. see MPEP 2106.05(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6 recites “wherein said desired design of three-dimensional shape is further defined by an interface design based on a technical volume and ergonomic requirements of the three-dimensional object” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the shape of the structure (mental observation of shapes with pen and paper) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the two-dimensional sheet metal material is any one of a steel, a stainless steel and an aluminum” This limitation is considered to be a field of use limitation, because it defines the material that are being considered. see MPEP 2106.05(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible
Regarding claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Step 1:
Claims 9-10 are directed to the statutory category of medium.
Claim 9 Step 2A prong 1:
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions for use in material processing of a two-dimensional sheet metal material using an industrial robot, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors of the industrial robot, cause the industrial robot to:
provide a two-dimensional sheet metal material;
obtain a digital instruction for the spreading and subsequent folding of the provided two- dimensional sheet by the industrial robot; and
execute the obtained digital instruction to produce, or otherwise create, by the industrial robot, a desired design of a three-dimensional object from the provided two-dimensional sheet metal material.
The limitations “execute the obtained digital instruction to produce, or otherwise create, by the industrial robot, a desired design of a three-dimensional object from the provided two-dimensional sheet metal material” are an abstract ideas because it is directed to a mathematical model. The limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed using mathematical equations” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Also, the limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could, mentally or on paper, observe, evaluate or analyze to make the determination of a model and its output.
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
“A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions for use in material processing of a two-dimensional sheet metal material using an industrial robot, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors of the industrial robot, cause the industrial robot to” (general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h)) (Particular Machine -referencing MPEP 2106.05(b))
“provide a two-dimensional sheet metal material” (general field of use and data gathering – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“obtain a digital instruction for the spreading and subsequent folding of the provided two- dimensional sheet by the industrial robot” (Field of Use and data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(h))
Claim 9 Step 2B:
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations considered directed towards field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP2106.05(g).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 9 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 further recites: “receiving, via a receiver, said digital instruction from a computer device” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the transmitting or receiving of the instructions (writing the instructions on a piece of paper) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedro Neto, NPL “Off-line Programming and Simulation from CAD Drawings: Robot-Assisted Sheet Metal Bending”, Published: August 2013, (hereafter Neto), in views of Roberto Naboni, NPL, “Advanced Customization in Architectural Design and Construction”, Published: 2015 (hereafter Naboni).
Regarding claim 1. Neto teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions for use in material processing of a two-dimensional sheet like material using a computer device, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors of the computer device (Page 4236, CAD based OLP (off-line robot programming)), cause the computer device to:
obtain information related to a desired design of a three-dimensional object (Page 4236, Fig 1, CAD drawings);
obtain information related to material characteristics of the two-dimensional sheet metal material (Page 4236, sec B, col 2, predict some factors, material characteristics);
define a primary surface and a secondary surface of the desired design of the three- dimensional object (Page 4236, Col 2, step 4, the workpiece is formed due to the penetration of the punch into the die, primary surface is equivalent to the punch, and secondary surface is equivalent to the die); and
define a geometrical relationship between said primary surface and secondary surface (Page 4236, Fig 3, illustrates the motions of the bend having the punch and the die and how they relate to each other);
wherein the secondary surface is a reflection of the primary surface in a two-dimensional plane (Page 4236, Fig 3, punch and die are in opposite sides of the sheet or line), and
wherein said primary surface is concave and said secondary surface is convex, or said primary surface is convex and said secondary surface is concave (Page 4236, Fig 3, punch and die fit in each other space, complementary); and
provide, or otherwise create, a digital instruction for a fully developed spreading and subsequent folding of the two-dimensional sheet metal material into the obtained desired design of the three-dimensional object (Page 4238, Fig 7, step generated robot program) (Page 4239, Fig 9, final workpiece),
wherein said digital instruction is based on the defined primary and secondary surfaces, respectively, and said obtained material characteristics (Page 4237, Sec A, modeled as a ladder) (Page 4237, fig 4, press based on the punch and die, based on adira).
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors of the computer device (Page 4239, sec III, final workpiece is created), cause the computer device to:
said digital instructions to an industrial robot for the spreading and subsequent folding of the two-dimensional sheet metal material by the industrial robot (Page 4239, Sec III B, Real robot results) (Page 4240, Fig 12, industrial robot).
Neto does not teach transmit, via a transmitter, said digital instructions to an industrial robot;
Naboni teaches transmit, via a transmitter, said digital instructions to an industrial robot (Page 46, fig 3.11, embedded scripting language to transfer the digital information) (Page 63, Par 1, STL file is transferred to a computer that manages the machine);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Neto to incorporate the teachings of Naboni to transmit digital instructions to an industrial robot because flexible construction seeks to improve building quality and originality through the use of computer controller tools (robots)(Naboni, Page 1, abstract).
Regarding claim 3. Neto and Naboni teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1,
wherein said material characteristics are any one or a combination of thickness, type of material, hardness toughness, tensile strength, yield strength, elongation, fatigue strength, corrosion, plasticity, malleability, creep and structure of the material and dimension of material (Neto, Page 4236, Col 2, Par 3, collisions, selection of tools, materials characteristics, bendability), and
wherein said material characteristics define boundary conditions for said folding of said two- dimensional sheet metal material (Neto, Page 4239, Fig 9, Flat sheet model) (Neto, Page 4236, col 2, the robot picks up a flat sheet from the input pallet (sheet magazine table)).
Regarding claim 4. Neto and Naboni teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein said primary surface is the surface that controls the desired design of the three-dimensional object (Neto, Page 4236, Fig 3, the punch and die, control the bend of the sheet).
Regarding claim 5. Neto and Naboni teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein a curvature of the primary surface and a curvature of the secondary surface controls the desired design of the three-dimensional object (Neto, Page 4236, Fig 3, the punch and die, control the bend of the sheet) (Neto, Page 4239, fig 9, final workpiece).
Regarding claim 6. Neto and Naboni teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein said desired design of three-dimensional shape is further defined by an interface design based on a technical volume (Neto, Page 4236, Fig 1, CAD drawings, define the shape and volume of the object, Collision check verify the volume space) and ergonomic requirements of the three-dimensional object (Naboni, Page 44, sec 3.3.4, precise and efficient production of geometrically versatile structures with reduced waste of material) (Naboni, Page 106, Sec 4.3.2, keep comfortable and livable the ambiences).
Regarding claim 8. Neto and Naboni teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the two-dimensional sheet metal material is any one of a steel, a stainless steel and an aluminum (Neto, Page 4236, Fig 2, input Pallet, and orientation station, have stainless steel sheets).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pedro Neto, NPL “Off-line Programming and Simulation from CAD Drawings: Robot-Assisted Sheet Metal Bending”, Published: August 2013, (hereafter Neto).
Regarding claim 9. Neto teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions for use in material processing of a two-dimensional sheet metal material using an industrial robot (Page 4236, CAD based OLP (off-line robot programming)) (Page 4236, fig 2, industrial robot),
wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors of the industrial robot (Page 4236, fig 2, industrial robot), cause the industrial robot to:
provide a two-dimensional sheet metal material (Page 4236, fig 2, input pallet, orientation station);
obtain a digital instruction for spreading and subsequent folding of the provided two- dimensional sheet by the industrial robot (Page 4238, fig 5, industrial robot, input pallet) (Page 4238, Fig 7, generated robot program); and
execute the obtained digital instruction to produce, or otherwise create, by the industrial robot, a desired design of a three-dimensional object from the provided two-dimensional sheet metal material (Page 4239, sec III, Fig 9, final workpiece).
Regarding claim 10. Neto teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, comprising instructions which, when executed on the one or more processors of the industrial robot, cause the one or more processors to carry out:
receiving, via a receiver, said digital instruction from a computer device (Page 4239, sec III, robot program is generated from the CAD assembly model in Fig 5) (Page 4239, sec III B, industrial robot, performing the main functionalities of the bending process, thus it received the instructions to perform the bending).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on PTO-892, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
S. K. Gupta, NPL, “Automated Process Planning for Sheet Metal Bending Operations”, discloses a robotic sheet metal bending press brakes, having a CAD design given for a new part, determines the operation sequence needed for making the part.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL JAVIER CALLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571)-272-3676. 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.
/A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights