Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgements
2. Applicant’s arguments/remarks, filed on 09/17/2025, are acknowledged. The cancelation of claims 8 and 9 is acknowledged. Claims 1-7 and 10-22 remain pending and have been examined.
3. Applicant’s arguments, see page , with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1 and 11, under U.S.C. 102, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Portsmouth (GB2592551A).
4. Applicant argues/remarks (pg. 9):
With respect to claim 1, “…Aggarwal fails to disclose:
an inspection device positioned within the enclosure, the inspection device comprising at least one of:
scales operable to measure weight and
a refractometer operable to measure a refractive index of light…”.
Examiner’s Response:
Aggarwal, in column 4-lines 33-35, teaches that calculated weight can be compared to scaled weight. Aggarwal doesn’t further specify a scale.
However, Portsmouth teaches a similar device for obtaining measurements of gemstones; wherein on pg. 4-lines 27-35 teach a weigh cell 140 which measures a stone.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a weigh cell as taught by Portsmouth could have been implemented in the device as taught by Aggarwal thus to eliminate the need to calculate a weight which is compared to a scale weight, thereby making more processing availability for other processor requiring processes.
With regards to a refractometer, Aggarwal teaches refractive indexing as being accommodated in the teaching of its apparatus; wherein column 11-lines 14-16 teach that laser light 92 is used for alignment of a gemstone on a glass window via display 9, so to obtain laser scatter and measure refraction. Therefore, Aggarwal effectively teaches the elements (hence a refractometer) used to measure refraction based off laser scatter which is equally comparable to obtaining the refractive index of light.
5. With respect to claim 11, Applicant states, Aggarwal fails to disclose “…the one or more operations to be performed by the automated station includes:
photographing the object,
measuring a weight of the object,
determining a refractive index of light from the object, or a combination…”.
Examiner’s Response:
Aggarwal in column 6-lines 58-65 teaches a CCD device 12 for image capturing of a gemstone 7 within apparatus 5 of local station 8.
Aggarwal also in column 4-lines 33-35 teaches that calculated weight can be compared to scaled weight. Therefore, a measure of weight is determined.
With regards to a refractometer, Aggarwal teaches refractive indexing as being accommodated in the teaching of its apparatus; wherein column 11-lines 14-16 teach that laser light 92 is used for alignment of a gemstone on a glass window via display 9, so to obtain laser scatter and measure refraction. Therefore, Aggarwal effectively teaches the elements (hence a refractometer) used to measure refraction based off laser scatter which is equally comparable to obtaining the refractive index of light.
6. Further, with regards to dependent claim 10, Applicant states Aggarwal does not disclose the claimed “removable tray”, for the purpose of limitation:
“…enables a determination of one or more dimensional measurements of the object when the object is placed in the enclosure…”, (pg. 10)
Examiner’s Response:
Aggarwal teaches transparent window 51 usable to circumscribe the periphery of a gemstone when placed thereon. However, Aggarwal doesn’t teach that element 51 is removable.
Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
7. Applicant argues/remarks (pg. 11):
With regards to dependent claim 14, Aggarwal fails to disclose a method including,
“…positioning the object onto a tray with known dimensions and
placing the tray with the object positioned thereon onto the turntable within the automated station…”.
Examiner’s Response:
Aggarwal, in column 10-lines 10-13 teaches platform 53 with transparent window 51 which may be used to circumscribe the periphery of a gemstone when placed thereon. The dimensions of the platform are evidenced in Fig. 3; wherein platform 53 is rotatable.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
8. Applicant argues/remarks (pg. 11-12):
With regards to dependent claims 15 and 16, Aggarwal fails to disclose
“to determine measurements of the object by comparison with the known dimension of the tray” (claim 15); or wherein
“the step of determining measurements of the object includes one or more of the following:
Determining a nominal size of the object, determining a thickness of the object, determining a height of the object, and determining a nominal length of the object” (claim 16).
Examiner’s Response:
Because the rejection to claim 14 is not withdrawn, the rejections to claim 15 and 16 are also maintained (see below for further details with regards to the rejections).
9. Applicant argues/remarks (pg. 12):
With regards to claim 17, Aggarwal fails to disclose a method that employs “an automated station that includes scales” or the step of “weighing the object using the scales”.
Examiner’s Response:
Aggarwal, in column 4-lines 33-35, teaches that calculated weight can be compared to scaled weight. Aggarwal doesn’t further specify a scale.
However, Portsmouth teaches a similar device for obtaining measurements of gemstones; wherein on pg. 4-lines 27-35 teach a weigh cell 140 which measures a stone.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a weigh cell as taught by Portsmouth could have been implemented in the device as taught by Aggarwal thus to eliminate the need to calculate a weight which is compared to a scale weight, thereby making more processing availability for other processor requiring processes.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
10. Applicant argues/remarks (pg. 12):
With regards to claim 18, Aggarwal fails to disclose
“operating a refractometer within the automated station to measure a refractive index of light coming off the object”.
Examiner’s Response:
With regards to a refractometer, Aggarwal teaches refractive indexing as being accommodated in the teaching of its apparatus; wherein column 11-lines 14-16 teach that laser light 92 is used for alignment of a gemstone on a glass window via display 9, so to obtain laser scatter and measure refraction. Therefore, Aggarwal effectively teaches the elements (hence a refractometer) used to measure refraction based off laser scatter which is equally comparable to obtaining the refractive index of light.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
11. Applicant argues/remarks (pg. 13):
With regards to claim 6 and 7, Applicant states specified claims dependent on independent claim 1 and should be allowed based on subject matter of amendment in claim 1.
Examiner’s Response:
The rejections to claims 6 and 7 are maintained, in accordance with the newly basis of rejection as addressed above.
Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
13. Claims 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Aggarwal (US 6,239,867 B1).
14. Regarding claim 11, a method comprising:
receiving an object into a computer-controlled automated station (…column 6, lines 30-
35 (Aggarwal) teach a system including a station 8 (which includes a control data processor 10) for imaging a gemstone…); and
a computer controller functionally coupled to the automated station (…Fig. 1 depicts
station 8 in connection with processor 10 and a central database processor 21…) and performing the following steps:
receiving information about the object (…wherein column 6, line 28-30 teaches that
local station 8 (control data processor 10) is linked to an analysis station 14 (data processor 21) for imaging a gemstone (object); further, column 7, lines 3-5 teach station 14 operates analysis and database instruction set for storing, comparing, and analyzing captured data sets…);
automatically adjusting one or more configuration options of the automated station based on the received information (…column 6, line 33-35 teach local station 8 also includes a control data processor 10 for controlling the operation of the imaging apparatus 5 by way of a programmed instruction set; thus in a broad interpretation of subject matter a programmed instructions set may correspond to an automatic adjustment to the components controlled by a location station 8…); and
receiving input about one or more operations to be performed by the automated station (…column 4, lines 45-50 teach a database which stores information corresponding to different objects of inspection; wherein the database is capable of automatic input and output of data from other machines and from an analytical component…); wherein
the one or more operations includes:
photographing the object (…Aggarwal in column 6-lines 58-65 teaches a CCD device
12 for image capturing of a gemstone 7 within apparatus 5 of local station 8…),
measuring a weight of the object (…Aggarwal also in column 4-lines 33-35 teaches
that calculated weight can be compared to scaled weight. Therefore, a measure of weight is determined…),
determining a refractive index of light from the object, or a combination (…with
regards to a refractometer, Aggarwal teaches refractive indexing as being accommodated in the teaching of its apparatus; wherein column 11-lines 14-16 teach that laser light 92 is used for alignment of a gemstone on a glass window via display 9, so to obtain laser scatter and measure refraction. Therefore, Aggarwal effectively teaches the elements (hence a refractometer) used to measure refraction based off laser scatter which is equally comparable to obtaining the refractive index of light…).
15. Regarding claim 12, Aggarwal teaches the method of claim 11 (see claim 11 above),
wherein the step of receiving information about the object comprises:
receiving information about the type of object (…column 4, lines 45-47 teach a
database for storing text, video, graphic, and audio data corresponding to a plurality of
gemstones…).
16. Regarding claim 13, Aggarwal teaches the method of claim 11 (see claim 11 above), wherein
the automated station includes:
one or more light fixtures (…column 8, line 67 teaches light source 77; Fig. 3 (see 77a and 77b); further depicted in Fig. 5 are ring light 90, bottom light 94, and laser light 92; hence multiple light fixtures are taught…),
one or more cameras (…column 7, line 49 teaches imaging apparatus element 5; Fig. 2; further column 8, line 38 teaches CCD camera 12 of apparatus 5, Fig. 3…), and
a turntable (…column 10, lines 6-9 teach a rotatable platform 53, Fig. 3…), and wherein
the step of automatically adjusting the configuration options of the automated station comprises one or more of:
adjusting lighting features, adjusting camera features, and adjusting turntable features (…column 6, lines 28-39 teach a local station 8 (Fig. 1, 3) including a control data processors 10 (general purpose computer) for controlling the imaging apparatus; further, column 11, line 66-67 and column 12, line 1 teach that the lights and motors of apparatus 5 are controlled by location station 8 by way of data processor 15…).
17. Regarding claim 14, Aggarwal teaches the method of claim 13 (see claim 13 above), further comprising:
positioning the object onto a tray with known dimensions (…Aggarwal, in column 10-lines 10-13 teaches platform 53 with transparent window 51 which may be used to circumscribe the periphery of a gemstone when placed thereon. The dimensions of the platform are evidenced in Fig. 3…); and wherein
the step of receiving the object into the automated station comprises:
placing the tray with the object positioned thereon onto the turntable within the automated station (…wherein platform 53 is rotatable…).
18. Regarding claim 15, Aggarwal teaches the method of claim 14 (see claim 14 above), further comprising:
the computer controller:
automatically taking one or more photographs of the object on the tray; and
using the photographs to determine measurements of the object by comparison with the known
dimensions of the tray (…wherein as taught by column 4, lines 45-50, the database stores
video and graphics and is also capable of automatic input from other machines and from
the analytical components; further, column 10, lines 10-13 teach that platform 53 has a
transparent window 51 which may be used to circumscribe the periphery of a gemstone
when placed thereon…).
19. Regarding claim 16, Aggarwal teaches the method of claim 15 (see claim 15 above),
wherein
when the object is a jewelry item, the step of determining measurements of the object
includes one or more of the following:
determining a nominal size of the object, determining a thickness of the object, determining a height of the object, and determining a nominal length of the object (…column 15, lines 6-13 teach coordinate data analyzed in steps 230 and 232
(Fig. 10 A and 10 B) to calculate the girdle size, table width, table height, culet height,
pavilion angle, table angle, girdle thickness and various ratios associated with cut
analysis and gemstone appraisal…).
20. Regarding claim 18, Aggarwal teaches the method of claim 11(see claim 11 above),
Further comprising:
the computer controller:
operating one or more cameras within the automated station to measure a reflectivity of
light coming off the object (…column 4, lines 17-25 teach the objective to measure
reflectance wherein image of the surface reflectance is captured and processed…);
operating a refractometer within the automated station to measure a refractive index of light coming off the object (…column 1, lines 22-25 teach the use of refractometer, so to grade gemstones and evaluate the objective and subjective qualities of the gemstone; further, column 10, lines 23-25 teach that accommodation for filters or masks used in refractive index…); and
determining a characteristic of the object based on the measured reflectivity and the
measured refractive index (…wherein Aggarwal attributes the measure of reflectivity and
refractive index to evaluate the objective and subjective qualities of the gemstone
(object)…).
21. Regarding claim 19, Aggarwal teaches the method of claim 18 (see claim 18 above),
wherein when the object is a gemstone, the step of determining a characteristic of the object
further comprises: the computer controller:
comparing the measured refractive index of the gemstone to a database of known
refractive indices for gemstones; and determining the gemstone type (…wherein column 4,
lines 17-25 teach the objective to measure reflectance wherein image of the surface
reflectance is captured and processed, column 4 lines 45-47 teach the provision of a
database for storing data corresponding to a plurality of gemstones…).
22. Regarding claim 20, Aggarwal teaches the method of claim 18 (see claim 18 above),
wherein when the object is a gemstone, the step of determining a characteristic of the object
further comprises: the computer controller:
determining whether the gemstone is synthetic or real (…wherein Aggarwal in column
4, lines 29-30 teaches the objectivity of the disclosed system to authenticate a
gemstone…).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
23. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
24. Claims 1-5, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal (US 6,239,867 B1) in view of Portsmouth (WO 2020/254059 A1).
25. Regarding claim 1, an automated photography and inspection station comprising:
a plurality of panels forming an enclosure (…Aggarwal in column 7, line 50 teaches a
housing element 2, Fig. 2…);
a camera positioned within the enclosure (…column 7, line 49 teaches imaging apparatus element 5; Fig. 2; further column 8, line 38 teaches CCD camera 12 of apparatus 5, Fig. 3…);
a light fixture positioned within the enclosure (…column 8, line 67 teaches light source 77; Fig. 3 (see 77a and 77b); further depicted in Fig. 5 are ring light 90, bottom light 94, and laser light 92; hence multiple light fixtures are taught…);
a turntable positioned within the enclosure (…column 10, lines 6-9 teach a rotatable platform 53, Fig. 3…);
an inspection device positioned within the enclosure (…wherein Fig. 3 depicts an interior view of imaging apparatus 5 which are used for visual analyzation…),
the inspection device comprising at least one of:
a refractometer operable to measure a refractive index of light (…Aggarwal teaches refractive indexing as being accommodated in the teaching of its apparatus; wherein column 11-lines 14-16 teach that laser light 92 is used for alignment of a gemstone on a glass window via display 9, so to obtain laser scatter and measure refraction. Therefore, Aggarwal effectively teaches the elements (hence a refractometer) used to measure refraction based off laser scatter which is equally comparable to obtaining the refractive index of light…); and
a computer controller functionally coupled to the camera, the light fixture, the turntable, and the inspection device (…(…column 6, lines 28-39 teach a local station 8 (Fig. 1, 3 including a control data processors 10 (general purpose computer) for controlling the
imaging apparatus; further, column 11, line 66-67 and column 12, line 1 teach that the
lights and motors of apparatus 5 are controlled by location station 8 by way of data
processor 15…); wherein
the computer controller controls the operation of the camera, the light fixture, the turntable, and the inspection device based on information received by the computer controller about an object to be photographed and inspected by the station (…column 6, lines 28-39 teach a local station 8 (Fig. 1, 3) including a control data processors 10 (general purpose computer) for controlling the imaging apparatus; further, column 11, line 66-67 and column 12, line 1 teach that the lights and motors of apparatus 5 are controlled by location station 8 by way of data processor 15…).
Aggarwal does not further specify scales operable to measure weight as part of the inspection device.
However, Portsmouth teaches a similar device for obtaining measurements of gemstones; wherein on pg. 4-lines 27-35 teach a weigh cell 140 which measures a stone.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a weigh cell as taught by Portsmouth could have been implemented in the device as taught by Aggarwal thus to eliminate the need to calculate a weight which is compared to a scale weight, thereby making more processing availability for other processor requiring processes.
26. Regarding claim 2, Aggarwal in view of Portsmouth teaches the station of claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein:
the camera is configurable (…column 8, lines 23-26 teach that multiple filter arrays
slidably engage to the imaging apparatus to block light energy of a preselected
frequency; thus, it may be said that the imaging apparatus is configured with a particular
preselected filter…);
the light fixture is configurable (…column 11, lines 3-4 teach that the bottom light 94
may be a dimmable and diffusible light source…);
the turntable is configurable (…column 10, line 6-7 teach that rotatable table 53 is
rotated by a servo motor via circuitry 110…); and
wherein the computer controller configures the camera, the light fixture, and the
turntable based on the information received by the computer controller about the object to be
photographed and inspected by the station (…wherein a combination of data processors
work in unison to facilitate the configurations of the mentioned elements; column 6,
lines 28-39 teach a local station 8 (Fig. 1, 3) including a control data processors 10
(general purpose computer) for controlling the imaging apparatus; column 11, line 66-67
and column 12, line 1 teach that the lights and motors of apparatus 5 are controlled by
location station 8 by way of data processor 15…).
27. Regarding claim 3, Aggarwal in view of Portsmouth teaches the station of claim 1(see claim 1 above), wherein:
at least one of the plurality of panels includes a removable access cover (…column 7, lines 50-51 teach imaging apparatus, which includes housing 2 including access door 29; Fig. 2…).
28. Regarding claim 4, Aggarwal in view of Portsmouth teaches the station of claim 1 (see claim 1 above), further comprising:
a false wall within the enclosure to hide and protect electrical components disposed
between the false wall and one of the plurality of panels (…with reference to Fig. 3, element
110 (for example) is placed in such a manner, it is isolated from other components…).
29. Regarding claim 5, Aggarwal in view of Portsmouth teaches the station of claim 2 (see claim 2 above), wherein:
the camera is mounted on a top panel of the station (…with reference to Fig. 2,
column 10, lines 30-33 teach that when stage 53 is in a level position light data along the
focal axis 80 incident to gemstone 7 is captured by CCD camera 12; similarly light source
74 provides direct lighting of gemstone 7 useful in observing its top portion; hence it is
evident that an alternate positioning of a camera can still be configured to thus have the
same effect as if the camera were mounted for a top view…).
30. Regarding claim 17, Aggarwal teaches the method of claim 11 (see claim 11 above), wherein
the automated station includes scales, and wherein the measuring step further comprises weighing the object using the scales (…Aggarwal, in column 4-lines 33-35, teaches that calculated weight can be compared to scaled weight. Aggarwal doesn’t further specify a scale.
However, Portsmouth teaches a similar device for obtaining measurements of gemstones; wherein on pg. 4-lines 27-35 teach a weigh cell 140 which measures a stone.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a weigh cell as taught by Portsmouth could have been implemented in the device as taught by Aggarwal thus to eliminate the need to calculate a weight which is compared to a scale weight, thereby making more processing availability for other processor requiring processes…).
31. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal (US
6,239,867 B1) in view of Portsmouth (WO 2020/254059 A1) and further view of Niskanen (WO 2019/185993 A1).
32. Regarding claim 6, Aggarwal in view of Portsmouth teaches the station of claim 5 (see claim 5 above). Though Aggarwal teaches (data processor 21) for imaging a gemstone, Aggarwal does not teach the station further comprising:
a plurality of additional configurable cameras, each additional camera positioned on a
side panel of the station;
wherein the computer controller is functionally coupled to the plurality of additional
configurable cameras; wherein the computer controller configures and controls the operation of
the plurality of additional configurable cameras based on the information received by the
computer controller about the object to be photographed and inspected by the station.
However, Niskanen teaches extended focal plane imaging comprising a network of cameras and illumination means and a computer/controller configured to control the operation of
the stated elements. [0014], in reference to Fig. 2, teaches the use of a plurality of cameras
being used in conjunction with imaging an object (gemstone).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention that numerous cameras can be used as such in a system as
taught by Aggarwal in view of Portsmouth for a process of gemstone inspection thus to achieve extended depth of field with the usage of a plurality of cameras as taught by Niskanen.
33. Regarding claim 7, Aggarwal in view of Portsmouth and further view of Niskanen teaches the station of claim 6 (see claim 6 above), further comprising:
a plurality of additional configurable light fixtures; wherein the computer controller is
functionally coupled to the plurality of additional configurable light fixtures (…Aggarwal in
column 10, lines 3-6 teaches the use of multiple light sources so to obtain images of
different sides of an object…);
wherein the computer controller configures and controls the operation of the plurality of
additional light fixtures based on the information received by the computer controller about the
object to be photographed and inspected by the station (…column 11-12 lines 66-1 teach that
lights and motors of apparatus 5 are controlled by location station 8; wherein apparatus
5 is controlled by way of an instruction set of data processor 15 of location station 8…).
Allowable Subject Matter
34. Claims 10, 21, and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claim 10, the prior art, in accordance with Aggarwal or Portsmouth, does not teach a removable tray. Additional searches did not yield a similar teaching to include a removable tray as claimed in claim 10, in an apparatus similar to the prior arts.
With regards to claims 20 and 21, a prior art teaching the combined elements of inspectable objects (jewelry, clothing, and industrial equipment), as limited in claims 20 and 21, was not obtained.
Conclusion
35. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SURAFEL YILMAKASSAYE whose telephone number is (703)756-1910. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, TWYLER HASKINS can be reached at (571)272-7406. 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.
/SURAFEL YILMAKASSAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights