DETAILED ACTION
In response to communication filed on 12/2/2025.
Claims 1-11, and 13-15 are pending.
Claims 1-11 and 13-15 are rejected.
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 Amendments
This communication is in response to Applicant’s reply filed under 3 CFR 1.111 on 12/2/2025. Claims 1-3,8,9,11,13 and 14 were amended, claim 12 was canceled, and claims 1-11 and 13-15 remain pending.
Amendment to claim 1 in response to rejection under 35 USC § 112, second paragraph for antecedent basis has been considered. The amendment to the claims obviates previously raised rejection, as such this rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
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: a signal-quality determination unit in claims 1 and 2, a communication-device data ascertainment unit in claim 3, a beacon-response selection unit in claim 3, a presence-determination unit in claim 7, and a network-determination unit in claim 8.
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.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, they depend upon claim 12, which was cancelled. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1,3,4,6-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. 2010/0128624)(L1 hereafter) in view of Habib et al. (US Pub. 2012/0025849)(H1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1,11 and 15, L1 teaches a signal-quality determination device (i.e. reduced function device)[refer Fig. 1; RFD2], comprising:
a transceiver unit (it is inherent for a wireless device to comprise of a transceiver)[paragraph 0029] for communicating in a wireless communication network (i.e. Low Power Wireless Personal Area Network (LoWPAN))[paragraph 0027] in accordance with a wireless communication protocol (as known in the art, LoWPAN operates using a wireless standard, such as 802.15.4)[refer paragraph 0005], the transceiver unit comprising:
a transmitter unit (it is inherent for a wireless device to comprise of a transmitter)[paragraph 0029] configured to provide, while connected to the wireless communication network [paragraph 0029], a wireless beacon-request signal as a single-hop broadcast signal (a beacon request comprises of an active scan that is sent to neighboring devices (i.e. single hop)[paragraph 0035], the RFD broadcasts an active scan request message to nearby coordinators [paragraph 0065]) in accordance with the wireless communication protocol (as known in the art, LoWPAN operates using a wireless standard, such as 802.15.4)[refer paragraph 0005], the beacon-request signal being indicative of a request to any wireless communication device within a single-hop distance (i.e. messages are sent to neighboring devices)[paragraph 0035] from the signal-quality determination device to provide a respective beacon-response signal (i.e. beacon data response)[paragraph 0066] that is in accordance with the wireless communication protocol [paragraph 0005]; and
a receiver unit (it is inherent for a wireless device that receives wireless communications to comprise of a receiver)[paragraph 0029] configured to receive any respective beacon-response signal provided by any wireless communication device in response to the beacon-request signal [paragraph 0075];
the beacon-request-response mechanism is implemented in (i.e. is used with) the wireless communication protocol (the LoWPAN network is implemented using the IEEE 802.15.4 standard)[paragraph 0005]; and
a signal-quality determination unit connected to the receiver unit and configured to determine and provide beacon signal-quality data indicative of a received-signal quality (i.e. link quality indication (LQI))[paragraph 0035];
the received signal quality comprises of a received-signal strength, RSSI of the beacon-response signal [paragraph 0066], or a channel-state, CSI, of a wireless communication link between the wireless communication device having provided the beacon-response signal and the signal-quality determination device (i.e. link quality indication (LQI))[paragraph 0035], the signal-quality determination unit is further configured to derive beacon signal-quality data irrespectively of whether the beacon response is provided from a wireless communication device within or outside the wireless communication network (i.e. either in a first communication region or a second communication region)[refer Fig. 1](a RFD receives a plurality of beacon data responses and preferentially selects the coordinator that transmitted the beacon data response message with the highest signal strength)[paragraph 0066].
However, L1 fails to expressly disclose that a respective beacon response signal comprises device-identification information pertaining to the respective wireless communication device.
L1 provides support for an RFD to select which coordinator sent a beacon data response message with the best reception quality when receiving multiple beacon response messages from multiple coordinators [paragraph 0075].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of L1 for selecting a coordinator of a plurality of coordinators in a wireless network that sent a beacon data response message with the best reception quality [refer L1; paragraph 0075] to incorporate explicit device identification information within beacon response messages when a device is able to determine a coordinator from the beacon response messages received. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known technique in the field of endeavor that would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.
However, L1 fails to disclose the signal-quality determination device is configured provide the beacon signal-quality data to a presence-determination device configured to detect a presence or movement of an object or subject in a respective sensing volume determined by a position of the signal-quality determination device and the respective wireless communication device providing the beacon-response signal.
H1 discloses that a device can measure or detect the presence of different elements or materials [paragraph 0066], such that the presence of an object can be detected within a monitored space with neighboring nodes [paragraph 0071].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of L1 to incorporate the detection of objects within a monitored space in a network as taught by H1. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of providing cooperative tracking and monitoring using beacon nodes in a network [refer H1; paragraph 0079].
Regarding claim 3, L1 teaches a communication-device data ascertainment unit configured to ascertain communication-device data pertaining to those of the wireless communication devices that are within the single-hop distance from the signal-quality determination device (an RFD broadcasts an active scan request message)[paragraph 0065];
a beacon-response selection unit, connected to receiver unit and to the communication-device data ascertainment unit and configured to select, in accordance with at least one predetermined selection criterion (i.e. highest signal strength) pertaining to the communication-device data [paragraph 0066], and provide to the signal quality determination unit only those of the received beacon response signals that fulfil the selection criterion (of the plurality of beacon response messages received, the highest signal strength among the messages is used for the RFD to select a coordinator)[paragraph 0066].
Regarding claim 4, L1 teaches the transceiver unit is further configured to provide the wireless beacon-request signal including selection data indicative of a predetermined selection condition to be fulfilled by any external wireless communication device for being eligible to provide the beacon-response signal [paragraph 0065].
Regarding claim 6, L1 teaches the transceiver unit is configured to provide the wireless beacon-request signal as a beacon-request in accordance with the IEEE 802.15.4 communication protocol [paragraph 0005].
Regarding claim 7, L1 teaches a sensing device (i.e. RFD can sense)[refer Fig. 1][paragraph 0034], comprising: a signal-quality determination device according to claim 1 [refer rejection of claim 1 in view of L1 noted above]; and
a presence-determination unit (it is inherent for a wireless device that senses a moment of when link quality passes below a specified strength can comprise of a type of function or processor to perform the duties)[paragraph 0034] connected to the signal-quality determination unit of the signal-quality determination device and configured: to receive the beacon signal-quality signal data [paragraph 0035].
However, L1 fails to disclose determining using the received beacon signal-quality data a presence or movement of an object or subject in a respective sensing volume determined by a position of the signal-quality sensing network node and the respective wireless communication device providing the beacon-response signal.
H1 discloses that a device can measure or detect the presence of different elements or materials [paragraph 0066], such that the presence of an object can be detected within a monitored space with neighboring nodes [paragraph 0071].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of L1 to incorporate the detection of objects within a monitored space in a network as taught by H1. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of providing cooperative tracking and monitoring using beacon nodes in a network [refer H1; paragraph 0079].
Regarding claims 8 and 13, L1 teaches a network-determination unit (it is inherent for a wireless device that can move and leave a first region to another region can comprise of a type of function or processor to perform the duties)[paragraph 0033] connected to the receiver unit and configured to determine, using the device-identification information (i.e. node addresses) and a list of device-identifiers of those wireless communication devices that form network nodes of the same wireless communication network as the signal-quality determination device (coordinator registers devices, such as RFD, as its neighbor node in a neighbor node table)[paragraph 0045], that a given received beacon-response signal is
an inter-network beacon-response signal provided by a neighbor-communication device not belonging to the same wireless communication network as the signal-quality determination device (i.e. second communication region)[paragraph 0066], or
an intra-network beacon-response signal provided by a wireless communication device belonging to the same wireless communication network as the signal-quality determination device (i.e. first communication region)[paragraph 0035], and
to provide to the signal-quality determination unit a network-identification signal in the form of an inter-network-identification signal [paragraph 0066] or an intra-network-identification signal, respectively [paragraph 0035]; and
the signal-quality determination unit is further configured, using the received inter-network identification signal or intra-network-identification signal, respectively, to determine and provide the beacon signal-quality data as inter-network beacon signal-quality data [paragraph 0066] or intra- network beacon signal-quality data respectively [paragraph 0035].
Regarding claim 9, L1 teaches a wireless communication network for sensing presence or movement of a subject or an object within a sensing volume (i.e. region)[refer Fig. 1][paragraph 0029];
the wireless communication network comprising:
one or more wireless communication devices (i.e. coordinator or fully function devices)[refer Fig. 1][paragraph 0029] configured, upon reception of a wireless beacon-request signal as a single-hop broadcast signal (i.e. beacon request signal sent to nearby devices)[paragraph 0035] in accordance with a wireless communication protocol [paragraph 0005], to provide a respective beacon-response signal [paragraph 0034] in accordance with the wireless communication protocol [paragraph 0005], at least one of the wireless communication devices comprises a signal-quality determination device in accordance with claim 1 [refer rejection of claim 1 in view of L1 noted above].
However, L1 fails to explicitly disclose that a respective beacon-response signal comprises device identification information pertaining to the wireless communication device in accordance with the wireless communication protocol.
L1 provides support for an RFD to select which coordinator sent a beacon data response message with the best reception quality when receiving multiple beacon response messages from multiple coordinators [paragraph 0075].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of L1 for selecting a coordinator of a plurality of coordinators in a wireless network that sent a beacon data response message with the best reception quality [refer L1; paragraph 0075] to incorporate explicit device identification information within beacon response messages when a device is able to determine a coordinator from the beacon response messages received. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known technique in the field of endeavor that would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, L1 teaches at least one of the wireless communication devices comprises a sensing device [paragraph 0034].
Regarding claim 14, L1 teaches a method for operating a wireless communication network, comprising: performing the method of claim 12 [refer rejection of claim 12 in view of the combination of L1 in view of H1 noted above];
providing, upon reception of the wireless beacon-request signal as a single-hop broadcast signal in accordance with a wireless communication protocol [paragraph 0005], a beacon-response signal pertaining to a respective wireless communication device [paragraph 0035].
However, L1 fails to explicitly disclose that a beacon-response signal comprising, in accordance with the wireless communication protocol, device-identification information pertaining to a respective wireless communication device providing the beacon-response signal.
L1 provides support for an RFD to select which coordinator sent a beacon data response message with the best reception quality when receiving multiple beacon response messages from multiple coordinators [paragraph 0075].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of L1 for selecting a coordinator of a plurality of coordinators in a wireless network that sent a beacon data response message with the best reception quality [refer L1; paragraph 0075] to incorporate explicit device identification information within beacon response messages when a device is able to determine a coordinator from the beacon response messages received. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known technique in the field of endeavor that would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over L1 in view of H1, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Laroia et al. (US Pub. 2007/0206554)(L2 hereafter).
Regarding claim 2, L1 teaches the signal-quality determination unit is configured to determine a number of beacon-response signals received in response to a given beacon-request signal that has been sent [paragraph 0075].
However, L1 fails to disclose the transmitter unit comprises a transmission-power control unit connected to the signal-quality determination unit and configured to adapt a transmission power amount of the beacon-request signal in dependence on the determined number of beacon- response signals.
L2 discloses that beacon signals can be used to carry information, such as the transmission power of another terminal [paragraph 0051], in which the transmission power level of a wireless communication device is reduced when a received beacon signal portion indicates a higher priority level than a priority level indicated in a previously received beacon signal [paragraph 0115].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of L1 for devices that transmit and receive beacon signals and responses [refer L1; paragraph 0035] to incorporate the monitoring of beacon signals to in order to adjust transmission power accordingly as taught by L2. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of allowing for a device to handle transmission decisions based upon received beacons [refer L2; paragraph 0115].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over L1 in view of H1, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Cariou et al. (US Pub. 2021/0274500).
Regarding claim 5, L1 fails to disclose the transceiver unit is configured to provide the wireless beacon-request signal including an instruction to one or more receiving wireless communication device to cease transmission of wireless communication signals other than the beacon-response signal during a predetermined time span.
C1 discloses that an access point can force a station operating on their channel to stop transmitting during a period of time using a quiet element, which are transmitted using beacon and probe responses (i.e. cease transmission of wireless communication signals other than beacon-response signals)[paragraph 0126].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of L1 to incorporate a means of forcing a device to stop transmitting on a particular channel during a period of time as taught by C1. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of allowing for the performance of measurements on channels [refer C1; paragraph 0114].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 of the applicants arguments, filed 12/2/2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Refer MPEP 2181(II)(A). The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/2025, with regards to the rejection of claims 1-11, and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1-11, and 13-15, applicant argues that the applied reference, Habib et al. (US Pub. 2012/0025849)(H1 hereafter), does not teach the claim limitation, namely, “the signal-quality determination device is configured provide the beacon signal-quality data to a presence-determination device configured to detect a presence or movement of an object or subject in a respective sensing volume determined by a position of the signal-quality determination device and the respective wireless communication device providing the beacon-response signal.”
In response to the above-mentioned argument, examiner respectively disagrees. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, as required by MPEP 2111, a presence determination device that is configured to determine using received beacon signal-quality signals a present or movement of an object in a sensing volume can be seen as using signaling to determine movement of any type of object, which can be a person, a wireless device or the like within a monitored area, such as the detection of movement through an area as taught by H1.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, H1, which is in the field of devices that track received signal strength values [refer H1; Abstract], discloses that an object can be tracked to determine movement within a monitored space [refer H1; paragraph 0071], H1 explicitly disclosing beacons (i.e. signals) are used to locate and track movement [refer H1; paragraph 0079], such beacons including signal characteristic data [refer H1; paragraph 0081].
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). In this case, Lee et al. (US Pub. 2010/0128624)(L1 hereafter) is directed towards a LoWPAN network [refer L1; paragraph 0027] in which a device can move from a first region to another and would need to provide connection to a coordinator [refer L1; paragraph 0030], the devices transmits and receives beacon signaling amongst devices to determine signal strength for an association procedure [refer L1; paragraph 0035]. L1 is silent with regards to detecting a specific movement or presence within a specific “volume” or area, in which H1 was cited to meet this deficiency, therefore allowing the beacon signals or LQI taught by L1 [refer L1; paragraph 0035] to be used in conjunction with the disclosure of H1 for detecting movement within an area using signaling amongst devices.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C KAVLESKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3619. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 571-270-7191. 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.
Ryan Kavleski
/R.C.K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412