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 .
This office action is in response to applicant amendment/remarks filed 06/04/2025. Claims 1, 3, 7, 12, 14, and 18 have been amended. Claims 4-6 and 15-17 have been cancelled and no claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 7-14, 18-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 filed 06/04/2025, with respect to the claim objections of claims 3 and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of claims 3 and 14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 06/04/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12, filed 06/04/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-16, filed 06/04/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Matsumura Takeshi et al. JP2008275500A (henceforth Takeshi), Lei et al. US20190266890A1 (henceforth Lei), and Campanaro et al. US20230334989A1 (henceforth Campanaro). See the new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura Takeshi et al. JP2008275500A (henceforth Takeshi) in view of Lei et al. US20190266890A1 (henceforth Lei) and Campanaro et al. US20230334989A1 (henceforth Campanaro)
Regarding claim 1,
Takeshi discloses:
An information processing apparatus comprising a controller configured to execute: determining traffic volume of large-sized vehicles on a plurality of road segments in a vicinity of a first vehicle for each road segment based on first data transmitted from the first vehicle;
(See at least Para. 0071, “As will be apparent to those skilled in the art, a camera or a sensor mounted on the host vehicle may be used in combination for the detection of the large vehicle to be followed as described above” and Para. 0090, “ instead of or in addition to the position information of these large vehicles, statistical data on the past traffic volume of the large vehicles is acquired, and there is a relatively high possibility that the large vehicles are traveling on the road B rather than the road A. When traveling through each road / route using the traffic tendency of large vehicles on each road based on statistical data such as high probability of being able to follow and follow these large vehicles.” Traffic volume of large-sized vehicles on a plurality of road segments in a vicinity of a first vehicle is determined. Further see Para. 0022, “only one contracted vehicle V is shown for convenience, but it is natural that a plurality of vehicles (users) can subscribe to the route guidance service by the system according to the present embodiment. It is assumed that the center 102 can communicate with a plurality of contracted vehicles V”, wherein a plurality of vehicles can communicate with each other.)
generating a traffic volume map by mapping information on the traffic volume of the large sized vehicles on each of the plurality of road segments corresponding to the traffic volume of the large sized vehicles to each of the plurality of road segments based on the determined traffic volume of large-sized vehicles (See at least Para. 0056, “ In addition to the location information, for each of the large vehicles for which location information is provided, the amount of hindrance to visibility of the following vehicle according to the vehicle type (truck, bus, etc.), vehicle size, vehicle weight, and inter-vehicle distance”. Location information of each of the large vehicles is provided. Further see Para. 0057, “Furthermore, traffic information such as the degree of congestion for each road (link), average vehicle speed, and average vehicle speed change may be acquired”. Additionally, See at least Para. 0066-0067, where the large vehicle is superimposed on the map. Further see Para. 0077, “when selecting a route that can reach the destination with the lowest fuel consumption to the destination, the position information of the large vehicle that is expected to obtain a slipstream effect by following traveling Is considered. Then, in consideration of the fuel efficiency improvement effect expected to be obtained when traveling to these large vehicles as much as possible and heading to the destination, the route that can reach the destination with the lowest fuel consumption is selected. Therefore, the low fuel consumption route can be extracted and selected with higher accuracy than in the case where the position information of the surrounding large vehicles is not considered (in other words, the slip stream effect is not considered).”)
Generating a route for a vehicle based on the traffic volume map, the route prioritizing a higher traffic volume of the large-sized vehicles
(See at least Para. 0060, “And if you select the route to be attached behind these large vehicles as much as possible, and follow the large vehicles as much as possible to get to the destination while obtaining the slipstream effect, what route will improve the fuel efficiency Judging from the viewpoint of the most favorable” and Para. 0077, “in consideration of the fuel efficiency improvement effect expected to be obtained when traveling to these large vehicles as much as possible and heading to the destination, the route that can reach the destination with the lowest fuel consumption is selected”. A route is generated such that it prioritizes a higher traffic volume of the large-sized vehicles. Additionally, see Para. 0089.)
Takeshi does not specifically state where in the traffic volume map that is generated includes the thickness of line corresponding to the traffic volume of the large-sized vehicles.
However, Lei teaches:
the traffic volume map that is generated includes the thickness of line corresponding to the traffic volume of the large-sized vehicles.
(See at least Para. 0091, “As one example, the processor 416 may configure a first portion of the lane and vehicle type-specific traffic information to be graphically represented by a first graphic having a first line thickness, a first symbol and a first color. The first line thickness may be indicative of traffic for cars, the first symbol may be indicative of a carpool lane, and the first color may be indicative of low density (e.g., clear and/or fast moving) traffic. As another example, the processor 416 may configure a second portion of the lane and vehicle type-specific traffic information to be graphically represented by a second graphic having a second line thickness, a second symbol and a second color. The second line thickness may be indicative of traffic for cars, the second symbol may be indicative of a regular lane, and the second color may be indicative of low density (e.g., clear and/or fast moving) traffic. As another example, the processor 416 may configure a third portion of the lane and vehicle type-specific traffic information to be graphically represented by a third graphic having a third line thickness, a third symbol and a third color. The third line thickness may be indicative of traffic for trucks, the third symbol may be indicative of a regular lane, and the third color may be indicative of high density (e.g., heavy and/or slow moving) traffic. In such examples, the map legend configured by the processor 416 in connection with generating the lane and vehicle type-specific traffic information may include one or more description(s) and/or indication(s) corresponding to one or more of the first, second and/or third graphic(s).” The traffic volume map includes a line thickness corresponding to the traffic volume of large vehicles.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeshi to incorporate the teachings of Lei to include “where in the traffic volume map that is generated includes the thickness of line corresponding to the traffic volume of the large-sized vehicles” in order to present lane and vehicle-type specific traffic information on a map of a user interface. In Para. 0023 of Lei, “The lane and vehicle type-specific traffic information generated and presented via the disclosed methods and apparatus advantageously provides end users with traffic information of an increased level of detail and/or granularity relative to the traffic information generated and presented via conventional navigation systems. The increased granularity provided by the lane and vehicle type-specific traffic information of the disclosed methods and apparatus advantageously enables end users to more wisely plan and/or select their travel routes”. Additionally, this would create a more robust navigation system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Takashi and Lei. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Furthermore, it is the Office's stance that the specification filed 04/18/2023 without any explanation of any novel benefit of using the thickness of line for showing the level of the traffic volume of large vehicles over other types of display symbols is a mere design choice. Choosing the thickness of lines to represent the traffic volume of large-sized vehicles, without the recitation of a novel benefit, does not distinguish the invention over the prior art. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of using a thickness of a line to represent traffic volume of large-sized vehicles would have been obvious and the design choice would have produced predictable results.
Takeshi further discloses:
generating a route for a second vehicle, and transmitting the route to the second vehicle
(See at least Para. 0021, “ the center 102 is not limited to a direct wireless communication connection, and may be an indirect communication connection via vehicle-to-vehicle communication, road-to-vehicle communication, and / or satellite communication”. Further see Para. 0022“In FIG. 1, only one contracted vehicle V is shown for convenience, but it is natural that a plurality of vehicles (users) can subscribe to the route guidance service by the system according to the present embodiment. It is assumed that the center 102 can communicate with a plurality of contracted vehicles“. Further see at least Para. 0047-0048, where a route is generated and transmitted to any vehicle subscribed to the route guidance service, which includes a second vehicle.)
Takeshi does not specifically state “the second vehicle being an autonomous vehicle, and transmitting the route to the second vehicle to make the second vehicle travel autonomously along the route”.
However, Campanaro teaches:
the second vehicle being an autonomous vehicle, (See Para. 0014-0015, and 0060) and transmitting the route to the second vehicle to make the second vehicle travel autonomously along the route (See at least Para. 0074, “if one or more drivers accept the request, at block 640, the slipstream driving arrangement system 105 determines travel details for the vehicle 115 to travel in a slipstream travel arrangement. The travel details can include, for example, identifying a location of the vessel from which the acceptance was received (via V2X communications and/or GPS information, for example), determining a rendezvous location, determining a time for the rendezvous, and/or determining a travel route for the vehicle 115 to the rendezvous location” and Para. 0075, “The execution can include the slipstream driving arrangement system 105 cooperating with the vehicle computer 110, and/or instructing the driver 125, to control a speed of the vehicle 115 for making a rendezvous (increasing the speed, decreasing the speed, braking, etc.), to travel along a specified travel route”. The second vehicle is an autonomous vehicle and a route is transmitted to the autonomous vehicle.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeshi to incorporate the teachings of Campanaro to include “the second vehicle being an autonomous vehicle, and transmitting the route to the second vehicle to make the second vehicle travel autonomously along the route” in order to “take advantage of a slipstream formation that can provide various benefits such as, for example, a reduction in fuel consumption for follower vehicles” (Para. 0010, Campanaro). This would create a robust system for forming a caravan of vehicles and to take advantage of the slip stream formation, such that fuel is more efficiently conserved. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Takeshi and Campanaro. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 2,
Takeshi discloses:
wherein the first data includes an image captured by an onboard camera, and the controller detects the large-sized vehicle from the image.
(See at least Para. 0071, “a camera or sensor mounted on the host vehicle may be used in combination for the detection of the large vehicle to be followed as described above”. The first data includes an image which detects a large-sized vehicle from the image.
Regarding claim 3,
Takeshi discloses:
wherein the first data includes results of detection process of the large-sized vehicles on the images captured by an onboard camera.
(See at least Para. 0071, wherein an onboard camera detects a large vehicle (i.e. uses the result of an image from the camera to detect the vehicle).)
Regarding claim 7,
Takeshi does not specifically state wherein the second vehicle is a vehicle capable of automatically following the large-sized vehicle.
However, Campanaro teaches:
wherein the second vehicle is a vehicle capable of automatically following the large-sized vehicle (See at least Para. 0060, “The various sensors may be configured to assist the driver 125 travel in a slipstream travel arrangement. The slipstream travel arrangement involves keeping a safe distance behind a vehicle moving ahead, yet traveling close enough to benefit from a low-pressure area behind the vehicle ahead. An autonomous vehicle can employ similar sensors and/or other types of sensors that are configured to ensure that the autonomous vehicle maintains a safe separation distance behind another vehicle when benefitting from a low-pressure area behind the other vehicle.”
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeshi to incorporate the teachings of Campanaro to include “wherein the second vehicle is a vehicle capable of automatically following the large-sized vehicle” in order to “take advantage of a slipstream formation that can provide various benefits such as, for example, a reduction in fuel consumption for follower vehicles” (Para. 0010, Campanaro) and “to ensure that the autonomous vehicle maintains a safe separation distance behind another vehicle when benefitting from a low-pressure area behind the other vehicle” (Para. 0060, Campanaro). This would create a robust system for forming a caravan of vehicles and to take advantage of the slip stream formation, such that fuel is more efficiently conserved. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Takeshi and Campanaro. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 8,
Takeshi discloses:
wherein the first data includes time information and location information, and the controller determines position and time at which the large-sized vehicle was present based on the first data transmitted from a plurality of the first vehicles, and determines the traffic volume of the large-sized vehicles based on results of the determination.
(See at least Para. 0059,” Based on the position information and attribute information of the acquired large vehicle, which route should be followed to catch up with which large vehicle and follow-up driving is possible” and Para. 0077, “ when selecting a route that can reach the destination with the lowest fuel consumption to the destination, the position information of the large vehicle that is expected to obtain a slipstream effect by following traveling Is considered”. Further see Para. 0082, “the user is given a range of selection on the time axis, and the case where the departure time is shifted backward so that the user can follow the back of the large vehicle is taken into consideration” and Para. 0067, “As a matter of course, it is preferable that the screen display automatically changes (scrolls) the map range displayed as the host vehicle travels. At this time, the position of the large vehicle that should be the target of follow-up travel (that is, the preceding vehicle as viewed from the host vehicle) may also be superimposed on the screen”. In order to superimpose the large-sized vehicle on the screen, the time and location information of the large-sized vehicle is known. Additionally, see Para. 0025, “Regardless of whether it is performed inside or outside the center 102, the method for detecting the position of the large vehicle as described above is, for example, a) detection (collection) using a so-called probe car (system), b) Detect based on information from N system, c) Detect based on information from ETC, d) Detect based on route bus operation information (timetable) obtained from route bus operator Can be considered”.)
Regarding claim 10,
Takeshi discloses:
wherein the controller determines speed of the large-sized vehicle in the vicinity of the first vehicle based on the first data.
(See at least Para. 0033, “vehicle speed of the preceding vehicle” and Para. 0034, wherein the controller considers the vehicle speed of the preceding vehicle to determine whether a route is followed.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi, Lei, and Campanaro further in view of MEMEZAWA IZUMI JP2020027645A (henceforth Izumi).
Regarding claim 9,
Takeshi, Lei, and Campanaro discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1 and 8 above.
Takeshi does not specifically state wherein the controller executes the determination of the traffic volume by excluding the vehicles detected in duplicate by the plurality of the first vehicles, based on the time information and location information.
However, Izumi teaches:
wherein the controller executes the determination of the traffic volume by excluding the vehicles detected in duplicate by the plurality of the first vehicles, based on the time information and location information. (See at least Para. 0165-0166, wherein the controller excludes detected duplicates.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeshi to incorporate the teachings of Izumi to include “wherein the controller executes the determination of the traffic volume by excluding the vehicles detected in duplicate by the plurality of the first vehicles, based on the time information and location information” in order to improve the accuracy of the mapping, and would further “improve the recognition accuracy of an oncoming vehicle and to reliably support collision avoidance when passing an oncoming vehicle” (Para. 0005, Izumi), which would create a more robust navigation/mapping system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Takeshi and Izumi. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi, Lei, and Campanaro further in view of KOYAMA NAGISA JP2019191498A (henceforth Nagisa)
Regarding claim 11,
Takeshi, Lei, and Campanaro discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1 and 10 above. Takeshi does not specifically state wherein the controller determines the traffic volume by excluding large-sized vehicles whose speed is below a predetermined value.
However, Nagisa teaches:
wherein the controller determines the traffic volume by excluding large-sized vehicles whose speed is below a predetermined value.
(See at least Para. 0058, “As a result, static objects (e.g., walls, columns, etc.) and quasi-static objects (e.g., stopped trucks, etc.) are excluded, except for data that measures moving objects (dynamic objects) from multiple measurement information.” Stopped trucks (i.e. large sized vehicles whose speed is below a predetermined value) are excluded from the determination.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeshi to incorporate the teachings of Nagisa to include “wherein the controller determines the traffic volume by excluding large-sized vehicles whose speed is below a predetermined value” in order to improve the accuracy of the entire map (see Para. 0058, Nagisa), by excluding large-sized vehicles whose speed is below a predetermined value. This would create a more robust system for creating/updating a map that shows the presence of large-sized vehicles. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Takeshi and Nagisa. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 12-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi, Lei, and Campanaro further in view of Gorman et al. US20210329448A1 (henceforth Gorman).
Regarding claim 12,
Takeshi, Lei, and Campanaro discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rationale.
Takeshi further discloses:
transmitting first data including a result of the detection to the server device;
(See at least 0023, wherein the center 102 (i.e. the server device) includes receiving position information..)
Takeshi does not specifically state “the server device comprises a second controller configured to execute:” However, Gorman teaches:
the server device comprises a second controller configured to execute
(See at least Para. 0027, wherein the vehicle communicates with a second off-board controller (e.g. a second back-office server) while the vehicle system is in a second geospatial position. Further see Para. 0021, “The off-board control system may include an off-board controller 124 that can represent hardware circuitry that includes and/or is connected with one or more processors that perform operations of the off-board controller and/or the off-board control system”.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeshi to incorporate the teachings of Gorman to include “the server device comprises a second controller configured to execute” in order to perform operations off-board and increase secure communications between the vehicle system and the off-board control system (Para. 0004-0005, Gorman), which would increase security. Furthermore, doing calculations off-board offers access to greater computational power, storage, and specialized hardware that may not be available on local on-board devices. Therefore, this would create a more robust navigation/mapping system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Takeshi and Gorman. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 13,
Takeshi discloses:
wherein the first controller executes object classification on images captured by the on-board camera.
(See at least Para. 0071. The camera can recognize large-sized vehicles (i.e. object classification on an image).)
Regarding claim 18,
Takeshi, Lei, Campanaro, and Gorman discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 7 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rationale.
Regarding claim 19,
Takeshi, Lei, Campanaro, and Gorman discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 8 above and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rationale.
Regarding claim 20,
Takeshi, Lei, Campanaro, Gorman, and Izumi discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 9 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rationale.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi, Lei, Campanaro, and Gorman further in view of Wong et al. US20220028180A1 (henceforth Wong).
Regarding claim 14,
Takeshi, Lei, Campanaro, and Gorman discloses the limitations as recited in claims 12 and 13 above. Takeshi does not specifically state wherein the first data is a label image obtained as a result of the classification.
However, Wong teaches:
wherein the first data is a label image obtained as a result of the classification.
(See at least Para. 0019, “The RCU device can include a laser scan vehicle detection and framing algorithm to create three-dimensional 3D vehicle images. The RCU device can perform automated vehicle frame annotation to label images in accord with their classification.” A labeled image is obtained as a result of the classification.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeshi to incorporate the teachings of Wong to include “wherein the first data is a label image obtained as a result of the classification” in order to “overcome the problems of the prior vehicle classification systems” (Para. 0019, Wong). This would create a more robust vehicle classification system for identifying and classifying vehicles such as “large vehicle”. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Takeshi and Wong. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4334. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am- 6:00 pm MDT.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/G.J.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 3669