DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claims 1, 15, and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed 2 September 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) second paragraph have been fully considered, and the rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sporrer et al. (US Publication 2019/0250573 A1) in view of Lavoie et al. (US Publication 2020/0097001 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sporrer teaches a method of controlling an autonomous vehicle coupled to an implement adapted for agricultural use, the method comprising: by at least one processing circuitry of a device adapted to be in communication with the autonomous vehicle coupled to the implement (Sporrer: Para. 53, 57, 27; communication systems (on vehicle) and (on implement) illustratively allow vehicle and implement to communicate with one another over links), executing code for: receiving sensory data relating to the implement acquired by at least one sensor deployed in an environment of the implement and configured for operating during working of the implement in the environment (Sporrer: Para. 21; agricultural implement illustratively includes one or more sensors; generates control signals to control the controllable subsystems based upon inputs from sensors); determining controlling instructions to control said autonomous vehicle, based on analyzing the sensory data, said controlling instructions comprising at least one of: instructions to modify a motion vector of the autonomous vehicle, and instructions for the autonomous vehicle to perform an actuation operation on the implement (Sporrer: Para. 45-46, 53, 57; detects user interaction with that interface, setting the priority for the various metrics to be used in controlling implement; priority control logic then generates control signals to control the implement based upon the selected metrics, the target levels and threshold levels, and the metric priorities for each of the metrics).
Sporrer doesn’t explicitly teach generating at least one control command encoding the instructions.
However Lavoie, in the same field of endeavor, teaches generating at least one control command encoding the instructions (Lavoie: Para. 48; tangible medium that is capable of storing, encoding or carrying a set of instructions for execution by a processor or that cause a system to perform any one or more of the methods or operations).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the autonomous metric control of an identified implement taught in Sporrer (Sporrer: Para. 24, 37) with the encoded instructions sent through relays taught in Lavoie (Lavoie: Para. 30, 48) with a reasonable expectation of success because the local control unit autonomously adjusting motive functions of the vehicle based upon data collected by sensors as taught by Lavoie (Lavoie: Para. 30).
In the following limitations, Sporrer teaches communicating the at least one control command to the autonomous vehicle (Sporrer: Para. 50; if the highest level priority metric is out of its target range; take action to control implement so that the highest level priority metric moves back within its target range; action can be automatically taken by the control system), wherein the autonomous vehicle applying the instructions in response to the at least one control command (Sporrer: Para. 24; control system can control tractor and/or implement to maintain the highest priority metric at least within the target range defined by the threshold values).
Regarding claim 2, Sporrer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the analyzing the sensory data comprising determining at least one event related to the implement and at least one action required in response to the at least one event (Sporrer: Para. 49; control data store to store this information corresponding to each metric; indicates how implement is performing with respect to each metric, given the target level and target range for that metric).
Regarding claim 3, Sporrer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor being selected from the group consisting of: a revolutions per minute sensor; a speed sensor; a moment measurement sensor; a heat sensor; an orientation sensor; a motion sensor; a pressure sensor; a volume sensor; an electronics load sensor; an electromagnetic imaging sensor; an acoustic imaging sensor (Sporrer: Para. 55; selects the highest priority metric (e.g., speed), and measurement logic detects a current level for that metric; metric is identified directly by a sensor signal value).
Regarding claim 4, Sporrer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the instructions to modify the motion vector of the autonomous vehicle comprising at least one action by a controller of the autonomous vehicle selected from: start driving the autonomous vehicle; accelerate engine of the autonomous vehicle; decelerate engine of the autonomous vehicle; switch direction of motion of the autonomous vehicle to at least one of forwards and backwards; turn the autonomous vehicle to a specified direction; operate a braking system of the vehicle; stop the autonomous vehicle at a specified location in the environment; and move the autonomous vehicle in a specified trajectory (Sporrer: Para. 23; generate control signals that control various controllable subsystems of vehicle; controllable subsystems can include such things as a propulsion system, a steering system, a hydraulic system, a mechanical system, an electronic system).
Regarding claim 5, Sporrer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the instructions to perform the actuation operation on the implement by the autonomous vehicle comprising at least one member selected from: engage a power take off between the autonomous vehicle and the implement; disengage a power take off between the autonomous vehicle and the implement; lower a three-point hitch adapter coupling the autonomous vehicle and the implement to a specified height relative to the autonomous vehicle; raise a three-point hitch adapter coupling the autonomous vehicle and the implement to a specified height relative to the vehicle; decrease a revolutions per minute energy level of the implement; increase a revolutions per minute energy level of the implement; modify at least one of a direction, a flow, and a pressure of at least one of a plurality of hydraulics channels connected to the implement; and operate an electric energy supply to the implement (Sporrer: Para. 17, 32, 53; particular metrics being considered in controlling implement may vary widely based on the type of implement; metrics can include speed, fuel consumption, tool depth, tool angle, tool down-pressure, wheel slip, job quality; an electronic link that carries electronic information, a power takeoff, or other mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, wireless, wired or wireless links).
Regarding claim 6, Sporrer teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising performing, by the at least one processing circuitry, executing code for: receiving, over a communication channel established between the device and the autonomous vehicle, operational data relating to operation of the autonomous vehicle during working of the implement in the environment (Sporrer: Para. 21; agricultural implement illustratively includes one or more sensors; generates control signals to control the controllable subsystems based upon inputs from sensors); and, analyzing the operational data further to the sensory data in determining the at least one of the instructions (Sporrer: Para. 49; control data store to store this information corresponding to each metric; indicates how implement is performing with respect to each metric, given the target level and target range for that metric).
Regarding claim 7, Sporrer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the at least one of the instructions being performed in compliance with a specification of the implement (Sporrer: Para. 37; querying a control system on agricultural implement to obtain its identity e.g., model number, configuration; set the metric levels and threshold levels for each of the metrics that are to be used in controlling the implement).
Regarding claim 8, Sporrer teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising performing, by the at least one processing circuitry, executing code for: receiving at least one parameter value of at least one configurable parameter of the implement (Sporrer: Para. 40; metric setting user interface can also be populated with default values, once the type of implement is known; metrics that are normally used to control implement, and the target values and threshold values that are normally used, are retrieved from data store); and, configuring the analyzing of the sensory data and the determining the at least one of the instructions in accordance with the type identified (Sporrer: Para. 49; control data store to store this information corresponding to each metric; indicates how implement is performing with respect to each metric, given the target level and target range for that metric).
Regarding claim 9, Sporrer teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising performing, by the at least one processing circuitry, executing code for: receiving at least one parameter value of at least one configurable parameter of the implement (Sporrer: Para. 40; metric setting user interface can also be populated with default values, once the type of implement is known; metrics that are normally used to control implement, and the target values and threshold values that are normally used, are retrieved from data store); and, setting the at least one configurable parameter respective of the at least one parameter value received, wherein the determining the at least one of the instructions being performed in accordance with the at least one parameter value set for the at least one configurable parameter (Sporrer: Para. 45-46; detects user interaction with that interface, setting the priority for the various metrics to be used in controlling implement; priority control logic then generates control signals to control the implement based upon the selected metrics, the target levels and threshold levels, and the metric priorities for each of the metrics).
Regarding claim 10, Sporrer teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising performing, by the at least one processing circuitry, executing code for: determining, based on analyzing the sensory data, whether at least one alert condition being met (Sporrer: Para. 50; if the highest level priority metric is out of its target range, then logic may surface an interactive display for operator so that operator can take action to control implement so that the highest level priority metric moves back within its target range; action can be automatically taken by the control system as well, with an alert or notification to the operator); and, outputting at least one respective alert to a user in response to determining the at least one alert condition being met (Sporrer: Para. 50; action can be automatically taken by the control system as well, with an alert or notification to the operator).
Regarding claim 11, Sporrer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the autonomous vehicle is an agricultural vehicle (Sporrer: Para. 2; agricultural machines).
Regarding claim 12, Sporrer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the autonomous vehicle is a tractor (Sporrer: Para. 2; a vehicle, such as a tractor).
Regarding claim 13, Sporrer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the implement is an agricultural implement to be connected to a tractor (Sporrer: Para. 2; implements that are supported (e.g., towed) by a vehicle, such as a tractor).
Regarding claim 14, Sporrer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a plurality of implements comprising the implement are coupled to the autonomous vehicle and connected to one another into a single working unit (Sporrer: Para. 26, 32; Controllable subsystems on implement can vary widely, based upon the type of implement; implement is a tillage implement; implement is a planter).
Regarding claim 15, Sporrer teaches a device for controlling an autonomous vehicle coupled to an implement adapted for agricultural use, comprising: a communication interface adapted for communication with the autonomous vehicle coupled to the implement (Sporrer: Para. 27, 53, 57; communication systems (on vehicle) and (on implement) illustratively allow vehicle and implement to communicate with one another over links); at least one processing circuitry adapted to execute code for: receiving sensory data relating to the implement acquired by at least one sensor deployed in an environment of the implement and configured for operating during working of the implement in the environment (Sporrer: Para. 21; agricultural implement illustratively includes one or more sensors; generates control signals to control the controllable subsystems based upon inputs from sensors); determining controlling instructions to control said autonomous vehicle, based on analyzing the sensory data, said controlling instructions comprising at least one of: instructions to modify a motion vector of the autonomous vehicle, instructions for the autonomous vehicle to perform an actuation operation on the implement (Sporrer: Para. 45-46, 53, 57; detects user interaction with that interface, setting the priority for the various metrics to be used in controlling implement; priority control logic then generates control signals to control the implement based upon the selected metrics, the target levels and threshold levels, and the metric priorities for each of the metrics).
Sporrer doesn’t explicitly teach generating at least one control command encoding the instructions.
However Lavoie, in the same field of endeavor, teaches generating at least one control command encoding the instructions (Lavoie: Para. 48; tangible medium that is capable of storing, encoding or carrying a set of instructions for execution by a processor or that cause a system to perform any one or more of the methods or operations).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the autonomous metric control of an identified implement taught in Sporrer (Sporrer: Para. 24, 37) with the encoded instructions sent through relays taught in Lavoie (Lavoie: Para. 30, 48) with a reasonable expectation of success because the local control unit autonomously adjusting motive functions of the vehicle based upon data collected by sensors as taught by Lavoie (Lavoie: Para. 30).
In the following limitations, Sporrer teaches communicating the at least one control command to the autonomous vehicle (Sporrer: Para. 50; if the highest level priority metric is out of its target range; take action to control implement so that the highest level priority metric moves back within its target range; action can be automatically taken by the control system), wherein the autonomous vehicle applying the instructions in response to the at least one control command (Sporrer: Para. 24; control system can control tractor and/or implement to maintain the highest priority metric at least within the target range defined by the threshold values).
Regarding claim 16, Sporrer teaches the device of claim 15, further comprising an implement mount for mounting the device on the implement (Sporrer: Para. 17; vehicle is attached to implement by one or more links; links can include mechanical links).
Regarding claim 18, Sporrer teaches the device of claim 15, further comprising a data bus adapted for connection to and receipt of data from the implement (Sporrer: Para. 21, 95; agricultural implement illustratively includes one or more sensors, communication system, a set of controllable subsystems; generates control signals to control the controllable subsystems based upon inputs from sensors and from vehicle (received over links); system bus may be any of several types of bus structures).
Regarding claim 19, Sporrer doesn’t explicitly teach further comprising a plurality of relays adapted for communication with a low-level controller of the autonomous vehicle.
However Lavoie, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising a plurality of relays adapted for communication with a low-level controller of the autonomous vehicle (Lavoie: Para. 30, 44; the controller of the vehicle is configured to instruct the local control unit to perform motive function(s) based on the relayed input(s); the local control unit autonomously adjusts motive functions of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the autonomous metric control of an identified implement taught in Sporrer (Sporrer: Para. 24, 37) with the encoded instructions sent through relays taught in Lavoie (Lavoie: Para. 30, 48) with a reasonable expectation of success because the local control unit autonomously adjusting motive functions of the vehicle based upon data collected by sensors as taught by Lavoie (Lavoie: Para. 30).
Regarding claim 20, Sporrer teaches a computer program product for controlling an autonomous vehicle coupled to an implement adapted for agricultural use, comprising: a non-transitory computer readable storage medium; program instructions for executing, by a processing circuitry of a device adapted to be in communication with the autonomous vehicle coupled to the implement (Sporrer: Para. 27, 53, 57, 91; communication systems (on vehicle) and (on implement) illustratively allow vehicle and implement to communicate with one another over links; memory stores computer readable instructions that, when executed by processor): receiving sensory data relating to the implement acquired by at least one sensor deployed in an environment of the implement and configured for operating during working of the implement in the environment (Sporrer: Para. 21; agricultural implement illustratively includes one or more sensors; generates control signals to control the controllable subsystems based upon inputs from sensors)determining controlling instructions to control said autonomous vehicle, based on analyzing the sensory data, said controlling instructions comprising at least one of: instructions to modify a motion vector of the autonomous vehicle, and instructions for the autonomous vehicle to perform an actuation operation on the implement (Sporrer: Para. 45-46, 53, 57; detects user interaction with that interface, setting the priority for the various metrics to be used in controlling implement; priority control logic then generates control signals to control the implement based upon the selected metrics, the target levels and threshold levels, and the metric priorities for each of the metrics).
Sporrer doesn’t explicitly teach generating at least one control command encoding the instructions.
However Lavoie, in the same field of endeavor, teaches generating at least one control command encoding the instructions (Lavoie: Para. 48; tangible medium that is capable of storing, encoding or carrying a set of instructions for execution by a processor or that cause a system to perform any one or more of the methods or operations).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the autonomous metric control of an identified implement taught in Sporrer (Sporrer: Para. 24, 37) with the encoded instructions sent through relays taught in Lavoie (Lavoie: Para. 30, 48) with a reasonable expectation of success because the local control unit autonomously adjusting motive functions of the vehicle based upon data collected by sensors as taught by Lavoie (Lavoie: Para. 30).
In the following limitations, Sporrer teaches communicating the at least one control command to the autonomous vehicle (Sporrer: Para. 50; if the highest level priority metric is out of its target range; take action to control implement so that the highest level priority metric moves back within its target range; action can be automatically taken by the control system), wherein the autonomous vehicle applying the instructions in response to the at least one control command (Sporrer: Para. 24; control system can control tractor and/or implement to maintain the highest priority metric at least within the target range defined by the threshold values).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sporrer et al. (US Publication 2019/0250573 A1) in view of Lavoie et al. (US Publication 2020/0097001 A1) and in further view of Krog et al. (US Publication 2023/0112003 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Sporrer and Lavoie don’t explicitly teach further comprising a plurality of brackets for fitting the device to different models of autonomous vehicles.
However Krog, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising a plurality of brackets for fitting the device to different models of autonomous vehicles (Krog: Para. 71, 108, Fig. 3C; the implement coupler assembly may be configured to be universal to receive all type of implements; enable the implement coupler assembly to engage the implement via the implement bracket).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the autonomous metric control of an identified implement taught in Sporrer (Sporrer: Para. 24, 37) with the encoded instructions sent through relays taught in Lavoie (Lavoie: Para. 30, 48) and the universalizing implement coupler assembly taught in Krog (Krog: Para. 71) with a reasonable expectation of success because a plurality of different types of implements being interchangeably attached to the drive unit via the implement coupler assembly as taught by Krog (Krog: Para. 71, 108).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s attorney argues “that Sporrer does not disclose or suggest controlling an autonomous vehicle and in fact teaches away from it.”
In response to the applicant’s argument above, Sporrer teaches the control system takes automatic action to control the implement so that the highest level priority metric moves back within its target range (Sporrer: Para. 50). Sporrer teaches the operator inputting priority setting or confirming a predefined or default priority for various metrics (Sporrer: Para. 45). The priority control logic generates the control signals to control the implement based upon the selected metrics, target levels, threshold levels, and metric priorities (Sporrer: Para. 46). Sporrer teaches a remote operator (Sporrer: Para. 18) that inputs various metric priorities (Sporrer: Para. 45), then the priority control logic in the implement control system (Sporrer: Fig. 2) generates the control signals to control the implement based upon the selected metrics (Sporrer: Para. 46). Sporrer includes an example where the first metric is speed, miles per hour, at which the implement or vehicle is traveling (Sporrer: Para. 53). When the speed metric is the highest priority and is measured not in its target range, the control action identifier logic identifies the necessary actions to move the vehicle’s speed back into its range. Then the control signal generator logic generates the control signals needed to perform the identified actions (Sporrer: Para. 57). Sporrer’s example clearly shows the vehicle’s speed being controlled automatically by the implement control system (Sporrer: Fig. 2). Sporrer teaches autonomous speed control of a vehicle, making the vehicle an autonomous vehicle. The prior art does not teach away from the claimed invention.
The applicant next argues that a person of ordinary skill would understand Sporrer to teach away from a driverless or fully autonomous control loop that analyzes implement-related sensory data acquired during working and issues combined motion-vector plus implement actuation commands without operator input during the working pass.
In response to the argument above, autonomous vehicle control is not only driverless or fully autonomous. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize an autonomous control feature as making the vehicle an autonomous vehicle. A fully autonomous vehicle is a level 5 autonomous with an industry set of standard set and requirements. The applicant’s invention does not claim a fully autonomous vehicle.
Sporrer includes an example where the first metric is speed, miles per hour, at which the implement or vehicle is traveling (Sporrer: Para. 53). When the speed metric is the highest priority and is measured not in its target range, the control action identifier logic identifies the necessary actions to move the vehicle’s speed back into its range. Then the control signal generator logic generates the control signals needed to perform the identified actions (Sporrer: Para. 57). Sporrer’s example clearly shows the vehicle’s speed being controlled automatically by the implement control system (Sporrer: Fig. 2). The applicant claims a motion vector. One of ordinary skill would recognize that a vector is both magnitude and direction. The autonomous control of the vehicle’s speed changes the magnitude thus changing the motion vector for the vehicle.
The applicant next argues that claims 15 and 20 are substantially similar to claim 1 and the arguments would similarly apply.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, the examiner responded to the arguments directed to claim 1. Those responses would similarly apply to claims 15 and 20.
The applicant next argues that claims 4-6 and 11-12 all explicitly claim the autonomous vehicle.
In response to the argument above, the examiner has addressed the argument of autonomous vehicle above and the response would similarly apply to this argument.
The applicant next argues that claims 4-6 and 11-12 depend from claim 1 and would be allowable based on their dependencies.
In response to the argument above, claim 1 is rejected. Therefore all dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependencies.
The applicant next argues that Sporrer doesn’t teach a plurality of implements coupled to the autonomous vehicle and connected to one another into a single working unit.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, Sporrer teaches a wide vary of implements made up of controllable subsystems which examples of a tillage implement and a planter implement (Sporrer: Para. 27). Sporrer teaches examples of autonomous controlled metrics of speed, fuel consumption, tool depth, tool angle, tool down-pressure, wheel slip, and job quality (Sporrer: Para. 32). Sporrer does teach a plurality of metrics that are controlled by the system for a plurality of actuators that work together.
The applicant next argues that claims 2-3, 7-10, 13, and 16-19 depend from claims 1 and 15 and would be allowable based on their dependencies.
In response to the argument above, claims 1 and 15 are rejected. Therefore all dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependencies.
The applicant’s arguments have failed to point out the distinguishing characteristics of the amended claim language over the prior art. For the above reasons, Sporrer’s agriculture vehicle and implement control in view of Lavoie’s vehicle instructions reads on applicant’s autonomous vehicle implement control. The rejection is maintained.
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 LAURA E LINHARDT whose telephone number is (571)272-8325. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TR, M-F: 8am-4pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights