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 Examiner indicates that in light of the amendments to the claims, the claims are no longer interpretated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the section starting in the last paragraph beginning on page 8 of the reply filed 10/22/2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. In light of the amended claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the section starting in the third to last paragraph beginning on page 9 of the reply filed 10/22/2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. In light of the amended claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see the section starting in the second paragraph beginning on page 13 of the reply filed 10/22/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. For example, Applicant argues that the applied art does not teach or suggest determining, on the basis of the acceleration evaluation value and the deceleration evaluation value, a manipulation type of the operator as either an aggressive type or a cautious type, the aggressive type indicating an acceleration tendency in the manipulation and the cautious type indicating a deceleration tendency in the specific manipulation. However, the Examiner disagrees.
Specifically, Applicant further argues that McQuade fails to disclose the features of the amended Claim 1 such as specifying a manipulation type of an operator as either an aggressive type or a cautious type. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Although the Examiner agrees that McQuade does not disclose the amended limitations on its own, the Examiner indicates that the claim is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQuade (US 2007/0239322 A1), in view of Uenoyama (US 2021/0291856 A1).
It is the Examiner’s opinion that Uenoyama teaches determining, on the basis of the acceleration evaluation value and the deceleration evaluation value, a manipulation type of the operator as either an aggressive type or a cautious type, the aggressive type indicating an acceleration tendency in the manipulation and the cautious type indicating a deceleration tendency in the specific manipulation (In paragraph [0060], Uenoyama teaches that, in cases where the difference between the acceleration and deceleration (positive value) and the reference data is equal to or greater than the threshold value, it can be determined that the driver is performing inappropriate rapid acceleration [aggressive type], and, for example, in cases where the absolute value of the difference between the acceleration and deceleration (negative value) and the reference data is equal to or greater than the threshold value, it can be determined that the driver has applied inappropriate sudden braking [cautious type]). Furthermore, the Examiner considers Uenoyama to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to determining the behavior of a driver based on comparing acceleration and deceleration data. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Uenoyama with the machine as disclosed by McQuade, where “in cases where it is determined that the difference or ratio between the detection data and the reference data is equal to or greater than the threshold value, for example, a warning to the driver is displayed on the output unit 105, or a warning sound is generated from the output unit 105” as suggested by Uenoyama in paragraph [0061], improving the safety of navigation and contextual awareness of the operator, for example.
See the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 below.
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 1-2, 5-8, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQuade (US 2007/0239322 A1), in view of Uenoyama (US 2021/0291856 A1).
Regarding claim 1, McQuade discloses a construction machine (In paragraph [0004], McQuade discloses automatically collecting a plurality of metrics while a driver is operating a vehicle, automatically determining a numerical value for each metric, automatically combining the numerical values for the plurality of metrics to achieve a numerical performance value, and normalizing the numerical performance value to achieve a numerical ranking of the driver's performance while operating a vehicle; see also paragraph [0009] where McQuade discloses that the concepts presented herein can be applied to other types of equipment, such as heavy machinery and heavy construction equipment (backhoes, excavators, bulldozers, etc.), as well as to other types of equipment or machinery that an operator controls, and can be implemented in other types of vehicles, including automobiles (such as rental car fleets, government vehicles, and fleet vehicles assigned to sales representatives or other employees of a business)), comprising:
circuitry (In paragraph [0027], McQuade discloses an onboard vehicle CPU 34, which is logically coupled to a memory 32, in which are stored the machine instructions that are executed by the CPU to carry out these logical steps) configured to:
acquire operation data about a specific manipulation by an operator to a manipulation target included in the construction machine (In paragraph [0024], McQuade discloses that a plurality of metrics related to driver performance are automatically collected by a plurality of sensors incorporated into a vehicle);
specify acceleration data being operation data in an acceleration period of the manipulation target and deceleration data being operation data in a deceleration period of the manipulation target among the operation data (In paragraph [0033], McQuade discloses that in a block 54, the remote computing device uses the GPS data to determine metrics corresponding to acceleration time and acceleration magnitude, and in a block 56, the remote computing device uses the GPS data to determine metrics corresponding to deceleration time and deceleration magnitude);
acquire acceleration evaluation data for evaluating the acceleration data, and deceleration evaluation data for evaluating the deceleration data (In paragraph [0033], McQuade discloses that in a block 60, the plurality of metrics calculated from the GPS data are used to determine the driver's performance ranking);
calculate, on the basis of the acceleration data and the acceleration evaluation data, an acceleration evaluation value indicating a skill of the operator in the acceleration period, and calculates, on the basis of the deceleration data and the deceleration evaluation data, a deceleration evaluation value indicating a skill of the operator in the deceleration period (In paragraph [0033], McQuade discloses that in a block 60, the plurality of metrics calculated from the GPS data are used to determine the driver's performance ranking; see also paragraphs [0036-0037] where McQuade discloses an exemplary performance ranking, for example, the sensor data are collected for various metrics corresponding to vehicle acceleration, vehicle deceleration, vehicle idle time, and vehicle speed, where for example for each minute of acceleration time will be assigned one point, each minute of deceleration time will be assigned one point, where the points are added together to achieve a combined total, and the total is then normalized to derive a numerical ranking value for the driver);
determine, on the basis of the acceleration evaluation value and the deceleration evaluation value, a manipulation type of the operator (In paragraph [0033], McQuade discloses that in a block 60, the plurality of metrics calculated from the GPS data are used to determine the driver's performance ranking; the Examiner considers the performance ranking to be at least an example of a “manipulation type” of the operator under its broadest reasonable interpretation in that the performance of manipulation of the vehicle by the operator is categorized); and
notify of support information associated with the manipulation type (In paragraph [0027], McQuade discloses that an optional display 38 can be included in the vehicle to provide real-time feedback to the driver (by displaying the driver's performance ranking in real-time), and if display 38 is implemented, it is desirable to provide the ability for the driver to determine which metrics are having the most impact on the driver's performance ranking).
McQuade does not explicitly disclose determining, on the basis of the acceleration evaluation value and the deceleration evaluation value, a manipulation type of the operator as either an aggressive type or a cautious type, the aggressive type indicating an acceleration tendency in the manipulation and the cautious type indicating a deceleration tendency in the specific manipulation.
However, Uenoyama teaches determining, on the basis of the acceleration evaluation value and the deceleration evaluation value, a manipulation type of the operator as either an aggressive type or a cautious type, the aggressive type indicating an acceleration tendency in the manipulation and the cautious type indicating a deceleration tendency in the specific manipulation (In paragraph [0060], Uenoyama teaches that, in cases where the difference between the acceleration and deceleration (positive value) and the reference data is equal to or greater than the threshold value, it can be determined that the driver is performing inappropriate rapid acceleration [aggressive type], and, for example, in cases where the absolute value of the difference between the acceleration and deceleration (negative value) and the reference data is equal to or greater than the threshold value, it can be determined that the driver has applied inappropriate sudden braking [cautious type]).
Uenoyama is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to determining the behavior of a driver based on comparing acceleration and deceleration data. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Uenoyama with the machine as disclosed by McQuade, where “in cases where it is determined that the difference or ratio between the detection data and the reference data is equal to or greater than the threshold value, for example, a warning to the driver is displayed on the output unit 105, or a warning sound is generated from the output unit 105” as suggested by Uenoyama in paragraph [0061], improving the safety of navigation and contextual awareness of the operator, for example.
Regarding claim 2, McQuade further discloses wherein the support information shows a state of the construction machine to be focused on by the operator to improve a skill for the specific manipulation (In paragraph [0027], McQuade discloses that an optional display 38 can be included in the vehicle to provide real-time feedback to the driver (by displaying the driver's performance ranking in real-time), and if display 38 is implemented, it is desirable to provide the ability for the driver to determine which metrics are having the most impact on the driver's performance ranking).
Regarding claim 5, Uenoyama teaches wherein the circuitry further determines a frequency of the notification of the support information on the basis of a distance between evaluation data including the acceleration evaluation value and the deceleration evaluation value, and target data including an acceleration target value set in advance and a deceleration target value set in advance (In paragraphs [0060-0061], Uenoyama teaches that, in cases where the difference between the acceleration and deceleration (positive value) and the reference data is equal to or greater than the threshold value, it can be determined that the driver is performing inappropriate rapid acceleration, and, for example, in cases where the absolute value of the difference between the acceleration and deceleration (negative value) and the reference data is equal to or greater than the threshold value, it can be determined that the driver has applied inappropriate sudden braking, and in cases where it is determined that the difference or ratio between the detection data and the reference data is equal to or greater than the threshold value, for example, a warning to the driver is displayed on the output unit 105, or a warning sound is generated from the output unit 105, and the evaluation unit 1014 may transmit information about the driver, who performs an inappropriate driving operation, to the server via the communication unit 106), wherein
the circuitry gives the notification of the support information at the frequency determined by the circuitry (In paragraph [0061], Uenoyama teaches that in cases where it is determined that the difference or ratio between the detection data and the reference data is equal to or greater than the threshold value, for example, a warning to the driver is displayed on the output unit 105, or a warning sound is generated from the output unit 105, and the evaluation unit 1014 may transmit information about the driver, who performs an inappropriate driving operation, to the server via the communication unit 106).
Regarding claim 6, McQuade discloses wherein the circuitry further determines additional information to be added to the support information on the basis of a distance between the evaluation data including the acceleration evaluation value and the deceleration evaluation value, and target data including an acceleration target value set in advance and a deceleration target value set in advance (In paragraph [0033], McQuade discloses that in a block 60, the plurality of metrics calculated from the GPS data are used to determine the driver's performance ranking; see also paragraphs [0036-0037] where McQuade discloses an exemplary performance ranking, for example, the sensor data are collected for various metrics corresponding to vehicle acceleration, vehicle deceleration, vehicle idle time, and vehicle speed, where for example for each minute of acceleration time will be assigned one point, each minute of deceleration time will be assigned one point, where the points are added together to achieve a combined total, and the total is then normalized to derive a numerical ranking value for the driver), wherein
the circuitry gives the notification of the support information including the additional information determined by the circuitry (In paragraph [0033], McQuade discloses that in a block 60, the plurality of metrics calculated from the GPS data are used to determine the driver's performance ranking; see also paragraphs [0036-0037] where McQuade discloses an exemplary performance ranking, for example, the sensor data are collected for various metrics corresponding to vehicle acceleration, vehicle deceleration, vehicle idle time, and vehicle speed, where for example for each minute of acceleration time will be assigned one point, each minute of deceleration time will be assigned one point, where the points are added together to achieve a combined total, and the total is then normalized to derive a numerical ranking value for the driver; in paragraph [0027], McQuade discloses that an optional display 38 can be included in the vehicle to provide real-time feedback to the driver (by displaying the driver's performance ranking in real-time), and if display 38 is implemented, it is desirable to provide the ability for the driver to determine which metrics are having the most impact on the driver's performance ranking; the Examiner understands the additional information to be “included” under its broadest reasonable interpretation in the notification of the support information in that the additional information such as vehicle idle time and vehicle speed are utilized in the determination of the driver's performance ranking).
Regarding claim 7, Uenoyama teaches wherein the circuitry determines the manipulation type of the operator as the aggressive type when the acceleration evaluation value is larger than the deceleration evaluation value, and determines the manipulation type of the operator as the cautious type when the acceleration evaluation value is equal to or smaller than the deceleration evaluation value (In paragraph [0060], Uenoyama teaches that, in cases where the difference between the acceleration and deceleration (positive value) and the reference data is equal to or greater than the threshold value, it can be determined that the driver is performing inappropriate rapid acceleration [aggressive type], and, for example, in cases where the absolute value of the difference between the acceleration and deceleration (negative value) and the reference data is equal to or greater than the threshold value, it can be determined that the driver has applied inappropriate sudden braking [cautious type]).
Regarding claim 8, Uenoyama teaches wherein the circuitry determines the manipulation type of the operator as the aggressive type when the acceleration evaluation value is larger than the deceleration evaluation value by a predetermined value or larger, determines the manipulation type of the operator as the cautious type when the deceleration evaluation value is larger than the acceleration evaluation value by the predetermined value or larger, and determines the manipulation type of the operator as an intermediate type when an absolute value of a difference between the acceleration evaluation value and the deceleration evaluation value is smaller than the predetermined value (In paragraph [0060], Uenoyama teaches that, in cases where the difference between the acceleration and deceleration (positive value) and the reference data is equal to or greater than the threshold value, it can be determined that the driver is performing inappropriate rapid acceleration [aggressive type], and, for example, in cases where the absolute value of the difference between the acceleration and deceleration (negative value) and the reference data is equal to or greater than the threshold value, it can be determined that the driver has applied inappropriate sudden braking [cautious type]; the Examiner understands that when the data is in between the thresholds, i.e. not the aggressive or cautious type, to be “an intermediate type” under its broadest interpretation where the evaluation value is smaller than either predetermined value positive or negative).
Regarding claim 12, Uenoyama teaches wherein the circuitry decreases the acceleration evaluation value in accordance with an increase in a difference between the acceleration data and the acceleration evaluation data, and decreases the deceleration evaluation value in accordance with an increase in a difference between the deceleration data and the deceleration evaluation data (In paragraph [0060], Uenoyama teaches that, in cases where the difference between the acceleration and deceleration (positive value) and the reference data is equal to or greater than the threshold value, it can be determined that the driver is performing inappropriate rapid acceleration [decrease in acceleration evaluation value], and, for example, in cases where the absolute value of the difference between the acceleration and deceleration (negative value) and the reference data is equal to or greater than the threshold value, it can be determined that the driver has applied inappropriate sudden braking [decrease in deceleration evaluation value]).
Regarding claim 15, McQuade discloses a construction machine (In paragraph [0004], McQuade discloses automatically collecting a plurality of metrics while a driver is operating a vehicle, automatically determining a numerical value for each metric, automatically combining the numerical values for the plurality of metrics to achieve a numerical performance value, and normalizing the numerical performance value to achieve a numerical ranking of the driver's performance while operating a vehicle; see also paragraph [0009] where McQuade discloses that the concepts presented herein can be applied to other types of equipment, such as heavy machinery and heavy construction equipment (backhoes, excavators, bulldozers, etc.), as well as to other types of equipment or machinery that an operator controls, and can be implemented in other types of vehicles, including automobiles (such as rental car fleets, government vehicles, and fleet vehicles assigned to sales representatives or other employees of a business)), comprising:
a storage part that stores acceleration evaluation data and deceleration evaluation data (In paragraph [0027], McQuade discloses an onboard vehicle CPU 34, which is logically coupled to a memory 32, in which are stored the machine instructions that are executed by the CPU to carry out these logical steps, and where the plurality of metrics collected by sensors 30 can also be stored in memory 32); and
a controller (In paragraph [0027], McQuade discloses an onboard vehicle CPU 34, which is logically coupled to a memory 32, in which are stored the machine instructions that are executed by the CPU to carry out these logical steps) configured to:
acquire operation data about a specific manipulation by an operator to a manipulation target included in the construction machine (In paragraph [0024], McQuade discloses that a plurality of metrics related to driver performance are automatically collected by a plurality of sensors incorporated into a vehicle);
specify acceleration data being operation data in an acceleration period of the manipulation target and deceleration data being operation data in a deceleration period of the manipulation target among the operation data (In paragraph [0033], McQuade discloses that in a block 54, the remote computing device uses the GPS data to determine metrics corresponding to acceleration time and acceleration magnitude, and in a block 56, the remote computing device uses the GPS data to determine metrics corresponding to deceleration time and deceleration magnitude);
acquire the acceleration evaluation data and the deceleration evaluation data from the storage part (In paragraph [0033], McQuade discloses that in a block 60, the plurality of metrics calculated from the GPS data are used to determine the driver's performance ranking);
calculate, on the basis of the acceleration data and the acceleration evaluation data, an acceleration evaluation value indicating a skill of the operator in the acceleration period, and calculate, on the basis of the deceleration data and the deceleration evaluation data, a deceleration evaluation value indicating a skill of the operator in the deceleration period (In paragraph [0033], McQuade discloses that in a block 60, the plurality of metrics calculated from the GPS data are used to determine the driver's performance ranking; see also paragraphs [0036-0037] where McQuade discloses an exemplary performance ranking, for example, the sensor data are collected for various metrics corresponding to vehicle acceleration, vehicle deceleration, vehicle idle time, and vehicle speed, where for example for each minute of acceleration time will be assigned one point, each minute of deceleration time will be assigned one point, where the points are added together to achieve a combined total, and the total is then normalized to derive a numerical ranking value for the driver);
determine, on the basis of the acceleration evaluation value and the deceleration evaluation value, a manipulation type of the operator (In paragraph [0033], McQuade discloses that in a block 60, the plurality of metrics calculated from the GPS data are used to determine the driver's performance ranking; the Examiner considers the performance ranking to be at least an example of a “manipulation type” of the operator under its broadest reasonable interpretation in that the performance of manipulation of the vehicle by the operator is categorized); and
give notification of support information associated with the manipulation type (In paragraph [0027], McQuade discloses that an optional display 38 can be included in the vehicle to provide real-time feedback to the driver (by displaying the driver's performance ranking in real-time), and if display 38 is implemented, it is desirable to provide the ability for the driver to determine which metrics are having the most impact on the driver's performance ranking).
McQuade does not explicitly disclose determining, on the basis of the acceleration evaluation value and the deceleration evaluation value, a manipulation type of the operator as either an aggressive type or a cautious type, the aggressive type indicating an acceleration tendency in the specific manipulation and the cautious type indicating a deceleration tendency in the specific manipulation.
However, Uenoyama teaches determining, on the basis of the acceleration evaluation value and the deceleration evaluation value, a manipulation type of the operator as either an aggressive type or a cautious type, the aggressive type indicating an acceleration tendency in the specific manipulation and the cautious type indicating a deceleration tendency in the specific manipulation (In paragraph [0060], Uenoyama teaches that, in cases where the difference between the acceleration and deceleration (positive value) and the reference data is equal to or greater than the threshold value, it can be determined that the driver is performing inappropriate rapid acceleration [aggressive type], and, for example, in cases where the absolute value of the difference between the acceleration and deceleration (negative value) and the reference data is equal to or greater than the threshold value, it can be determined that the driver has applied inappropriate sudden braking [cautious type]).
Uenoyama is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to determining the behavior of a driver based on comparing acceleration and deceleration data. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Uenoyama with the machine as disclosed by McQuade, where “in cases where it is determined that the difference or ratio between the detection data and the reference data is equal to or greater than the threshold value, for example, a warning to the driver is displayed on the output unit 105, or a warning sound is generated from the output unit 105” as suggested by Uenoyama in paragraph [0061], improving the safety of navigation and contextual awareness of the operator, for example.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQuade (US 2007/0239322 A1) and Uenoyama (US 2021/0291856 A1), in view of Nishi (US 2023/0078047 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of McQuade and Uenoyama does not explicitly disclose wherein the state of the construction machine includes an intensity of an engine sound or soil in a bucket.
However, Nishi teaches wherein the state of the construction machine includes soil in a bucket (In paragraphs [0170-0172], Nishi teaches that the display device 40 may display the weight of soil in the bucket 6 calculated by the weight calculating part 61 and may be configured to issue a warning when the calculated weight of soil in the bucket 6 exceeds the remaining load amount).
Nishi is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to state of a construction machine including material in an excavator bucket. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Nishi with the machine as disclosed by the combination of McQuade and Uenoyama, where doing so is advantageous in that further context of operation of the machine can be provided to the operator, thereby improving the operator’s understanding of the operation and control, for example.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 13-14 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suzuki (US 2020/0031360 A1) teaches a driving evaluation system, driving evaluation method, program, and medium.
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 Harrison Heflin whose telephone number is (571)272-5629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 1:00PM - 10:00PM EST.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/HARRISON HEFLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665