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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/9/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 line 12 reads "the control device is configured" which appears to be a continuity error since the control device has already been configured earlier in claim 1. This should read "the control device is further configured" to improve clarity and consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
“Processing unit” as utilized within the claims is interpreted under ordinary skill in the art as a processor, microprocessor, GPU, CPU, TPU, or other processing circuitry as well known in the art.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim(s) 1, the “position information reading sections” in the limitation “one or more position information reading sections configured to read position information held by position information holders disposed at a plurality of locations on the rails” invokes 112(f) as “section” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables reading position information.
In claim(s) 1, the “position information holders” in the limitation “position information held by position information holders” invokes 112(f) as “holder” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the holding of position information.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the position information reading sections and position information holders, a review of the specification (paragraph 0029) shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure to these claim limitations:
“Note that the position information holders M can be configured using a barcode or a wireless tag, for example. If the position information holders M are configured by a barcode, the first position information reading section 45 and the second position information reading section16 may be configured as a barcode reader. On the other hand, if the position information holders M are configured by a wireless tag, the first position information reading section 45 and the second position information reading section16 may be configured as a tag reader.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over T P et al. US 20150250372 A1 (hereinafter TP) in view of Higgins et al. GB 2355702 (hereinafter Higgins), Moroniti et al. US 2019/0332114 A1 (hereinafter Moroniti), Lin et al. CN 105411491 A (hereinafter Lin), and Nishikawa et al. US 9758308 B1 (hereinafter Nishikawa).
Regarding claim 1, TP teaches a cleaning system (Abstract discloses a system using a robot cleaner) comprising:
a cleaning vehicle (Abstract teaches a robot cleaner);
and a control device configured to control the cleaning vehicle (paragraph 0011 teaches a control unit for controlling the vehicle),
wherein the cleaning vehicle comprises a state detection device configured to detect a contamination state of a region (paragraph 0051 discloses detecting the state of the room by acquiring an image of it; paragraphs 0063-0064 recite utilizing the camera aboard a robot to detect an area needing cleaning) and has, as operation modes, a cleaning mode in which the cleaning is performed (paragraph 0005 discloses a cleaning mode) and a non-cleaning mode in which the cleaning is not performed (paragraph 0081 teaches a standby state wherein cleaning is not performed), and
wherein the control device is configured to execute:
an inspection control for causing the state detection device to detect a contamination state of a pre-set inspection region while causing the cleaning vehicle to wait in the non-cleaning mode (cleaning area is determined, not moving while determining cleaning area);
a specification control for specifying a cleaning required region, which is a region in which the cleaning needs to be performed, based on the contamination state of the inspection region detected by the state detection device in the inspection control (paragraph 0051 discloses determining if a region requires cleaning based on obtained image of the room);
a cleaning control for causing the cleaning vehicle to travel in the cleaning mode in the cleaning required region after the inspection control and the specification control end (Figure 3 discloses moving the vehicle to the required location after detecting the cleaning area and determining which sections needs cleaning);
wherein the state detection device is a camera that acquires a captured image of the environment (paragraph 0030 discloses a camera for detecting images of the surrounding environment),
wherein the control device is configured to perform image processing on the captured image to acquire a processed image (paragraph 0051 discloses comparing the obtained image with a reference image; examiner considers this equivalent to processing an image; see also paragraph 0064), and
wherein in the specification control, the control device specifies the cleaning required region based on the processed image (paragraph 0051 discloses determining if a region requires cleaning by comparing the obtained image with a reference image; see also paragraph 0064).
TP does not teach traveling along a predetermined travel route comprising rails and cleaning the travel route; detecting a contamination state of a surface of the rail of the travel route; that the cleaning required region is further specified as a portion of an upper surface of the rails of the travel route along the inspection region; and that the state detection device is a camera that acquires a captured image of the rails.
Higgins teaches traveling along a predetermined travel route comprising rails and cleaning the travel route (Abstract discloses a vehicle traveling on rails, cleaning the surface of a rail in which a cleaning vehicle travels upon); detecting a contamination state of a surface of the rail of the travel route (page 10 last paragraph to page 11 first paragraph detail detection of contaminants on the surface of a rail); that the cleaning required region is further specified as a portion of an upper surface of the rails of the travel route along the inspection region (Abstract discloses cleaning the surface of a rail in which a cleaning vehicle travels upon; Figure 9 shows a laser cleaning beam apparatus cleaning the top surface of a rail 3); and that the state detection device captures the rails (page 10 last paragraph to page 11 first paragraph detail detection of contaminants on the surface of a rail).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified TP to incorporate the predetermined travel route of Higgins such that the robot of TP can be placed on the rails of Higgins wherein the camera of TP can be utilized in detecting contamination on the rails as taught by Higgins. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety of the vehicle by preventing decreased traction and rail connection interference caused by debris as disclosed in Higgins (pages 5-6) and to limit the areas wherein a cleaning device can function to improve safety in work environments such as in warehouses or factories.
TP does not teach the cleaning vehicle comprising one or more position information reading sections configured to read position information held by position information holders disposed at a plurality of locations on the rails; and a control device configured to control the cleaning vehicle based at least partly on the position information read by the one or more position information reading sections.
Nishikawa teaches the cleaning vehicle comprising one or more position information reading sections configured to read position information (column 6 line 50 to column 7 line 11 discloses a barcode reader or IC tag reader on a rail vehicle for reading barcodes or IC tags) held by position information holders disposed at a plurality of locations on the rails (column 6 line 50 to column 7 line 11 discloses barcodes or IC tags that indicate coordinates arranged on a track; see also Figure 4 markers M); and a control device configured to control the cleaning vehicle based at least partly on the position information read by the one or more position information reading sections (column 10 lines 49-62 discloses a controller controls vehicles based on position detected by the barcode reader IC tag reader).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified TP to incorporate the teachings of Nishikawa such that the cleaning vehicle of TP (now placed on rails with modification from Higgins) can detect its location and be controlled based on that detected location using either barcodes or IC tags. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of localization in a cost effective and secure manner without relying on RTK GPS or IMU sensors.
The modified TP reference fails to teach that the control device includes a processing unit configured to perform the method, or an inspection control for causing the state detection device to detect a state of a pre-set inspection region along the travel route while causing the cleaning vehicle to travel in the non-cleaning mode.
Moroniti teaches that the control device includes a processing unit configured to perform the method (paragraph 0071 teaches a processor to perform the method), and traveling in the non-cleaning mode (paragraph 0059 discloses turning off the vacuuming mode when traveling between locations such as when traveling over hardwood).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified TP to incorporate the teachings of Moroniti such that the vehicle of TP can travel while in the standby, non-cleaning state as taught by Moroniti wherein cleaning location searching can be performed while in standby as taught by TP. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve energy efficiency of the vehicle by not cleaning when traveling and reduce down time by continuously traveling while searching. Further, since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the processor of Moroniti for the control unit of TP. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of planning and performing cleaning renders the claim obvious.
The modified TP reference does not teach that the cleaning required region is further specified as a portion where the contamination state exceeds a contamination threshold; and that, in the inspection control, the control device causes the state detection device to acquire the captured image at a constant travel distance interval or at a constant time interval.
Lin teaches that the cleaning required region is further specified as a portion where the contamination state exceeds a contamination threshold (translated paragraph 0035 discloses determining that pollutant level is above a threshold and activating cleaning in response); and that, in the inspection control, the control device causes the state detection device to acquire the captured image at a constant time interval (translated paragraph 0013 discloses capturing images of the environment periodically; see also abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified TP to incorporate the teachings of Lin such that the state detection occurs periodically as taught by Lin and a cleaning required region is determined as one wherein a contamination level exceeds a threshold as taught by Lin. This modification would be done with a reasonable expectation of success to improve consistency of pollution detection and reduce energy usage by only cleaning areas with dirtiness above a threshold.
Regarding claim 3, the modified TP reference teaches all of claim 1. TP further teaches that after the inspection control and the specification control end, the control device sets a pre-cleaning movement route (Figure 3 discloses moving the vehicle to the required location after detecting the cleaning area and determining which sections needs cleaning), which is a route from a point where the inspection control and the specification control ended to a start point of the cleaning required region, without using a route traveled by the cleaning vehicle in the inspection control as a basis (paragraph 0058 discloses that the robot moves from its standby location to the area requiring cleaning; it is inherent to anyone skilled in the art that navigation from one location to another would requires determination of a route from the start location to the end location), and causes the cleaning vehicle to travel along the pre-cleaning movement route (Figure 4 depicts traveling to the cleaning area).
TP does not explicitly teach traveling in the non-cleaning mode.
Moroniti further teaches traveling in the non-cleaning mode (paragraph 0059 discloses turning off the vacuuming mode when traveling between locations such as when traveling over hardwood).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified TP to incorporate the further teachings of Moroniti with a reasonable expectation of success to improve energy efficiency of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 4, the modified TP reference teaches all of claim 1. TP further teaches that the control device, in response to determining during the specification control that the inspection region does not include the cleaning required region, executes the inspection control and the specification control again (paragraph 0050 declares waiting in standby mode before a cleaning area is determined, not moving while determining cleaning area; it is implied that vehicle will continue searching until an area needing cleaning is defined).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of TP with Higgins, Lin, Moroniti, and Nishikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoo et al. US 2011/0118928.
Regarding claim 2, the modified TP reference teaches all of claim 1.
The modified TP reference does not explicitly state that the control device sets a traveling speed of the cleaning vehicle in the non-cleaning mode higher than a traveling speed of the cleaning vehicle in the cleaning mode.
Yoo teaches the control device sets a traveling speed of the cleaning vehicle in the non-cleaning mode higher than a traveling speed of the cleaning vehicle in the cleaning mode (paragraph 0073 discloses increasing speed when the vehicle is in a wall-following mode for movement between rooms).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified TP to incorporate the teachings of Yoo with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce the time it takes to travel between areas.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of TP with Higgins, Lin, Moroniti, and Nishikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bonaccorsi et al. IT 202000013975 A1 (a translated document has been provided which the examiner relies upon; hereinafter Bonaccorsi).
Regarding claim 5, the modified TP reference teaches all of claim 1.
TP does not explicitly teach defining a plurality of cleaning required regions nor what to do if multiple cleaning required regions are defined.
Bonaccorsi teaches that the control device, in response to specifying a plurality of cleaning required regions in the specification control, determines a contamination level, which indicates an extent of dirtiness from among a plurality of levels for each of the cleaning required regions (translated page 7 paragraphs 5-6 disclose determining the level of contamination based on color intensity; the use of color intensity implies multiple levels since color has multiple levels of intensity), and first executes the cleaning control in a cleaning required region having a highest contamination level (translated page 10 paragraph 6-7 disclose navigating cleaning arm to the location/locations with the highest contamination first).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified TP to incorporate the teachings of Bonaccorsi with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the efficiency of cleaning by cleaning the dirtiest regions first.
Regarding claim 6, the modified TP reference teaches all of claim 1. TP further teaches that in the specification control, the control device determines a contamination level indicating an extent of dirtiness of the cleaning required region from among a plurality of levels (translated page 7 paragraphs 5-6 disclose determining the level of contamination based on color intensity; the use of color intensity implies multiple levels since color has multiple levels of intensity), and sets a higher number of times that the cleaning control is executed with respect to the cleaning required region as the contamination level of the cleaning required region increases (translated page 9 paragraph 18 repeats sanitization process depending on contamination level).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of TP with Higgins, Lin, Moroniti, and Nishikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. US 2012/0291810 A1 (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 7, the modified TP reference teaches all of claim 1.
TP does not teach that the control device, in response to specifying a plurality of cleaning required regions in the specification control, first executes the cleaning control with respect to a cleaning required region closest to a point where the inspection control and the specification control ended.
Chen teaches that the control device, in response to specifying a plurality of cleaning required regions in the specification control, first executes the cleaning control with respect to a cleaning required region closest to a point where the inspection control and the specification control ended (paragraph 0032 and 0033 disclose detecting surroundings for object detection and then moving the robot to the closest area for cleaning after object detection ends).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified TP to incorporate the teachings of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success to improve efficiency of the vehicle’s movement.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of TP with Higgins, Lin, Moroniti, and Nishikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. US 2005/0236021 A1 (hereinafter Suzuki).
Regarding claim 8, the modified TP reference teaches all of claim 1.
TP does not teach that in the inspection control, in order for the cleaning vehicle to travel over an entirety of the travel route in the inspection region, the control device performs control to prioritize traveling of the cleaning vehicle in a portion of the travel route where the cleaning vehicle has not yet traveled.
Suzuki teaches that in the inspection control, in order for the cleaning vehicle to travel over an entirety of the travel route in the inspection region, the control device performs control to prioritize traveling of the cleaning vehicle in a portion of the travel route where the cleaning vehicle has not yet traveled (paragraph 0109 discloses determining if there is an area the vehicle has not yet cleaned and traveling to that region; it is inherent that an area not yet cleaned includes one the mobile device has not yet traveled through).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified TP to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure that the entirety of the route has been cleaned.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of TP with Higgins, Lin, Moroniti, and Nishikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. US 20210406584 A1 (hereinafter Xu).
Regarding claim 10, the modified TP reference teaches all of claim 1.
TP does not teach that the processed image includes a first processed image created by performing grayscale processing on the captured image and a second processed image created by performing binarization processing on the first processed image, and wherein when an area of a portion in which dust appears in the second processed image exceeds the contamination threshold in a predetermined region in the second processed image, the processing unit determines that a region in the travel route that corresponds to the captured image is the cleaning required region.
Xu teaches that a first processed image created by performing grayscale processing on the captured image (paragraph 0074 discloses processing an image to create a grayscale image) and a second processed image created by performing binarization processing on the first processed image (paragraph 0074 discloses further processing the grayscale image to create a binary image), and wherein when dust appears in an area of a portion in the second processed image in a predetermined region, the processing unit determines that a region in the travel route that corresponds to the captured image is the cleaning required region (paragraph 0074-0076 discloses determining the exact positioning of dust to be cleaned within a region to be cleaned based on the binary image).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified TP to incorporate the teachings of Xu such that an image captured by TP can be processed by performing grayscale and binarization processing to determine the precise location of dust in the environment as taught by Xu. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide accurate positioning of dust as disclosed in Xu (paragraph 0074) and improve cleaning efficiency as disclosed in Xu (paragraph 0076).
The modified TP reference does not teach that when an area of a portion in which dust appears in the second processed image exceeds the contamination threshold in a predetermined region in the second processed image, the processing unit determines that a region in the travel route that corresponds to the captured image is the cleaning required region.
Lin further teaches that when an area of a portion in which dust appears in the second processed image exceeds the contamination threshold in a predetermined region in the second processed image, the processing unit determines that a region in the travel route that corresponds to the captured image is the cleaning required region (translated paragraph 0023 discloses dividing an environment into grids and determines a pollution level for each grid, i.e. a predetermined region; translated paragraph 0035 discloses when pollution level exceeds a threshold, cleaning is performed).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified TP to incorporate the teachings of Lin such that the binary image of Xu can be processed to determine the presence of dust according to the threshold of Lin. This modification would be done with a reasonable expectation of success to improve ease of determining location of contaminants as disclosed in Lin (paragraph 0023) and reduce energy usage by only cleaning areas with dirtiness above a threshold.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 3/9/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of TP in view of Higgins, Moroniti, Lin, and Nishikawa.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. US 20090212103 A1 discloses a cleaning vehicle that localizes itself using RFID tags located in the floor.
Kinugawa et al. US 9932175 B2 teaches detecting a rail vehicle’s location based on tags/barcodes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights