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
In response to the amendment filed February 12, 2026, claims 1, 4-5 and 10 are amended. Claims 3 and 8 are cancelled and no new claims have been added. Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9-10 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed February 12, 2026, with respect to drawing and claim objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the drawings and the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed February 12, 2026, with respect to rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C 112b have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. The rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C 112b has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed February 12, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The abstract idea is identified as being the steps of “estimating; setting; and executing” as an experienced clinician can perform the claimed step of estimating by mentally looking at acquired temperature data and making an estimation of a fluid state and further setting two positions to obtain a temperature difference and making an estimation based on the two positions. Thus, the claims can be readily interpreted as being a mere application of a mental process on a computer. Applicant is conflating the abstract idea with the elements of the claim that are in addition to the abstract idea (i.e. the additional elements). The eligibility analysis does not require the capability of the additional elements to be practically performed in the mind.
In response to applicant’s arguments that the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into practical application, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are identified as being “heater; temperature distribution acquisitor; an estimator (BRI: processor); a light source; and a thermography camera”. Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by the Non-Patent literature cited below and the patent publication cited below. When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed February 12, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim under 35 U.S.C 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nagano (JP 2007263957 A; previously cited by applicant and citations refer to machine translation previously provided) and Peeters (US 10448843 B1; previously cited by applicant).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9-10 are all within at least one of the four categories.
The independent claim 1 recites:
estimating the fluid state of the liquid based on the acquired temperature distribution;
setting two positions to obtain a temperature difference or temperature ratio between two positions, the two positions forming a pair within a region in which the temperature distribution is acquired;
executing setting two positions to obtain a temperature difference or temperature ratio between the two positions a plurality of times and setting one pair from among a plurality of pairs of the two points within the region in which the temperature distribution is acquired, the one pair having a maximum temperature difference or temperature ratio; and
estimating, as a direction in which the liquid flows, a direction from a position on a lower temperature side to a position on a higher temperature side of the two positions constituting the selected one pair.
The independent claim 10 recites:
estimating the fluid state of the liquid based on the acquired temperature distribution;
setting two positions to obtain a temperature difference or temperature ratio between two positions, the two positions forming a pair within a region in which the temperature distribution is acquired;
executing setting two positions to obtain a temperature difference or temperature ratio between the two positions a plurality of times and setting one pair from among a plurality of pairs of the two points within the region in which the temperature distribution is acquired, the one pair having a maximum temperature difference or temperature ratio; and
estimating, as a direction in which the liquid flows, a direction from a position on a lower temperature side to a position on a higher temperature side of the two positions constituting the selected one pair.
The above claim limitations constitute an abstract idea that is part of the Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes group identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019. See footnotes 14 and 15.
“A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words ….” October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, II. A. i. “[T]here are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping.” Id. at II. A. ii. “[A] claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.” Id. at II. A. iii. See for example, SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (performing a resampled statistical analysis to generate a resampled distribution).
The claimed steps of estimating; setting; and executing can be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas.
Examples of ineligible claims that recite mental processes include:
a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.;
claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.
See p. 7-8 of October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
With respect to the pending claims, for example, a clinician can perform the claimed step of estimating by mentally looking at acquired temperature data and making an estimation of a fluid state and further setting two positions to obtain a temperature difference and making an estimation based on the two positions. Thus, the claims can be readily interpreted as being a mere application of a mental process on a computer.
Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data output that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry. For example, dependent claims 2, 4-7 and 9 recite steps (e.g. estimating, setting and dividing) that can be performed in the mind. Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
This judicial exception (abstract idea) in claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9-10 is not integrated into a practical application because:
The abstract idea amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for estimating, setting and dividing merely invoke a computer as a tool.
The data-gathering step (applying and acquiring) does not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. “The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.” MPEP 2106.05(a) II. The claims recite a computer that is used as a tool for estimating, setting and dividing.
The claims do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to determine a relationship among data to provide information about acquired temperature.
The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine. “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b). II. “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b) III. The pending claims utilize a computer for estimating, setting and dividing. The claims do not apply the obtained temperature data to a particular machine. Rather, the data is merely output in an post-solution step.
The additional elements are identified as follows: heater, temperature distribution acquisitor; an estimator (BRI: processor); a light source; and a thermography camera
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by
Applicant' s specification (para [0029]-[0030]) which discloses that the “estimation” comprises generic computer components that are configured to perform the generic computer functions (e.g. estimating, setting and dividing) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry; and
the patent publication cited herewith:
Peeters (US 10448843 B1; previously cited by applicant)
see col 3 lines 1-60
Kusukame (WO 2013008447 A1)
see page 8: using light to heat is conventional
the non-patent literature previously cited herewith:
Tan, Jen-Hong, et al. "Infrared thermography on ocular surface temperature: a review." Infrared physics & technology 52.4 (2009): 97-108.
Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3.
Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(lI) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional elements as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (CN 201540302 U; previously cited by applicant and citations refer to machine translation previously provided) in view of Nagano (JP 2007263957 A; previously cited by applicant and citations refer to machine translation previously provided) and Peeters (US 10448843 B1; previously cited by applicant).
With respect to claim 1, Xiao discloses a method for estimating a fluid state of a liquid (paragraph 0028-0033 and 0110-0112), comprising:
applying heat to the liquid (see paragraph 0028-0033 and 0104-0116, heating fluid via the heating device #30);
acquiring a temperature distribution of the liquid to which the heat is applied (see paragraph 0104-0116, temperature distribution of heated liquid is acquired); and
estimating the fluid state of the liquid based on the acquired temperature distribution (see paragraph 0104-0116 and 0097-0098, the flow rate of the liquid is estimated based on the acquired temperature distribution),
wherein the fluid state includes at least one or whether the liquid flows, a flow direction of the liquid and a flow rate of the liquid (see paragraph 0105, flow rate is estimated using temperature difference between two positions).
Xiao does not specifically disclose estimating the fluid state of the liquid comprises: setting two positions to obtain a temperature difference or temperature ratio between the two positions, the two positions forming a pair within a region in which the temperature distribution is acquired; executing setting two positions to obtain a temperature difference or temperature ratio between the two positions a plurality of times and selecting one pair from among a plurality of pairs of the two points within the region in which the temperature distribution is acquired, the one pair having a maximum temperature difference or temperature ratio; and estimating, as a direction in which the liquid flows, a direction from a position on a lower temperature side to a position on a higher temperature side of the two positions constituting the selected one pair.
Nagano teaches estimating a fluid state of a liquid (see page 5, the flow direction of groundwater is measured based on distribution of temperature change) which comprises setting two positions to obtain a temperature difference or temperature ratio between the two positions, the two positions forming a pair within a region in which the temperature distribution is acquired (see page 5, measurement point 1 and measurement point 5 are set as a pair); executing setting two positions to obtain a temperature difference or temperature ratio between the two positions a plurality of times and selecting one pair from among a plurality of pairs of the two points within the region in which the temperature distribution is acquired, the one pair having a maximum temperature difference or temperature ratio (see page 5, a temperature difference is measured between two points in a pair where one pair has the maximum temperature difference); and estimating, as a direction in which the liquid flows, a direction from a position on a lower temperature side to a position on a higher temperature side of the two positions constituting the selected one pair (see page 5, the largest and the smallest temperature change is considered to be a pair as it is estimated as a direction from a position of lower temperature to higher temperature direction in the flow of fluid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao with the teachings of Nagano to utilize temperature differences because it would have resulted in the predictable result of measuring a temperature gradient during heating of fluid (Nagano: see page 5-6) in a short period of time and at a low cost (Nagano: see page 3).
Xiao and Nagano do not specifically teach applying heat to a liquid by irradiating the liquid with light from a light source.
Peeters teaches heating a fluid using energy emitted by an energy source (see col 3 lines 1-5) where the emitted energy from an energy source can include light energy (see col 3 lines 30-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao and Nagano with the teachings of Peeters to have utilized light from a light source to heat a liquid because it would have resulted in the predictable result of measuring flow rate of a fluid by heating the fluid using an emitted energy from an energy source (Peeters: see col 3 lines 1-5) as it penetrates the wearer’s skin (Peeters: see col 13 lines 14-38).
With respect to claim 2, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Xiao further discloses
acquiring a temperature distribution of the liquid includes acquiring a plurality of temperature distributions of the liquid at different time points (see paragraph 0104-0116, a plurality of temperature distributions of heated liquid is acquired), and
estimating the fluid state of the liquid includes estimating the fluid state of the liquid based on the acquired plurality of temperature distributions (see paragraph 0104-0116 and 0097-0098, the flow rate of the liquid is estimated based on the acquired plurality of temperature distributions).
With respect to claim 4, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Xiao further discloses estimating the fluid state of the liquid further comprises: estimating a rate at which the liquid flows from the temperature difference or temperature ratio between the two positions constituting the selected one pair (see paragraph 0105, flow rate is estimated using temperature difference between two positions).
With respect to claim 5, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Xiao does not specifically disclose estimating the fluid state of the liquid includes dividing a region in which the temperature distribution is acquired into a plurality of unit regions and estimating the fluid state of the liquid based on temperatures of the plurality of unit regions.
Nagano teaches estimating a fluid state of a liquid (see page 5, the flow direction of groundwater is measured based on distribution of temperature change) that includes dividing a region in which the temperature distribution is acquired into a plurality of unit regions and estimating the fluid state of the liquid based on temperatures of the plurality of unit regions (see page 5, a temperature difference is measured between two points in a pair where one pair has the maximum temperature difference where various pairs are different unit regions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao with the teachings of Nagano to utilize temperature differences because it would have resulted in the predictable result of measuring a temperature gradient during heating of fluid (Nagano: see page 5-6) in a short period of time and at a low cost (Nagano: see page 3) and to reduce measurement errors.
With respect to claim 6, all limitations of claim 5 apply in which Nagano further teaches wherein the temperature of one of the unit regions is calculated as an average value of the temperature of the one of the unit regions determined by the temperature distribution and the temperature of another unit region adjacent to the one of the unit regions (see page 7-8, the average value of temperature in temperature distribution of unit regions is calculated).
With respect to claim 7, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Xiao does not specially disclose acquiring a temperature distribution of the liquid includes acquiring at least one of the temperature distribution of the liquid during a heating period in which the heat is applied to the liquid and the temperature distribution of the liquid during a cooling period after application of the heat to the liquid is stopped, and estimating the fluid state of the liquid includes estimating the fluid state of the liquid based on at least one of the temperature distribution during the heating period and the temperature distribution during the cooling period.
Nagano teaches acquiring a temperature distribution of the liquid includes acquiring at least one of the temperature distribution of the liquid during a heating period in which the heat is applied to the liquid and the temperature distribution of the liquid during a cooling period after application of the heat to the liquid is stopped (see page 5, measurement point 1 and measurement point 5 are set as a pair where the flow direction has a cooling effect so the temperature on downstream is higher than upstream and both locations are measured), and estimating the fluid state of the liquid includes estimating the fluid state of the liquid based on at least one of the temperature distribution during the heating period and the temperature distribution during the cooling period (see page 5, a temperature difference is measured between two points in a pair where one pair has the maximum temperature difference where various pairs are different unit regions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao with the teachings of Nagano to utilize temperature differences because it would have resulted in the predictable result of measuring a temperature gradient during heating and cooling of fluid (Nagano: see page 5-6) in a short period of time and at a low cost (Nagano: see page 3)
With respect to claim 10, Xiao discloses a system for estimating a fluid state of a liquid (paragraph 0028-0033, 0069, 0110-0112 and Fig. 1), comprising:
a heater that applies heat to the liquid (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0059-0072, heating device #30; and see paragraph 0028-0033 and 0104-0116, heating fluid via the heating device #30);
a temperature distribution acquisitor that acquires a temperature distribution of the liquid to which the heat is applied (see paragraph 0059-0072 and Fig. 1, temperature measurement instrument #10; and see paragraph 0104-0116, temperature distribution of heated liquid is acquired); and
an estimator that estimates the fluid state of the liquid based on the acquired temperature distribution (see paragraph 0059-0072 and Fig. 1, flow rate calculation device #40; and see paragraph 0104-0116 and 0097-0098, the flow rate of the liquid is estimated based on the acquired temperature distribution),
wherein the fluid state includes at least one or whether the liquid flows, a flow direction of the liquid and a flow rate of the liquid (see paragraph 0105, flow rate is estimated using temperature difference between two positions).
Xiao does not specifically disclose estimating the fluid state of the liquid comprises: setting two positions to obtain a temperature difference or temperature ratio between the two positions, the two positions forming a pair within a region in which the temperature distribution is acquired; executing setting two positions to obtain a temperature difference or temperature ratio between the two positions a plurality of times and selecting one pair from among a plurality of pairs of the two points within the region in which the temperature distribution is acquired, the one pair having a maximum temperature difference or temperature ratio; and estimating, as a direction in which the liquid flows, a direction from a position on a lower temperature side to a position on a higher temperature side of the two positions constituting the selected one pair.
Nagano teaches estimating a fluid state of a liquid (see page 5, the flow direction of groundwater is measured based on distribution of temperature change) which comprises setting two positions to obtain a temperature difference or temperature ratio between the two positions, the two positions forming a pair within a region in which the temperature distribution is acquired (see page 5, measurement point 1 and measurement point 5 are set as a pair); executing setting two positions to obtain a temperature difference or temperature ratio between the two positions a plurality of times and selecting one pair from among a plurality of pairs of the two points within the region in which the temperature distribution is acquired, the one pair having a maximum temperature difference or temperature ratio (see page 5, a temperature difference is measured between two points in a pair where one pair has the maximum temperature difference); and estimating, as a direction in which the liquid flows, a direction from a position on a lower temperature side to a position on a higher temperature side of the two positions constituting the selected one pair (see page 5, the largest and the smallest temperature change is considered to be a pair as it is estimated as a direction from a position of lower temperature to higher temperature direction in the flow of fluid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao with the teachings of Nagano to utilize temperature differences because it would have resulted in the predictable result of measuring a temperature gradient during heating of fluid (Nagano: see page 5-6) in a short period of time and at a low cost (Nagano: see page 3).
Xiao and Nagano do not specifically teach applying heat to a liquid by irradiating the liquid with light from a light source.
Peeters teaches heating a fluid using energy emitted by an energy source (see col 3 lines 1-5) where the emitted energy from an energy source can include light energy (see col 3 lines 30-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao and Nagano with the teachings of Peeters to have utilized light from a light source to heat a liquid because it would have resulted in the predictable result of measuring flow rate of a fluid by heating the fluid using an emitted energy from an energy source (Peeters: see col 3 lines 1-5) as it penetrates the wearer’s skin (Peeters: see col 13 lines 14-38).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao in view of Nagano and Peeters as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stepien (US 20160367152 A1; previously cited).
With respect to claim 9, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Xiao, Nagano and Peeters do not specifically teach acquiring a temperature distribution of the liquid includes capturing an image of the liquid with a thermography camera thereby to acquire the temperature distribution of the liquid.
Stepien teaches acquiring a temperature distribution includes capturing an image of the liquid with a thermography camera to thereby acquire the temperature distribution (see paragraph 0008, thermography produces an image of temperature distribution by means of an infrared camera to measure heat emission).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao, Nagano and Peeters with the teachings of Stepien to utilized a thermography camera because it would have resulted in the predictable result of having a remote way of recording heat emission from a surface (Stepien: see [0008]).
Conclusion
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 NIDHI PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2379. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays to Fridays 9AM-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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/N.N.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights