DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications on 2025/10/16. Claims 1, 10, and 14 are amended. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome 112(b) rejections. Applicant has changed the scope of the claim language. The amendments are further addressed in the body of the Final Rejection.
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.
Claims 1 – 4, 7 – 8, 10 – 17, and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moll, Frederic H., et. al. (US 6659939 B2), hereinafter referred to as Moll, in view of Nakayama, et. al. (US 20160114484 A1), hereinafter referred to as Nakayama.
Regarding Claim 1:
A method for controlling a motion of a component of a medical installation, the method comprising:
capturing a first position parameter via a first position sensor, the first position sensor being on the component;
Moll discloses “Appropriately positioned positional sensors, e.g., encoders, or potentiometers, or the like, are coupled to each joint of gimbals 210B, so as to enable joint positions of the master control to be determined as also described in greater detail herein below.” (Moll, Column 12 Lines 45 – 49).
capturing a second position parameter via a second position sensor, the second position sensor being on the component;
Moll discloses “Gimbals 210B (shown most clearly in FIG. 3B) have a plurality of members or links 212 connected together by joints 214, typically by rotational joints.” (Moll, Column 12 Lines 32 – 35).
determining, by a control unit, a position spacing for the position sensors based on the first position parameter and the second position parameter; and
Moll discloses “Position comparison and force calculation may, in general, be performed using a forward kinematics algorithm which may include a Jacobian matrix” (Moll, Column 21 Lines 7 – 9).
generating a control signal for a drive unit of the component based on the determined position spacing, wherein the component is moveable and elastic, and an elastic deformation of the component is caused by an operating force introduced manually by a user.
Moll discloses “A control system couples the input devices with the manipulator arms. The control system selectably associates each input device with a manipulator arm.” (Moll, Column 4 Lines 22 – 25).
Moll additionally discloses “The control system 400 makes provision for force feedback. Thus, should the slave, typically the end effector, be subjected to an environmental force .function..sub.e at the surgical site, e.g., in the case where the end effector pushes against tissue, or the like, such a force is fed back to the master control. Accordingly, when the slave is tracking movement of the master as described above and the slave pushes against an object at the surgical site resulting in an equal pushing force against the slave, which urges the slave to move to another position, similar steps as described above take place. The surgical environment is indicated at 418 in FIG. 11. In the case where an environmental force .function..sub.e is applied on the slave, such a force .function..sub.e, causes displacement of the end effector. This displacement is sensed by the encoders on the slave 416 which generate signals e.sub.s.” (Moll, Column 22 Lines 33 – 47).
The applicant specifies that an “elastic element” is a “reversibly deformable” element. Although Moll does not disclose an “elastic element” that is “reversibly deformable”, Nakayama teaches a method of using a first and second detection element to detect (among other options) “…strain gauge such as a semiconductor strain gauge or metal foil strain gauge, a laser displacement meter or electrostatic capacity type-displacement meter…” [0027]). Nakayama describes the definition of the strain gauge here: “the “detection value” described in this specification is defined as e.g. an electrical signal output from a detection element, an amount of strain or amount of displacement which can be obtained from the electrical signal, or any other information given from the detection element.” (Nakayama, [0025]). The strain gauge taught by Nakayama is an “elastic element” that is “reversibly deformable”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the system of Moll with the strain gauge taught by Nakayama because it is just another method of determining an intended target position and orientation from a user or operator. Moll discloses using encoders to detect an intended position and orientation. The applicant specifies that the disclosed component is an elastic element, and sensors measure the deformation in the component. Nakayama discloses using (among other given options) strain gauges (sensors that measure “amount of strain or amount of displacement” (Nakayama, [0025])),, and displacement meters.
Regarding Claim 2:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
assigning an adjusting force acting on the component to the determined position spacing, wherein the generating the control signal is based on the assigned adjusting force.
Moll discloses “Preferably, the override force will be sufficient to inhibit inadvertent movement from accidental bumping, interference between manipulators, and the like.” (Moll, Column 18 Lines 20 – 22).
Regarding Claim 3:
The method of claim 2, wherein the generating the control signal includes,
ascertaining a torque specification for the drive unit based on an absolute value of the assigned adjusting force for motorized power assistance.
Moll discloses “Should a force then be applied to the slave to cause it to displace to a new joint position, the encoders on the slave relay signals to 414 where a new joint space position for the slave is computed and forwarded to the slave joint controller 420 as indicated by arrow BA9. This new joint space position is compared with the joint space position in the memory, and joint space deviations are determined.” (Moll, Column 27 Lines 62 – 67, Column 28 Lines 1 – 2).
Regarding Claim 4:
The method of claim 1, wherein the capturing the first position and the capturing the second position occurs simultaneously.
Moll discloses “As should be understood by those of skill in the art, the flexible master/slave pairing controller of FIG. 11A is still a simplification, and an appropriate controller will include a number of additional systems. For example, it is highly beneficial to include fault-checking software to ensure that all encoders or other joint sensors are read during each servocycle, and that the drive systems of each driven joint of the master and slave are written to during each servocycle.” (Moll, Column 25 Lines 66 to 67, Column 26 Lines 1 – 6).
Moll additionally discloses “It will be appreciated that the orientation at the position x.sub.d corresponds to the orientation of the slave since the slave continuously tracks the master and the positions were recorded in memory at the same time.” (Moll, Column 28 Lines 40 – 43).
As disclosed by Moll, position “x.sub.d” corresponds to a specific position, at which positional data, determined through the consolidation of sensor data, is recorded into memory simultaneously.
Regarding Claim 7:
The method of claim 1, wherein the generating the control signal includes,
generating, based on the position spacing, a torque specification for the drive unit for direction-dependent friction compensation.
Moll discloses “It should be understood that additional controllers or controller modules may be active, for example, to provide friction compensation, gravity compensation, active driving of redundant joint linkage systems so as to avoid singularities, and the like.” (Moll, Column 23 Lines 39 – 43).
Regarding Claim 8:
The method of claim 1, wherein the method is carried out repeatedly with a time interval.
Moll discloses “As should be understood by those of skill in the art, the flexible master/slave pairing controller of FIG. 11A is still a simplification, and an appropriate controller will include a number of additional systems. For example, it is highly beneficial to include fault-checking software to ensure that all encoders or other joint sensors are read during each servocycle, and that the drive systems of each driven joint of the master and slave are written to during each servocycle.” (Moll, Column 25 Lines 66 to 67, Column 26 Lines 1 – 6).
Moll additionally discloses “Similarly, while the exemplary servocycle time for an individual control pair is preferably about 1,000 micro sec or less, and ideally about 750 micro sec or less, the use of higher speed processing equipment may provide servocycle times which are significantly faster. (Moll, Column 26 Lines 51 – 56).
Regarding Claim 10:
A system for controlling a motion of a component of a medical installation, the system comprising:
a first position sensor on the component, the first position sensor configured to capture a first position parameter;
Moll discloses “Appropriately positioned positional sensors, e.g., encoders, or potentiometers, or the like, are coupled to each joint of gimbals 210B, so as to enable joint positions of the master control to be determined as also described in greater detail herein below.” (Moll, Column 12 Lines 45 – 49).
a second position sensor on the component, the second position sensor configured to capture a second position parameter; and
Moll discloses “Gimbals 210B (shown most clearly in FIG. 3B) have a plurality of members or links 212 connected together by joints 214, typically by rotational joints.” (Moll, Column 12 Lines 32 – 35).
a control unit configured to,
determine a position spacing for the first position sensor and the second position sensor based on the first position parameter and the second position parameter, and
Moll discloses “Position comparison and force calculation may, in general, be performed using a forward kinematics algorithm which may include a Jacobian matrix” (Moll, Column 21 Lines 7 – 9).
generate a control signal for a drive unit of the component based on the determined position spacing, wherein the component is moveable and elastic, and an elastic deformation of the component is caused by an operating force introduced manually by a user.
Moll discloses “A control system couples the input devices with the manipulator arms. The control system selectably associates each input device with a manipulator arm.” (Moll, Column 4 Lines 22 – 25).
Moll additionally discloses “The control system 400 makes provision for force feedback. Thus, should the slave, typically the end effector, be subjected to an environmental force .function..sub.e at the surgical site, e.g., in the case where the end effector pushes against tissue, or the like, such a force is fed back to the master control. Accordingly, when the slave is tracking movement of the master as described above and the slave pushes against an object at the surgical site resulting in an equal pushing force against the slave, which urges the slave to move to another position, similar steps as described above take place. The surgical environment is indicated at 418 in FIG. 11. In the case where an environmental force .function..sub.e is applied on the slave, such a force .function..sub.e, causes displacement of the end effector. This displacement is sensed by the encoders on the slave 416 which generate signals e.sub.s.” (Moll, Column 22 Lines 33 – 47).
The applicant specifies that an “elastic element” is a “reversibly deformable” element. Although Moll does not disclose an “elastic element” that is “reversibly deformable”, Nakayama teaches a method of using a first and second detection element to detect (among other options) “…strain gauge such as a semiconductor strain gauge or metal foil strain gauge, a laser displacement meter or electrostatic capacity type-displacement meter…” [0027]). Nakayama describes the definition of the strain gauge here: “the “detection value” described in this specification is defined as e.g. an electrical signal output from a detection element, an amount of strain or amount of displacement which can be obtained from the electrical signal, or any other information given from the detection element.” (Nakayama, [0025]). The strain gauge taught by Nakayama is an “elastic element” that is “reversibly deformable”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the system of Moll with the strain gauge taught by Nakayama because it is just another method of determining an intended target position and orientation from a user or operator. Moll discloses using encoders to detect an intended position and orientation. The applicant specifies that the disclosed component is an elastic element, and sensors measure the deformation in the component. Nakayama discloses using (among other given options) strain gauges (sensors that measure “amount of strain or amount of displacement” (Nakayama, [0025])), and displacement meters.
Regarding Claim 11:
The system of claim 10, wherein the first position sensor and the second position sensor are on the component such that the first position sensor and the second position sensor have a maximum spacing at rest to one another along a spatial axis.
Moll discloses “For example, while this arrangement and these resulting degrees of freedom of movement are preferred, a wrist having fewer degrees of freedom of movement, such as a single distal articulating joint, or a wrist having other singularities, may also be used, as desired.” (Moll, Column 15 Lines 58 – 63).
Regarding Claim 12:
The system of claim 10, comprising:
pairs of the first position sensor and the second position sensor for each spatial axis, wherein the control unit is configured to generate a position spacing for the position sensor pairs of each spatial axis and a respective control signal for the drive unit of each spatial axis based on the respective position spacing.
Moll discloses “Position comparison and force calculation may, in general, be performed using a forward kinematics algorithm which may include a Jacobian matrix” (Moll, Column 21 Lines 7 – 9).
Moll additionally discloses “A control system couples the input devices with the manipulator arms. The control system selectably associates each input device with a manipulator arm.” (Moll, Column 4 Lines 22 – 25).
Regarding Claim 13:
The system of claim 10, wherein the first position sensor is a rotary encoder of the drive unit.
Moll discloses “Appropriately positioned positional sensors, e.g., encoders, or potentiometers, or the like, are coupled to each joint of gimbals 210B, so as to enable joint positions of the master control to be determined as also described in greater detail herein below.” (Moll, Column 12 Lines 45 – 49).
Regarding Claim 14:
A medical installation comprising:
the system of claim 10;
See rejection of Claim 10 above.
the component, the component being movable; and
Moll discloses “One of the input devices is operatively associated with one of the robotic arm assemblies to cause movement of the robotic arm assembly in response to inputs on the input device.” (Moll, Column 4 Lines 37 – 40).
the drive unit.
Moll discloses “A control system couples the input devices with the robotic arm assemblies.” (Moll, Column 4 Lines 43 – 45).
Regarding Claim 15:
The medical installation of claim 14, wherein the component is a stand to support an imaging unit or a patient table.
Moll discloses “It should be noted that the manipulator arm assemblies need not be supported by a single cart. Some or all of the manipulators may be mounted to a wall or ceiling of an operating room, separate carts, or the like.” (Moll, Column 13 Lines 45 – 49).
Regarding Claim 16:
The method of claim 2, wherein the capturing the first position and the capturing the second position occurs simultaneously.
Moll discloses “As should be understood by those of skill in the art, the flexible master/slave pairing controller of FIG. 11A is still a simplification, and an appropriate controller will include a number of additional systems. For example, it is highly beneficial to include fault-checking software to ensure that all encoders or other joint sensors are read during each servocycle, and that the drive systems of each driven joint of the master and slave are written to during each servocycle.” (Moll, Column 25 Lines 66 to 67, Column 26 Lines 1 – 6).
Moll additionally discloses “It will be appreciated that the orientation at the position x.sub.d corresponds to the orientation of the slave since the slave continuously tracks the master and the positions were recorded in memory at the same time.” (Moll, Column 28 Lines 40 – 43).
As disclosed by Moll, position “x.sub.d” corresponds to a specific position, at which positional data, determined through the consolidation of sensor data, is recorded into memory simultaneously.
Regarding Claim 17:
The method of claim 3, wherein the capturing the first position and the capturing the second position occurs simultaneously.
Moll discloses “As should be understood by those of skill in the art, the flexible master/slave pairing controller of FIG. 11A is still a simplification, and an appropriate controller will include a number of additional systems. For example, it is highly beneficial to include fault-checking software to ensure that all encoders or other joint sensors are read during each servocycle, and that the drive systems of each driven joint of the master and slave are written to during each servocycle.” (Moll, Column 25 Lines 66 to 67, Column 26 Lines 1 – 6).
Moll additionally discloses “It will be appreciated that the orientation at the position x.sub.d corresponds to the orientation of the slave since the slave continuously tracks the master and the positions were recorded in memory at the same time.” (Moll, Column 28 Lines 40 – 43).
As disclosed by Moll, position “x.sub.d” corresponds to a specific position, at which positional data, determined through the consolidation of sensor data, is recorded into memory simultaneously.
Regarding Claim 19:
The system of claim 11, comprising:
pairs of the first position sensor and the second position sensor for each spatial axis, wherein the control unit is configured to generate a position spacing for the position sensor pairs of each spatial axis and a respective control signal for the drive unit of each spatial axis based on the respective position spacing.
Moll discloses “Position comparison and force calculation may, in general, be performed using a forward kinematics algorithm which may include a Jacobian matrix” (Moll, Column 21 Lines 7 – 9).
Moll additionally discloses “A control system couples the input devices with the manipulator arms. The control system selectably associates each input device with a manipulator arm.” (Moll, Column 4 Lines 22 – 25).
Regarding Claim 20:
The system of claim 19, wherein the first position sensor is a rotary encoder of the drive unit.
Moll discloses “Appropriately positioned positional sensors, e.g., encoders, or potentiometers, or the like, are coupled to each joint of gimbals 210B, so as to enable joint positions of the master control to be determined as also described in greater detail herein below.” (Moll, Column 12 Lines 45 – 49).
Claims 5, 6, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moll, Frederic H., et. al. (US 6659939 B2), hereinafter referred to as Moll, in view of Nakayama, et. al. (US 20160114484 A1), hereinafter referred to as Nakayama, further in view of Nebosis, Rainer, et. al. (US 20190125292 A1), hereinafter referred to as Nebosis.
Regarding Claim 5:
The method of claim 2, further comprising:
capturing, via an acceleration sensor, an acceleration parameter of the drive unit simultaneously during the capturing the first position parameter and the capturing the second position parameter;
Nebosis discloses “Preferably, the processing unit 30 is configured to determine an orientation of the first sensor unit 10 and/or the second sensor unit 11 and/or an orientation of the radiation generation unit 2 and the detection unit 6 relative to each other based on the first, second and third information. The determined orientation is particularly precise and reliable, because it is based on information captured by three different sensor types. If an inclination measurement by one of the three sensor types is adversely affected, e.g. in case that the acceleration sensor 41 is accelerated by movement or an interfering magnetic field is close to the magnetic field sensor 43, still two of the three sensor types provide correct information or provide necessary information to compensate for effects adversely influencing the inclination measurement of the one sensor.” (Nebosis, [0085]).
Moll additionally discloses “It will be appreciated that the orientation at the position x.sub.d corresponds to the orientation of the slave since the slave continuously tracks the master and the positions were recorded in memory at the same time.” (Moll, Column 28 Lines 40 – 43).
As disclosed by Moll, position “x.sub.d” corresponds to a specific position, at which positional data, determined through the consolidation of sensor data, is recorded into memory simultaneously.
determining a motorized input of force of the drive unit based on the acceleration parameter; and
Nebosis discloses “The acceleration sensor can measure the absolute tilt of the respective component, i.e. the radiation generation unit or detection unit, with respect to the gravity vector, if the component does not move. If the component moves, additional acceleration forces may influence the result.” (Nebosis, [0017]).
correcting the adjusting force based on the motorized input of force.
Nebosis discloses “the positioning support unit provides a motorized support, in particular by actuators, and/or hydraulic support of manually induced movement of the radiation generation unit and/or the detection unit by the user.” (Nebosis, [0043]).
Moll discloses the system of Claim 2, but fails to disclose an “acceleration sensor”, “determining a motorized input of force”, nor “correcting the adjusting force”.
Nebosis discloses using an acceleration sensor to determine how a motorized support system should be controlled by a processing unit in order to move a unit, based on movement by a user.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the system taught by Nebosis with the system taught by Moll because utilizing an acceleration sensor (or any other inertial based sensors) to capture additional positional data is common in the art. Moll utilizes a variety of sensors to determine how to move a robotic system, and using an accelerometer would be a well-known method for improving the consistency and accuracy of a system like the one disclosed by Moll.
Regarding Claim 6:
The method of claim 5, wherein the correcting corrects the adjusting force by subtracting of the motorized input of force.
Moll discloses the system of Claims 1 and 2, but fails to disclose “correcting… the adjusting force by subtracting”.
Nebosis discloses “The processing unit 30 is further configured to receive movement instructions regarding a desired change in orientation and/or position of the radiation generation unit 2 and the detection unit 6, in particular relative to each other.” (Nebosis, 0097).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the system taught by Nebosis with the system taught by Moll because subtracting the motorized input of force would be one way to calculate the required force for moving a robotic motor. Nebosis discloses “movement instructions regarding a desired change” based on relational positional data.
Regarding Claim 18:
The method of claim 17, further comprising:
capturing, via an acceleration sensor, an acceleration parameter of the drive unit simultaneously during the capturing the first position parameter and the capturing the second position parameter;
Nebosis discloses “Preferably, the processing unit 30 is configured to determine an orientation of the first sensor unit 10 and/or the second sensor unit 11 and/or an orientation of the radiation generation unit 2 and the detection unit 6 relative to each other based on the first, second and third information. The determined orientation is particularly precise and reliable, because it is based on information captured by three different sensor types. If an inclination measurement by one of the three sensor types is adversely affected, e.g. in case that the acceleration sensor 41 is accelerated by movement or an interfering magnetic field is close to the magnetic field sensor 43, still two of the three sensor types provide correct information or provide necessary information to compensate for effects adversely influencing the inclination measurement of the one sensor.” (Nebosis, [0085]).
Moll additionally discloses “It will be appreciated that the orientation at the position x.sub.d corresponds to the orientation of the slave since the slave continuously tracks the master and the positions were recorded in memory at the same time.” (Moll, Column 28 Lines 40 – 43).
As disclosed by Moll, position “x.sub.d” corresponds to a specific position, at which positional data, determined through the consolidation of sensor data, is recorded into memory simultaneously.
determining a motorized input of force of the drive unit based on the acceleration parameter; and
Nebosis discloses “The acceleration sensor can measure the absolute tilt of the respective component, i.e. the radiation generation unit or detection unit, with respect to the gravity vector, if the component does not move. If the component moves, additional acceleration forces may influence the result.” (Nebosis, [0017]).
correcting the adjusting force based on the motorized input of force.
Nebosis discloses “the positioning support unit provides a motorized support, in particular by actuators, and/or hydraulic support of manually induced movement of the radiation generation unit and/or the detection unit by the user.” (Nebosis, [0043]).
Moll discloses the system of Claim 17, but fails to disclose an “acceleration sensor”, “determining a motorized input of force”, nor “correcting the adjusting force”.
Nebosis discloses using an acceleration sensor to determine how a motorized support system should be controlled by a processing unit in order to move a unit, based on movement by a user.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the system taught by Nebosis with the system taught by Moll because utilizing an acceleration sensor (or any other inertial based sensors) to capture additional positional data is common in the art. Moll utilizes a variety of sensors to determine how to move a robotic system, and using an accelerometer would be a well-known method for improving the consistency and accuracy of a system like the one disclosed by Moll.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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.
Although Moll discloses determining the positional information of an apparatus from the data collected from a suite of sensors, Moll does not disclose subtracting an offset to represent a non-elastic deformability of a component.
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 JAMES B CHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday | 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/J.B.C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656