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
1. Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are currently pending.
2. Claim 3 is canceled.
3. Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are currently amended.
4. The 112(b) rejections to Claim 1-2 and 11-13 have been overcome.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 5/22/2023 has been fully considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
6. Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned, including Claims 2 and 4-11, have been included based on its dependency.
7. Regarding Claim 1, the claim is indefinite because, based on the current claim language, it is unclear what is meant by the power consumption amount required for the potential electric vehicle to travel from a current position thereof to a place where the potential electric vehicle is chargeable via the certain house. More specifically, it is unclear if the power consumption amount required to travel is from the current position to the certain house or if the power consumption amount required to travel is from the current position to the certain house, and then a charging state. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation and using the specification as guidance, the limitation is interpreted as the power consumption amount required to travel is from the current position to the certain house, and then a charging state. Claims 12 and 13 have the same limitations as Claim 1 except for they are separate independent claims but are rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashiba (US 20150127203 A1), in view of Fujiwara (US 20210053458 A1), and in further view of Ehrenhalt (US 20220258632 A1).
12. Regarding Claim 1, Kashiba teaches an electric power supply management method, by a computer, the electric power supply management method comprising (Kashiba: [0001] and [0040]):
Receiving, from a certain house having power outage among a plurality of houses, first request information about a first request for an electric power supply to the certain house (Kashiba: [0050]);
Retrieving, with reference to a database associating the plurality of houses with a plurality of electric vehicles configured to supply electric power respectively to the plurality of houses, a candidate electric vehicle that enables the electric power supply to the certain house... (Kashiba: [0043] and [0054]);
Transmitting, to a terminal associated with the candidate electric vehicle, second request information about a second request for the electric power supply from the candidate electric vehicle to the certain house (Kashiba: [0058]);
Receiving, from the terminal, first reply information indicating acceptance of the electric power supply to the certain house; and transmitting location information about a location of the certain house to the terminal in accordance with the first reply information (Kashiba: [0030], [0060], and [0068] Note that the server determining the ignition is switched to the on state is equivalent to terminal reply information indicating acceptance of the electric power supply to the certain house. Also, note that the navigation unit determine a route from the current location to the destination is equivalent to transmitting location information about a location of the certain house to the terminal (vehicle).).
Kashiba fails to explicitly teach retrieving... a candidate electric vehicle that enables the electric power supply to the certain house among the plurality of electric vehicles associated with other houses among the plurality of houses, the other houses being different from the certain house.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fujiwara teaches retrieving... a candidate electric vehicle that enables the electric power supply to the certain house among the plurality of electric vehicles associated with other houses among the plurality of houses, the other houses being different from the certain house (Fujiwara: [0054] and [0074]).
Kashiba and Fujiwara are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle power supply management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kashiba to incorporate the teachings of Fujiwara to retrieve a candidate electric vehicle amount the electric vehicle associated with other houses different from the certain house because it provides the benefit of selecting the candidate vehicle based on its battery information. This provides the additional benefit of a flexible power supply pool to match facilities and vehicles supplying power.
Kashiba and Fujiwara fail to explicitly teach in the retrieving of the candidate electric vehicle, the candidate electric vehicle is retrieved from among potential electric vehicles, with each potential electric vehicle having a battery remaining amount which is larger than a power consumptive amount required for the potential electric vehicle to travel from a current position thereof to a place where the potential electric vehicle is chargeable via the certain house.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ehrenhalt teaches in the retrieving of the candidate electric vehicle, the candidate electric vehicle is retrieved from among potential electric vehicles, with each potential electric vehicle having a battery remaining amount which is larger than a power consumptive amount required for the potential electric vehicle to travel from a current position thereof to a place where the potential electric vehicle is chargeable via the certain house (Ehrenhalt: [0043] and [0080] Note that the first robotic charging system 118 is retrieved based on the distance to the other vehicle [certain house] and the remaining amount of charge. The battery remaining amount being larger than power consumption amount required is equivalent to the robotic charging system being selected based on remaining amount of charge. Also, note that the location of the first robotic charging system 118 daisy-chaining with the second robotic charging system is equivalent to the place where the potential electric vehicle is chargeable.).
Kashiba, Fujiwara, and Ehrenhalt are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle power supply management and mobile charging stations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kashiba and Fujiwara to incorporate the teachings of Ehrenhalt for the retrieved candidate electric vehicle to have a battery remaining amount larger than a power consumptive amount required for the potential electric vehicle to travel from a current position to a place where the potential electric vehicle is chargeable via the certain house because it provides the benefit of a mobile power supply. in certain embodiments, the robotic charging station in Ehrenhalt ensures that the requesting user receives power without the robotic charging station needing to be picked up to return to the base station. Kashiba, Fujiwara, and Ehrenhalt teach the need for mobile vehicles providing power to requesting users.
13. Regarding Claim 2, Kashiba, Fujiwara, and Ehrenhalt remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Fujiwara teaches receiving, in a case where a specific electric vehicle is in a state of supplying electric power to the certain house, from the certain house an electric power suppliable time indicating a time available for the specific electric vehicle in the state of supplying electric power to continue the supplying of electric power to the certain house (Fujiwara: [0060]),
Wherein in the retrieving of the candidate electric vehicle, the candidate electric vehicle is further retrieved from among the potential electric vehicles, with each having a possibility of reaching the certain house within the electric power suppliable time (Fujiwara: [0076]).
14. Regarding Claim 4, Kashiba, Fujiwara, and Ehrenhalt remain as applied above in Claim 3, and further, Fujiwara teaches in the retrieving of the candidate electric vehicle, the candidate electric vehicle provides a largest residual amount in subtraction of the power consumptive amount from the battery remaining amount thereof, from among the potential electric vehicles (Fujiwara: [0056] and [0057] Note that a vehicle below the threshold is not selected because the selection unit selects vehicles with a SOC greater than a threshold traveling towards the power transmission area. This is equivalent to the candidate vehicle with a largest residual amount remaining.).
15. Regarding Claim 5, Kashiba, Fujiwara, and Ehrenhalt remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Fujiwara teaches in the retrieving of the candidate electric vehicle, the candidate electric vehicle has a shortest travel time from the current position thereof to the certain house among the potential electric vehicles or has a shortest travel distance from the current position thereof to the certain house among the electric vehicles (Fujiwara: [0055] and [0075] Note that the geometrical positional relationship is equivalent to the shortest travel distance from a current position to the certain house among the electric vehicles.).
16. Regarding Claim 6, Kashiba, Fujiwara, and Ehrenhalt remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Kashiba teaches receiving, from the certain house, power outage ceases information indicating that the power outage has ceased, after transmitting the second request information (Kashiba: [0051] and [0052]);
And transmitting, to the terminal, cancellation information about cancellation of the request for the electric power supply to the certain house (Kashiba: [0062]).
17. Regarding Claim 7, Kashiba, Fujiwara, and Ehrenhalt remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Fujiwara teaches calculating an incentive to be given to a user of the candidate electric vehicle for the electric power supply to the certain house by the candidate electric vehicle (Fujiwara: [0027] and [0068]);
And transmitting information about the incentive to the terminal (Fujiwara: [0064] and [0067]).
18. Regarding Claim 8, Kashiba, Fujiwara, and Ehrenhalt remain as applied above in Claim 7.
Fujiwara does not explicitly teach wherein, in the calculating of the incentive, the incentive is calculated to increase in accordance with an increase in the amount of the electric power supply from the candidate electric vehicle to the certain house, in a traveling time of the candidate electric vehicle to the certain house, or in a power supplying time of the candidate electric vehicle to the certain house. However, Fujiwara teaches in [0068] that the incentives are based on the register that stores the amount of electric power provided from the individual vehicle [candidate vehicle].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to increase the amount of incentive based on an increase in the amount of electric power supply from the candidate electric vehicle to the certain house as similarly shown in Fujiwara's [0068] use of providing incentives to users based on the amount of power supplied. This provides the benefit of incentivizing the permission of electric vehicle power supply.
19. Regarding Claim 9, Kashiba, Fujiwara, and Ehrenhalt remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Fujiwara teaches transmitting the current position of the candidate electric vehicle after receiving, from the terminal, the first reply information (Fujiwara: [0057], [0066], and [0075]).
20. Regarding Claim 11, Kashiba and Fujiwara remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Fujiwara teaches receiving, from a second candidate electric vehicle among the potential electric vehicles, second reply information indicating unacceptance of the electric power supply to the certain house from the terminal, wherein the retrieving, with reference to the database, of the candidate electric vehicle is in response to the second candidate electric vehicle indicating the unacceptance (Fujiwara: [0063] and [0066] Note that vehicles that have received an electric power request not providing electrical power is equivalent to indicating unacceptance of the electric power supply. The vehicles that accept the power supply request is equivalent to the retrieved candidate vehicles.).
21. Regarding Claim 12, Kashiba teaches an electric power supply management device comprising (Kashiba: [0001] and [0040]):
A first request information receiving section that receives, from a certain house having power outage among a plurality of houses, first request information about a first request for an electric power supply to the certain house (Kashiba: [0050]);
A retrieving section that retrieves, with reference to a database associating the plurality of houses with a plurality of electric vehicles configured to supply electric power respectively to the plurality of houses, a candidate electric vehicle that enables the electric power supply to the certain house… (Kashiba: [0043] and [0054]);
A second request information transmitting section that transmits, to a terminal associated with the candidate electric vehicle, second request information about a second request for the electric power supply from the candidate electric vehicle to the certain house (Kashiba: [0058]);
And a location information transmitting section that receives, from the terminal, first reply information indicating acceptance of the electric power supply to the certain house, and transmits location information about a location of the certain house to the terminal in accordance with the first reply information (Kashiba: [0030], [0060], and [0068] Note that the server determining the ignition is switched to the on state is equivalent to terminal reply information indicating acceptance of the electric power supply to the certain house. Also, note that the navigation unit determine a route from the current location to the destination is equivalent to transmitting location information about a location of the certain house to the terminal (vehicle).).
Kashiba fails to explicitly teach retrieving… a candidate electric vehicle that enables the plurality of electric power supply to the certain house among electric vehicles associated with other houses among the plurality of houses, the other houses being different from the certain house.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fujiwara teaches retrieving… a candidate electric vehicle that enables the plurality of electric power supply to the certain house among electric vehicles associated with other houses among the plurality of houses, the other houses being different from the certain house (Fujiwara: [0054] and [0074]).
Kashiba and Fujiwara are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle power supply management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kashiba to incorporate the teachings of Fujiwara to retrieve a candidate electric vehicle amount the electric vehicle associated with other houses different from the certain house because it provides the benefit of selecting the candidate vehicle based on its battery information. This provides the additional benefit of a flexible power supply pool to match facilities and vehicles supplying power.
Kashiba and Fujiwara fail to explicitly teach the retrieving section retrieves the candidate electric vehicle from among potential electric vehicles, with each potential electric vehicle having a battery remaining amount which is larger than a power consumptive amount required for the potential electric vehicle to travel from a current position thereof to a place where the potential electric vehicle is chargeable via the certain house.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ehrenhalt teaches the retrieving section retrieves the candidate electric vehicle from among potential electric vehicles, with each potential electric vehicle having a battery remaining amount which is larger than a power consumptive amount required for the potential electric vehicle to travel from a current position thereof to a place where the potential electric vehicle is chargeable via the certain house (Ehrenhalt: [0043] and [0080] Note that the first robotic charging system 118 is retrieved based on the distance to the other vehicle [certain house] and the remaining amount of charge. The battery remaining amount being larger than power consumption amount required is equivalent to the robotic charging system being selected based on remaining amount of charge. Also, note that the location of the first robotic charging system 118 daisy-chaining with the second robotic charging system is equivalent to the place where the potential electric vehicle is chargeable.).
Kashiba, Fujiwara, and Ehrenhalt are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle power supply management and mobile charging stations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kashiba and Fujiwara to incorporate the teachings of Ehrenhalt for the retrieved candidate electric vehicle to have a battery remaining amount larger than a power consumptive amount required for the potential electric vehicle to travel from a current position to a place where the potential electric vehicle is chargeable via the certain house because it provides the benefit of a mobile power supply. in certain embodiments, the robotic charging station in Ehrenhalt ensures that the requesting user receives power without the robotic charging station needing to be picked up to return to the base station. Kashiba, Fujiwara, and Ehrenhalt teach the need for mobile vehicles providing power to requesting users.
22. Regarding Claim 13, Kashiba teaches a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing an electric power supply management program of causing a computer to perform functions, the functions comprising (Kashiba: [0001], [0040], and [0041]):
Receiving, from a certain house having power outage among a plurality of houses, first request information about a first request for an electric power supply to the certain house (Kashiba: [0050]);
Retrieving, with reference to a database associating the plurality of houses with a plurality of electric vehicles configured to supply electric power respectively to the plurality of houses, a candidate electric vehicle that enables the electric power supply to the certain house… (Kashiba: [0043] and [0054]);
Transmitting, to a terminal associated with the candidate electric vehicle, second request information about a second request for the electric power supply from the candidate electric vehicle to the certain house (Kashiba: [0058]);
Receiving, from the terminal, first reply information indicating acceptance of the electric power supply to the certain house; and transmitting location information about a location of the certain house to the terminal in accordance with the first reply information (Kashiba: [0030], [0060], and [0068] Note that the server determining the ignition is switched to the on state is equivalent to terminal reply information indicating acceptance of the electric power supply to the certain house. Also, note that the navigation unit determine a route from the current location to the destination is equivalent to transmitting location information about a location of the certain house to the terminal (vehicle).).
Kashiba fails to explicitly teach retrieving… a candidate electric vehicle that enables the electric power supply to the certain house among the plurality of electric vehicles associated with other houses among the plurality of houses, the other houses being different from the certain house.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fujiwara teaches retrieving… a candidate electric vehicle that enables the electric power supply to the certain house among the plurality of electric vehicles associated with other houses among the plurality of houses, the other houses being different from the certain house (Fujiwara: [0054] and [0074]).
Kashiba and Fujiwara are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle power supply management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kashiba to incorporate the teachings of Fujiwara to retrieve a candidate electric vehicle amount the electric vehicle associated with other houses different from the certain house because it provides the benefit of selecting the candidate vehicle based on its battery information. This provides the additional benefit of a flexible power supply pool to match facilities and vehicles supplying power.
Kashiba and Fujiwara fail to explicitly teach in the retrieving of the candidate electric vehicle, the candidate electric vehicle is retrieved from among potential electric vehicles, with each potential electric vehicle having a battery remaining amount which is larger than a power consumptive amount required for the potential electric vehicle to travel from a current position thereof to a place where the potential electric vehicle is chargeable via the certain house.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ehrenhalt teaches in the retrieving of the candidate electric vehicle, the candidate electric vehicle is retrieved from among potential electric vehicles, with each potential electric vehicle having a battery remaining amount which is larger than a power consumptive amount required for the potential electric vehicle to travel from a current position thereof to a place where the potential electric vehicle is chargeable via the certain house (Ehrenhalt: [0043] and [0080] Note that the first robotic charging system 118 is retrieved based on the distance to the other vehicle [certain house] and the remaining amount of charge. The battery remaining amount being larger than power consumption amount required is equivalent to the robotic charging system being selected based on remaining amount of charge. Also, note that the location of the first robotic charging system 118 daisy-chaining with the second robotic charging system is equivalent to the place where the potential electric vehicle is chargeable.).
Kashiba, Fujiwara, and Ehrenhalt are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle power supply management and mobile charging stations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kashiba and Fujiwara to incorporate the teachings of Ehrenhalt for the retrieved candidate electric vehicle to have a battery remaining amount larger than a power consumptive amount required for the potential electric vehicle to travel from a current position to a place where the potential electric vehicle is chargeable via the certain house because it provides the benefit of a mobile power supply. in certain embodiments, the robotic charging station in Ehrenhalt ensures that the requesting user receives power without the robotic charging station needing to be picked up to return to the base station. Kashiba, Fujiwara, and Ehrenhalt teach the need for mobile vehicles providing power to requesting users.
23. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashiba (US 20150127203 A1), in view of Fujiwara (US 20210053458 A1), in view of Ehrenhalt (US 20220258632 A1), and in further view of Ishiguma (US 20130218405 A1).
24. Regarding Claim 10, Kashiba, Fujiwara, and Ehrenhalt remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Fujiwara teaches in the retrieval of the candidate electric vehicle, one or more candidate electric vehicles are retrieved, the method further comprising: transmitting… vehicle presentation information… (Fujiwara: [0052]);
Receiving, from the certain house, selected vehicle information about a candidate electric vehicle selected from the retrieved one or more candidate electric vehicles by the resident (Fujiwara: [0055] and [0057]);
And transmitting, in the transmission of the second request information, the second request information to the terminal associated with the candidate electric vehicle indicated by the received selected vehicle information (Fujiwara: [0062]).
Fujiwara fails to explicitly teach transmitting, to the certain house… for presenting information about the retrieved one or more candidate electric vehicles before a resident of the certain house.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ishiguma teaches transmitting, to the certain house, vehicle presentation information for presenting information about the retrieved one or more candidate electric vehicles before a resident of the certain house (Ishiguma: [0034]).
Kashiba, Fujiwara, Ehrenhalt, and Ishiguma are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle power supply management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kashiba, Fujiwara, and Ehrenhalt to incorporate the teachings of Ishiguma to transmit to the certain house vehicle presentation information for presenting information about the retrieved candidate electric vehicles before a resident of the certain house because it provides the benefit of the user making a selection based on the vehicle information. This provides the additional benefit of giving the user more control over the selection of the vehicle to be used next.
Response to Arguments
25. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-2 and 4-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Ehrenhalt (US 20220258632
A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of retrieving a candidate electric vehicle with each potential electric vehicle having a battery remaining amount larger than a power consumptive amount required for the potential electric vehicle to travel from a current position to a place where the potential electric vehicle is chargeable via the certain house in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0043] and [0080]. Ehrenhalt teaches to select a robotic charging station based on the distance between the robotic charging station and target location and based on the amount of charge in the robotic charging station.
26. Kashiba (US 20150127203 A1), in view of Fujiwara (US 20210053458 A1), in view of Ehrenhalt (US 20220258632 A1), and in further view of Ishiguma (US 20130218405 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
27. Claims 1-2 and 4-13 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
28. 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 MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663