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
The amendment filed September 24th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 21-24 are newly added by the applicant. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 24th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Daimler (DE 102008008858 A1) fails to disclose a light pattern “defining at least one alignment direction of the steering wheel” of amended claim 1, stating on page 8 of the Remarks filed September 24th, 2025 that “Nothing in Daimler addresses aligning the steering wheel into a neutral rectilinear trajectory, nor does it disclose using the light pattern as an alignment aid rather than a measurement mark.”
As cited in the previous Office Action and restated below, Daimler teaches in figure 1, figures 3-4 and at least paragraphs 15 and 21 a point-source light 7 projected onto an angle disc 2 that is located within a circle delimited by a steering wheel. Daimler discloses that the angle disc is provided with degree division marks and that light 7 marks zero degrees on disc 2 when steering wheel 1 is in the neutral position of a rectilinear trajectory (See Daimler fig. 1 and fig. 4: wheel 1 shown in neutral position with light 7 pointed at zero degrees division mark. See also par.’s 15-18). Daimler further discloses that the device assists vehicle technicians measure whether a vehicle steering wheel is accurately installed (see Daimler par. 6, par. 8, and par. 15).
The words of the claims are given their plain meaning under the broadest reasonable interpretation as would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2111.01(I)). In the present instance, a person of ordinary skill would understand that the light source and angle disc of Daimler define at least on alignment direction of the steering wheel and that the degree divisions on said angle disc indicate a neutral position of rectilinear trajectory.
In response to applicant's argument that Daimler does not “disclose using the light pattern as an alignment aid”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim, see MPEP 2114. As stated above, a person of ordinary skill would understand that Daimler’s structure is an alignment aid capable of assisting placement in a neutral position of a rectilinear trajectory of a steering wheel of a vehicle. Support for this can be found in Daimler paragraph 6, paragraph 8, and paragraph 15 (The device provides measurements allows technician to locate and calibrate the a neutral position (zero angle) of the steering. These measurements guide steering wheel and vehicle adjustments.).
Accordingly, amended claim 1 is rejected.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been considered but are moot because the limitations of the claims have amended to add new issues. New grounds of rejection have been issued.
In response to applicant's argument regarding claim 2 that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the present instance, Daimler and Poliquin (US 9950677 B2) are related as optical devices installed in the interior of automotive vehicles and the motivation to incorporate the crosspiece of Poliquin in the device of Daimler to provide structure that can be adaptable mounted within a vehicle cabin is proper (See 35 USC § 103 rejection of claim 2 as stated in the previous office action.)
Accordingly, amended claim 1 is rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 8, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daimler (DE 102008008858 A1)1
Regarding Claim 1: Daimler discloses (in at least figures 1, 3-4, the description, and the claims) a device for assisting placement in a neutral position of a rectilinear trajectory of a steering wheel of a vehicle (an arrangement for detecting a steering wheel angle during a driving dynamics examination of the vehicle depicted in figure 1), the device comprising:
a light source (fig. 1 and par. 15: light source 3 attached to first end 4.1 of adjustable arm 4) configured to project at least one light pattern comprising a line segment defining at least one alignment direction of the steering wheel (fig. 1 and par. 15: point-source light 7 projected onto angle disc 2 located within circle delimited by steering wheel. See also par. 26: light 7 can be projected in a linear manner to form line segment pattern) and
fixing means adapted to allow temporary attachment of the device to the vehicle so that the light source faces or is located in a plane facing the steering wheel so that the light pattern is projected at least inside a circle delimited by the steering wheel (fig. 1 and par. 15: adjustable arm 4 oriented such that light source 3 projects 7 onto disc 2 located withing circle delimited by steering wheel).
Regarding Claim 8: Daimler discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the light source comprises at least one laser light source (par. 21: light source 3 is a laser diode of type FP-65/1AE-AV-SD5-24V) adapted to project at least one horizontal rectilinear line of light (par. 26: light 7 can be projected in a linear manner to form line segment pattern. Paragraph 26 further states that these line segments are “in particular essentially parallel to adjacent lines of the scale 2.1.” Since the adjacent lines of scale 2.1 demarcate the circumference of circular scale 2, line segments of light 7 can be horizontal).
Regarding Claim 22: Daimler discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the fixings means are configured to: enable adjustment of a horizontal orientation of the light pattern by rotation of the light source; allow height adjustment of the light pattern in the vehicle passenger compartment by tilting the light source producing the light pattern; and allow the light source to move in the passenger compartment towards the steering wheel by a translational movement (fig. 1, par. 15, par. 17, and par. 24: adjustable arm 4 is bendable allowing for a full range of adjustment between second end 4.2 attached to fastening element 9 and first end 4.1 proximal to clamping device 8 that receives light source 3. See fig. 4: arm 4 can be rotated, tilted, and moved toward the steering wheel allowing the adjustment of the light source’s horizontal orientation, vertical orientation, height, and position relative to the steering wheel 1).
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 2-7, 10-20, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daimler (DE 102008008858 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Poliquin (US 9950677 B2).
Regarding Claim 2: Daimler discloses the device according to claim1, wherein the fixing means comprise an elongated crosspiece on which the light source is fixed (fig.’s 1,3, and par. 15: elongated adjustable arm 4 with light source 3 attached at end 4.1 via clamping means 8) and clamping means configured to allow gripping with a part of the vehicle so as to fix the device on the part of the vehicle (fig.’s 1,3, and par. 17: fastening element 9 for clamping end 4.2 of arm 4 to vehicle handrail 6).
Daimler does not disclose wherein the crosspiece includes at each end thereof at least one finger forming an acute angle with the longitudinal direction of the crosspiece, at least one of the two fingers being movable in longitudinal translation with respect to the crosspiece.
Poliquin discloses (in at least figures 1-7, the description, and the claims) an analogous art (fig. 1: apparatus for imaging passenger compartment of a vehicle) wherein the fixing means (fig. 1 and par. 11: support body 12) comprise an elongated crosspiece on which the light source is fixed (fig. 1 and par.’s 11 and 18: elongated body 16 of support 12 to which camera 14 is movably secured. See also fig. 5 and par. 36: camera 14 includes light source 62 comprising a plurality of LED’s to illuminate cabin), the crosspiece including at each end thereof at least one finger forming an acute angle with a longitudinal direction of the crosspiece (fig. 1 and par 23: securing devices 26 at each end of support body 12’s telescopic arm 24), at least one of the two fingers being movable in longitudinal translation with respect to the crosspiece (fig. 3 and par. 18: securing devices 26 can extend or retract longitudinally with respect to support body 12 via telescoping arm 24 to accommodate passenger compartments having different dimensions) and being associated with clamping means configured to allow gripping with the two fingers a part of the vehicle so as to fix the device on the part of the vehicle (fig. 3 and par. 20: both securing devices 26 adapted to be removeable secured to a part of the vehicle. See also fig’s 6-8 and par. 21: both securing devices2 can comprise hooks sized and shaped to be removably secured to the roof, window, or other part of the vehicle. As shown in figures 7-8, securing devices clamp onto the roof 78 of vehicle 76, which inherently requires them to form acute angles with respect to the support body 12).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the crosspiece, as taught by Poliquin, to be included in the device of Daimler thereby providing a more adaptable mounting structure that allows for accurate and precise positioning of the light source in a wide variety of vehicles (par. 18: support body 12 allows for precise positioning and accommodates for passenger compartments having different dimensions.).
Regarding Claim 3: Daimler in view of Poliquin discloses the device according to claim 2, and Poliquin further discloses wherein the two fingers are movable in longitudinal translation (fig. 3 and par. 18: securing devices 26 can extend or retract longitudinally with respect to support body 12 via telescoping arm 24 to accommodate passenger compartments having different dimensions) and each one of the two fingers is associated with the clamping means providing elastic return of the corresponding finger towards the crosspiece (fig. 3 and par. 20: both securing devices 26 adapted to be removeable secured to a part of the vehicle. See also fig’s 6-8 and par. 21: both securing devices can comprise hooks sized and shaped to be removably secured to the roof, window, or other part of the vehicle. NOTE: It is inherent that the telescoping arms have a degree of elastic return in order to clamp to upper roof portion of vehicle as depicted in figure 7.).
The rationale to combine is the same as for claim 2.
Regarding Claim 4: Daimler in view of Poliquin discloses the device according to claim 2, and Poliquin further discloses wherein the light source is movable along the crosspiece so as to adjust a longitudinal position of the light source with respect to the crosspiece (fig. 1 and par. 24: camera 14 with light source 62 is slidable along support body 12 via mechanical connection 18).
The rationale to combine is the same as for claim 2.
Regarding Claim 5: Daimler in view of Poliquin discloses the device according to claim 3, and Poliquin further discloses wherein a distance between the two opposite fingers is greater than or equal to 0.9 m (par. 18: securing devices 26 are attached to pair of telescopic arms 26 that may be retracted and extended to accommodate passenger compartments having different dimensions. It is implicit that the dimensions of the passenger compartment of a standard vehicle is greater than or equal to 0.9m). Additionally, it is held in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1984) that the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device not leading to unexpected results does not further distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
The rationale to combine is the same as for claim 2.
Regarding Claim 6: Daimler in view of Poliquin discloses the device according to claim 2, and Poliquin further discloses wherein the crosspiece has a length greater than or equal to 0.6 m (par. 18: securing devices 26 are attached to pair of telescopic arms 26 that may be retracted and extended to accommodate passenger compartments having different dimensions. It is implicit that the dimensions of the passenger compartment of a standard vehicle is greater than or equal to 0.6m). Additionally, it is held in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1984) that the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device not leading to unexpected results does not further distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
The rationale to combine is the same as for claim 2.
Regarding Claim 7: Daimler in view of Poliquin discloses the device according to claim 2, and Daimler discloses the light source (fig. 1 and par. 15: light source 3 attached to first end 4.1 of adjustable arm 4).
Poliquin further discloses wherein a source is adapted to the crosspiece by means of a cradle attached to the crosspiece via a ram that is movable in translation along the crosspiece the cradle being connected to the ram by a pivot connection of a first axis substantially perpendicular to a direction of extension of the crosspiece and the light source being connected to the cradle by a pivot connection of a second axis perpendicular to the first axis (fig. 1 and fig. 5: camera 14 is movable relative to support body 12 via mechanical connection 18 that allows 14 to slide along the elongated body 16 in direction of arrow 28 as shown in figure 1 and rotate about a first and second axis as shown by arrows 30 and 32 in figure 5.).
The rationale to combine is the same as for claim 2.
Regarding Claim 10: Daimler in view of Poliquin discloses the device according to claim 3, and Poliquin further discloses wherein the light source is movable along the crosspiece so as to adjust the longitudinal position of the light source with respect to the crosspiece (fig. 1 and par. 24: camera 14 with light source 62 is slidable along support body 12 via mechanical connection 18).
The rationale to combine is the same as for claim 2.
Regarding Claim 11: Daimler in view of Poliquin discloses the device according to claim 2, and Poliquin further discloses wherein the distance between the two opposite fingers is greater than or equal to 0.9 m (par. 18: securing devices 26 are attached to pair of telescopic arms 26 that may be retracted and extended to accommodate passenger compartments having different dimensions. It is implicit that the dimensions of the passenger compartment of a standard vehicle is greater than or equal to 0.9m). Additionally, it is held in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1984) that the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device not leading to unexpected results does not further distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
The rationale to combine is the same as for claim 2.
Regarding Claim 12: Daimler in view of Poliquin discloses the device according to claim 4, and Poliquin further discloses wherein the distance between the two opposite fingers is greater than or equal to 0.9 m (par. 18: securing devices 26 are attached to pair of telescopic arms 26 that may be retracted and extended to accommodate passenger compartments having different dimensions. It is implicit that the dimensions of the passenger compartment of a standard vehicle is greater than or equal to 0.9m). Additionally, it is held in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1984) that the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device not leading to unexpected results does not further distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
The rationale to combine is the same as for claim 2.
Regarding Claim 13: Daimler in view of Poliquin discloses the device according to claim 3, and Poliquin further discloses wherein the crosspiece has a length greater than or equal to 0.6 m (par. 18: securing devices 26 are attached to pair of telescopic arms 26 that may be retracted and extended to accommodate passenger compartments having different dimensions. It is implicit that the dimensions of the passenger compartment of a standard vehicle is greater than or equal to 0.6m). Additionally, it is held in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1984) that the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device not leading to unexpected results does not further distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
The rationale to combine is the same as for claim 2.
Regarding Claim 14: Daimler in view of Poliquin discloses the device according to claim 4, and Poliquin further discloses wherein the crosspiece has a length greater than or equal to 0.6 m (par. 18: securing devices 26 are attached to pair of telescopic arms 26 that may be retracted and extended to accommodate passenger compartments having different dimensions. It is implicit that the dimensions of the passenger compartment of a standard vehicle is greater than or equal to 0.6m). Additionally, it is held in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1984) that the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device not leading to unexpected results does not further distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
The rationale to combine is the same as for claim 2.
Regarding Claim 15: Daimler in view of Poliquin discloses the device according to claim 10, and Poliquin further discloses wherein the crosspiece has a length greater than or equal to 0.6 m (par. 18: securing devices 26 are attached to pair of telescopic arms 26 that may be retracted and extended to accommodate passenger compartments having different dimensions. It is implicit that the dimensions of the passenger compartment of a standard vehicle is greater than or equal to 0.6m). Additionally, it is held in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1984) that the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device not leading to unexpected results does not further distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
The rationale to combine is the same as for claim 2.
Regarding Claim 16: Daimler in view of Poliquin discloses the device according to claim 2, and Daimler further discloses wherein the light pattern comprises at least one line segment (par. 26: light 7 can be projected in a linear manner to form line segment pattern).
Regarding Claim 17: Daimler in view of Poliquin discloses the device according to claim 3, and Daimler further discloses wherein the light pattern comprises at least one line segment (par. 26: light 7 can be projected in a linear manner to form line segment pattern).
Regarding Claim 18: Daimler in view of Poliquin discloses the device according to claim 4, and Daimler further discloses wherein the light pattern comprises at least one line segment (par. 26: light 7 can be projected in a linear manner to form line segment pattern).
Regarding Claim 19: Daimler in view of Poliquin discloses the device according to claim 5, and Daimler further discloses wherein the light pattern comprises at least one line segment (par. 26: light 7 can be projected in a linear manner to form line segment pattern).
Regarding Claim 20: Daimler in view of Poliquin discloses the device according to claim 6, and Daimler further discloses wherein the light pattern comprises at least one line segment (par. 26: light 7 can be projected in a linear manner to form line segment pattern).
Regarding Claim 23: Daimler discloses device according to claim 2, wherein the fixings means are adapted to cling to a structure of the vehicle (fig. 1 and par. 15: “light source 3 is attached to a first end 4.1 of the adjustable arm 4, the second end 4.2 of which is attached to a handrail 6 connected to a body part of the vehicle.” See also fig. 3 and par. 17: “Fig. 3 shows the adjustable arm 4 with a clamping device 8 for receiving the light source 3 at its first end 4.1 and a fastening element 9 for attaching the second end 4.2 to the handrail 6 .”).
Regarding Claim 24: Daimler and Poliquin disclose device according to claim 2, and Poliquin further discloses wherein the fixings means are adapted to cling to a roof of the vehicle passing through an opening of the vehicle (fig’s 6-8 and par. 21: both securing devices3 can comprise hooks sized and shaped to be removably secured to the roof, window, or other part of the vehicle. As shown in figures 7-8, securing devices clamp onto the roof 78 of vehicle 76.).
The rationale to combine is the same as for claim 2.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daimler (DE 102008008858 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Daimler (DE 102013021475 A1)4 (hereinafter referred to as Daimler ‘858 and Daimler ‘475, respectively).
Regarding Claim 9: Daimler ‘858 in view of Poliquin discloses the device according to claim 8, and Daimler ‘858 further discloses wherein the light source is a laser diode (par. 21: light source 3 is a laser diode of type FP-65/1AE-AV-SD5-24V).
Daimler ‘858 does not explicitly discloses wherein the light source is suitable for projecting a cross formed from two orthogonal straight lines.
Daimler ‘475 discloses (in at least figure 1, the description, and the claims) an analogous art (system for measuring the angle of a steering wheel in a vehicle depicted in figure 1) wherein the light source is a laser diode (par.’s 9-10) suitable for projecting a cross formed from two orthogonal straight lines (fig. 1 and par 11: light projector 103 projects predetermined spatial pattern 104 of a rectangle formed from two orthogonal straight lines crossing. See also fig. 1 and par. 26: camera 206 captures pattern 107 projected onto steering wheel 101, distortions relative to predetermined orthogonal cross pattern 104 are indicative alignment angle).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the orthogonal crossing projection, as taught by Daimler ‘475, to be included in the device of Daimler ‘858 thereby providing more prominent and recognizable indications of misalignment in the steering angle in three dimensions (par.’s 10-12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding Claim 21: Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Daimler (DE 102008008858 A1) discloses the device according to claim 1, but Daimler either taken singularly or in combination fails to disclose wherein the line segment of the light pattern has a light trace whose width is adapted to cover an entire width of a dashboard of the vehicle and crosses the passenger compartment of the vehicle through and through, forming a luminous level of the passenger compartment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes:
Janssen (DE 102012025530 A1) discloses the device according to claim 1, apart from the fixing means being attached to the vehicle, wherein the light pattern comprises at least one line segment, and wherein the light source comprises at least one laser light source adapted to project at least one substantially horizontal rectilinear line of light.
Wiklund (US 4690557 A) discloses a device for assisting the placement in the neutral position of a rectilinear trajectory of the steering wheel of a vehicle, device comprising a light source configured to project at least one light pattern defining at least one alignment direction and fixing means adapted to allow temporary attachment of the device to the vehicle so that the light source faces or is located in a plane facing the wheel so that the light pattern is projected at least inside the circle delimited by the wheel, wherein the fixing means comprise an elongated crosspiece on which the light source is fixed, and wherein the light source is movable along the crosspiece so as to adjust the longitudinal position of the light source with respect to the crosspiece.
Rainer (DE 202012001029 U1) discloses a device for assisting the placement in the neutral position of a rectilinear trajectory of the steering wheel of a vehicle, device comprising a light source configured to project at least one light pattern defining at least one alignment direction and fixing means adapted to allow temporary attachment of the device to the vehicle so that the light source faces or is located in a plane facing the steering wheel, wherein the fixing means comprise an elongated crosspiece on which the light source is fixed, the crosspiece including at each end there at least one finger forming an acute angle with the longitudinal direction of the crosspiece, at least one of the two fingers being movable in longitudinal translation with respect to the crosspiece and being associated with clamping means configured to allow gripping with the two fingers a part of the vehicle so as to fix the device on the part of the vehicle, wherein the two fingers are movable in longitudinal translation and each one is associated with clamping means providing elastic return of the corresponding finger towards the crosspiece, and wherein the light source is movable along the crosspiece so as to adjust the longitudinal position of the light source with respect to the crosspiece.
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 EVAN MANCINI whose telephone number is (703)756-5796. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM.
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, KRISTINA DEHERRERA can be reached at (303)297-4237. 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.
/EVAN MANCINI/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855 12/9/25
1 Citations made to attached translation
2 Note that in figures 6-8, securing devices 26 are assigned element number 70.
3 Note that in figures 6-8, securing devices 26 are assigned element number 70.
4 Citations made to the attached translation