DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-7 and 12-17 have been examined in this application. Claims 1 and 12 are amended. Claims 2-7, 14, and 15 are as previously presented. Claims 13, 16, and 17 are original. Claims 8-11, 18, and 19 are cancelled.
This is a non-final rejection in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 2/3/2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application KR10-2022-0153713 filed in the Republic of Korea on 11/16/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 2/3/2026, have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 112 (presented on p. 9 under the heading “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112”), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 101 (presented on p. 10-14 under the heading “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101”), the arguments and amendments are not persuasive. The arguments (p. 11) recite various additional elements in the claims and state that the claims only indirectly relate to the alleged abstract idea of a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion. However, the office respectfully disagrees. For example, the independent claims recite limitations of determining a quantity of vehicles, determining accident severity, and decision-making regarding a second vehicle and notification type. These limitations are significant recitations of functions able to be performed by a person, by thinking about or manually considering information about vehicles and traffic. The arguments (p. 11-12) state that the claim limitations cannot be practically performed in the human mind. However, no reasoned arguments have been provided regarding the examples of how the functions could be performed in the human mind which were provided in the previous office action. The arguments emphasize the functions performed in real time while a trailing vehicle trails behind one or more vehicles. However, the office submits that a person can evaluate received data in real time (i.e. as soon as it is received) and can think about two vehicles, for example a first vehicle in an accident and an approaching vehicle that is observed on a highway.
The arguments (p. 12-14) further state that any abstract idea would be integrated into a practical application, particularly citing Example 40 in the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility training, which cites a limitation of collecting of additional traffic data. However, it is noted that the claim of Example 40 is in the field of evaluation of computer network traffic, and not vehicles. The arguments (p. 13) state that the claims of the instant invention are similar and recite a manner of improved real-time traffic accident monitoring. However, the invention of Example 40 is to improve network performance by collecting the additional data only when necessary, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance. In contrast, the claims of the present invention and the final limitation of collecting additional data are not stated to improve server or network performance. As such the arguments are not persuasive as the context of collecting additional information is not the same in the two cases. The collecting of additional accident information is not stated to be for any particular purpose and as such the office maintains that it is insignificant extra-solution activity. The arguments (p. 13) further state that the human mind is not equipped for selective automatic transmission of data. However, the transmitting of data was not considered to be part of the abstract idea of a mental process. Instead, the limitation was considered and evaluated as an additional element and found to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more (see the rejection below for complete detail). The arguments (p. 13) further state that the selection of the type of notification addresses real-world problems such as secondary accidents and traffic flow. However, this is only an intended result and not claimed, and is an intended use of the abstract idea of a mental process, as a person can decide which information is to be output. This is only generally applied by generic computer components, as opposed to an improvement in technology such as a better technique of server operation or communication, or control of the second vehicle in order to prevent a secondary accident or improve traffic flow. The arguments (p. 13-14) further state that the claims enable a computer to do something more efficiently and directly than a human, citing McRO v. Bandai Namco, however, this example is not analogous to the present case as it pertains to automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation. Merely claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), when there is no improvement to computer capabilities or improvement in existing technology. The office submits that this is the case for the claims of the instant case, and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 103 (presented on p. 14-18 under the heading “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103”), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(101 Analysis - Step 1 - Statutory Category) Regarding Claims 1-7 and 12-17, the claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of subject matter as the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I - Judicial Exception) Regarding Independent Claim 1, the claim recites a server comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
collect, via a network in real time and from an audio video navigation telematics (AVNT) device of each of one or more vehicles in a road section, event data regarding a traffic accident associated with the road section, wherein the event data is generated by a respective event data recorder (EDR) of each of the one or more vehicles;
determine, based on the event data and among the one or more vehicles, a quantity of vehicles that had at least one airbag deployed in connection with the traffic accident;
determine an accident severity value indicating seriousness of the traffic accident, wherein the accident severity value is determined based on the quantity of vehicles that had at least one airbag deployed in connection with the traffic accident; and further based on one or more factors comprising a quantity of vehicles in the road section, a quantity of vehicles that decelerated at a rate above a threshold deceleration rate, and an electronic stability control operation time of the one or more vehicles in the road section;
selectively cause automatic transmission, via the network and based on the accident severity value, of one of a first type of notification or a second type of a notification to a trailing vehicle that trails behind the one or more vehicles, wherein the trailing vehicle comprises a vehicle that follows, within a predetermined distance, at least one vehicle involved in the traffic accident, wherein the first type of notification is transmitted when the accident severity value is less than a predetermined threshold and comprises an accident notification indicating occurrence of the traffic accident and an accident section notification indicating the road section, and wherein the second type of notification is transmitted when the accident severity value is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold and comprises the accident section notification, an image associated with the traffic accident, and a searched detour path around the road section;
and collect, based on a determination that the accident severity value satisfies a threshold value, additional information associated with the traffic accident.
The limitations indicated in BOLD above, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are an abstract idea of a mental process, capable of being performed in a human mind or manually, using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Particularly, a person is capable of mentally or manually perform functions to
receive event data regarding a traffic accident associated with the road section (for example the person receiving printed information of event data such as sensor information and position coordinates on a map or road information, for a time when an accident occurred), wherein the event data is generated by a respective event data recorder (EDR) of each of the one or more vehicles (for example, the data in the table originating from event data records of the vehicles);
determine, based on the event data and among the one or more vehicles, a quantity of vehicles that had at least one airbag deployed in connection with the traffic accident (for example the person evaluating sensor log data to count the vehicles with airbag deployment sensor information);
determine an accident severity value indicating seriousness of the traffic accident, wherein the accident severity value is determined based on the quantity of vehicles that had at least one airbag deployed in connection with the traffic accident; and further based on one or more factors comprising a quantity of vehicles in the road section, a quantity of vehicles that decelerated at a rate above a threshold deceleration rate, and an electronic stability control operation time of the one or more vehicles in the road section (for example, the person determining a severity score by adding the number of vehicles with airbag deployment plus a number of vehicles with the excessive deceleration);
identify a trailing vehicle that comprises a vehicle that follows, within a predetermined distance, at least one vehicle involved in the traffic accident (for example, the person comparing position and heading data to position data of the accident vehicle to judge whether it is a trailing vehicle),
make decisions regarding the first type of notification is transmitted when the accident severity value is less than a predetermined threshold and comprises an accident notification indicating occurrence of the traffic accident and an accident section notification indicating the road section, and wherein the second type of notification is transmitted when the accident severity value is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold and comprises the accident section notification, an image associated with the traffic accident, and a searched detour path around the road section (for example the person comparing the severity score to a threshold and deciding the type of information to be notified based on the comparison);
make a determination that the accident severity value satisfies a threshold value (the person comparing the severity value against another threshold to decide whether more information should be collected or not).
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II - Practical Application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitations indicated with underlining above are additional elements in the claim. That is, the additional elements in the claim are a server comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the functions, and the functions to collect, via a network in real time and from an audio video navigation telematics (AVNT) device of each of one or more vehicles in a road section, selectively cause automatic transmission, via the network and based on the accident severity value, of one of a first type of notification or a second type of a notification to a trailing vehicle that trails behind the one or more vehicles, and collect additional information associated with the traffic accident.
For the recitation of the server, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the functions, these elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, recited at a high level of generality. The claims do not provide an improvement in computer hardware or computing technology. Therefore, the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea using generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, collecting/transmitting functions performed by the one or more processors are the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity for basic tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
For the function to collect, via a network in real time and from an audio video navigation telematics (AVNT) device of each of one or more vehicles in a road section, this is determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity, because it corresponds to mere data gathering which is necessary to perform the abstract idea. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
For the selectively causing of automatic transmission and collecting of additional information, this is determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity, because it corresponds to mere post solution activity of data output. In other words, the decision of what to output and the determination of the second vehicle is part of the abstract idea of a mental process, while the actual transmitting itself is post-solution activity based on this decision. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the ordered combination does not add anything already present when the elements are considered separately and merely recites input and output of data to a server at a high level of generality.
(101 Analysis - Step 2B - Significantly More / Inventive Concept) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As above, the additional elements in the claim are the server comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the functions, and the functions to collect, via a network in real time and from an audio video navigation telematics (AVNT) device of each of one or more vehicles in a road section, selectively cause automatic transmission, via the network and based on the accident severity value, of one of a first type of notification or a second type of a notification to a trailing vehicle that trails behind the one or more vehicles, and collect additional information associated with the traffic accident.
For the recitation of the server, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the functions, for the same reasons as presented above, these elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, at a high level of generality, such that the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the functions using a generic computer components as tools to perform the functions, and the use of a computer for its basic tasks. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, such elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see MPEP 2106.05(d) computer functions which are recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity include: ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) and see also MPEP 2106.05(d), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);).
For the functions to collect, transmit, and collection additional information, which was determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity, this is re-evaluated in step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see MPEP 2106.05(d), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to amount to significantly more as they only recite use of generic computer components for transmitting or receiving data and do not establish an inventive concept as a combination.
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent Claim 12 recites substantially the same abstract idea of a mental process as in Claim 1. Claim 12 recites additional elements of a server with processor/memory, performing receiving from vehicles via a network, and transmitting, which are generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution activity for the same reasons as the collecting and transmitting steps above with respect to Claim 1. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-7 and 13-17 are do not recite further limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 2 and 13 recite spatial evaluation of road information and determination of vehicles. These are further functions of the abstract idea of a mental process, as a person can evaluate such spatial and vehicle data, for example by considering maps or known roads and numbers of vehicles. The claims do not add any additional elements.
Claims 3 and 14 recite searching for vehicles that encounter the accident. This is a further function of the abstract idea of a mental process, as a person can evaluate vehicle data such as route or direction and time before and after some point, and search for ones that will encounter an accident location. The claims do not add any additional elements.
Claims 4, 5, and 15 further detail the determination of severity, which is function detail of the abstract idea of a mental process. The claims do not add any additional elements.
Claim 6 further recites determination of the road section based on location information of vehicles. This is a further function of the abstract idea of a mental process, as a person can evaluate vehicle position and correlate this data to roads using a map or by evaluating patterns. The claim does not add any additional elements.
Claims 7 and 17 further detail the additional information which is a detail of the additional element of collecting, but only specifies the content of the data and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more for the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 16 recites requesting the one or more vehicles and at least one adjacent vehicle for the additional information. This is further detail of the additional element of collecting, but is merely additional generic transmission of data to clients and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more for the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 12-17 are rejected under 101, but would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding Independent Claims 1 and 12, the most similar prior art, Publication CN108986546B (Liu) (English translation relied upon for citations) teaches a server (see [0114]) comprising:
one or more processors (see [0114, 0147] control module implemented as processor); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (see [0147]) to:
collect, via a network and from one or more vehicles in a road section (see Figure 3, S110, [0053] collect accident location of accident vehicle [0063-0064] may be plural vehicles, [0068] and non-accident vehicle information), event data regarding a traffic accident associated with the road section (see [0066-0067] collect accident indicator, which indicates event of an accident having occurred, [0079] accident area associated with a road);
determine, based on the event data and among the one or more vehicles, a quantity of vehicles involved in a traffic accident (see Figure 3, [0057] identifying accident vehicles, [0087] specific number of accident vehicles);
determine an accident severity value indicating seriousness of the traffic accident, wherein the accident severity value is obtained by quantifying a first accident parameter, wherein the first accident parameter is based on the quantity of vehicles involved in the traffic accident (see [0087, 0089], comparison of number of accident vehicles to multiple present thresholds to categorize accident, i.e. severity / seriousness);
transmit, via the network and based on the accident severity value (see [0087-0088] sending corresponding warning information which was based on the number of accident vehicles), a notification to a trailing vehicle that trails behind the one or more vehicles (see [0088] sending warning to approaching vehicle traveling toward the accident area), wherein the trailing vehicle comprises a vehicle that follows, within a predetermined distance, at least one vehicle involved in the traffic accident (see [0078] approaching vehicle is one within second preset distance of accident area, which [0059] is defined by vehicle involved).
Publication US2015/0127570A1 (Doughty et al.) teaches a technique to identify vehicles involved in an accident (see [0080] telematic server determining vehicle has been involved in an accident), which are vehicles:
had at least one airbag deployed in connection with the traffic accident (see [0080] when airbag associated with the vehicle has deployed).
and teaches determination of a quantity of vehicles involved in an accident by:
quantifying a first accident parameter (see [0080] airbag deployment) and a second accident parameter, wherein the second accident parameter is based on one or more factors comprising a quantity of vehicles in the road section, a quantity of vehicles that decelerated at a rate above a threshold deceleration rate (see [0080], vehicles that have deceleration greater than threshold), and an electronic stability control operation time of the vehicles.
Publication US2019/0193659A1 (Miyazawa et al.) teaches a technique in accident evaluation (see Figure 6), configured to:
collect, based on a determination that the accident severity value satisfies a threshold value (see [0090] determines that the corresponding accident is a serious accident, i.e. meeting a threshold to be considered serious), additional information associated with the traffic accident (see [0090], for serious accident, accident information needs to be further collected [0091] by instructing vehicle mounted device to transmit).
Publication CN108961837A (English translation relied upon for citations) teaches a v2x platform which receives accident information from first vehicle and notifies a second vehicle within preset range that will pass through loc of first (see [0009]), wherein the notification includes accident location (see [0015]) and for an accident level less than a preset level, sending of a notification, and for an accident level greater than the preset level, sending of route change information (see [0047-0051]).
Publication US20050200479A1 teaches determination of accident severity of a single vehicle based on a number of airbags deployed (see [0015]).
Published Application US2024/0361132A1 (Kume et al.) teaches a technique to evaluate an accident (see [0136]) wherein: based on the first accident parameter being greater than a second threshold value (see [016] a large-scale accident): transmit (see [0088] route calculations can be done by external server, i.e. transmitted to vehicle) an image associated with the traffic accident (see [0127] notifying of changed driving route by image) search for a detour path around the road section (see [0136] alternate route to deal with all blocked lanes); and transmit, via the network, the searched detour path to the trailing vehicle (see [0088] route calculations can be done by external server, i.e. transmitted to vehicle).
Publication US2004/0204845A1 (Wong) teaches a technique to provide notifications of accidents, based on the scale of the traffic accident being less than a second threshold value (see [0099], yellow or green notifications for traffic incidents with size lower than the large size).
However, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious a system/method to:
determine, based on the event data and among the one or more vehicles, a quantity of vehicles that had at least one airbag deployed in connection with the traffic accident;
determine an accident severity value indicating seriousness of the traffic accident, wherein the accident severity value is determined based on the quantity of vehicles that had at least one airbag deployed in connection with the traffic accident; and further based on one or more factors comprising a quantity of vehicles in the road section, a quantity of vehicles that decelerated at a rate above a threshold deceleration rate, and an electronic stability control operation time of the one or more vehicles in the road section;
selectively cause automatic transmission, via the network and based on the accident severity value, of one of a first type of notification or a second type of a notification to a trailing vehicle that trails behind the one or more vehicles, wherein the trailing vehicle comprises a vehicle that follows, within a predetermined distance, at least one vehicle involved in the traffic accident, wherein the first type of notification is transmitted when the accident severity value is less than a predetermined threshold and comprises an accident notification indicating occurrence of the traffic accident and an accident section notification indicating the road section, and wherein the second type of notification is transmitted when the accident severity value is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold and comprises the accident section notification, an image associated with the traffic accident, and a searched detour path around the road section.
Applicant’s arguments and the amendments addressing the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and 103 are persuasive and the prior rejections are withdrawn. The combination of limitations defining the particular determination of accident severity based on number of vehicles with airbag deployment, and the selective transmission of the first or second notification with their specific contents based on the severity, combined with the particularly claimed parts integrated into the server is not found or made obvious by the prior art. The combination with the other claim limitations, clearly claimed for a patent, are neither anticipated nor made obvious by the prior arts on record. A search of foreign prior art and Non-Patent Literature was conducted; however, no relevant prior art was found.
As such the claimed subject matter of Claims 1 and 12 would be allowable. The subject matter of Claims 2-6 and 13-17 would also therefore be allowable as being dependent on Claims 1 or 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669