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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/14/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). A certified copy of this document has been placed in the file wrapper. As such, the effective filing date of the instant application is considered 11/30/2020, coinciding with the filing date of the Japan application to which foreign priority was requested.
Response to Amendment
Claims 10-11, 13-16, and 18-24 have been amended. No claims have been added or cancelled. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and U.S.C. 103 rejections have been updated in view of amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that each time a point is taught in Satou the position and orientation are automatically entered and stored in a corresponding line of the program. Applicant contends that this shows that Satou does not describe ‘a first operation command indicating a direct teaching operation.’ Examiner contends that applicant is overstating the claimed language, and that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘a first operation command indicating a direct teaching operation’, the cited “instruction unit 22 which instructs to re-teach the teaching point when the position error L is within a predetermined range” fully teaches the claimed limitations, as it processes and displays an operational command indicating a direct teaching operation.
Applicant further argues that the re-teaching position threshold process of Satou does not disclose ‘the at least one processor is configured to: after obtaining an input of the first operation command, generate and add the at least one second operation command in or alongside the first operation command, based on information of a position and an orientation of a robot obtained during a period in which the direct teaching operation by an operator is claimed.’ Examiner respectfully disagrees, and contends that Applicant is overstating the claimed language. The re-teaching of points being prompted in a continual adjustment process means that the generation of additional prompts would meet the claimed language of “at least one second operation command”. The decision to keep the previous command on the screen and display the second operation command in or alongside it is a mere design choice.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Satou et al. (US20190160662A1, referred to as Satou).
Regarding claim 10: Satou discloses: A controller comprising: at least one memory configured to store an operation program; a display configured to display the operation program; and at least one processor, ([0027] The controller 20 is a digital computer including a CPU and memory connected to each other via busses, and includes a screen 29 as a display unit. The screen 29 can be used appropriately in place of the screen 39 of the teach pendant 30.) wherein the operation program includes a first operation command indicating a direct teaching operation and at least one second operation command, the at least one processor is configured to: ([0028] The controller 20 includes an error calculation unit 21 which calculates, after the robot 10 has been moved by hand-guiding or jog-feeding to the teaching point which has already been taught in the single line selected by the selection unit 16, a position error L (distance) between the teaching point and the position of the robot after movement and an instruction unit 22 which instructs to re-teach the teaching point when the position error L is within a predetermined range. Further, the controller 20 may include an error display unit 23 which displays the position error L.) after obtaining an input of the first operation command, ([0037] in step S14, the error calculation unit 21 calculates the position error L between the taught teaching point and the current position of the tool T of robot 10. In FIG. 3C, which is similar to FIG. 3A, the position error L between the teaching point A4 and the current position CO of the robot 10 is shown.) generate and add the at least one second operation command in or alongside the first operation command, ([0038] When the position error L is within the predetermined range, it can be determined that the tool T of the robot 10 is spaced from the teaching point by more than the minimum value. The minimum value is on the order of, for example, a few millimeters to 10 millimeters. In this case, proceeding to step S16, the instruction unit 22 displays, on the screen 39 or the screen 29, a message instructing the human 11 to re-teach the teaching point used to calculate the position error L, in this case, the teaching point A4.) based on information of a position and an orientation of a robot obtained during a period in which the direct teaching operation by an operator is obtained, and ([0037] in step S14, the error calculation unit 21 calculates the position error L between the taught teaching point and the current position of the tool T of robot 10. In FIG. 3C, which is similar to FIG. 3A, the position error L between the teaching point A4 and the current position CO of the robot 10 is shown. Note that the current position CO of the robot 10 can be obtained from a position sensor (not shown) or can be obtained from the rotation angle of the motor of each axis of the robot 10.) cause the display to display at least one of the first operation command or the at least one second operation command in line in order of execution of the operation program. ([0038] In this case, proceeding to step S16, the instruction unit 22 displays, on the screen 39 or the screen 29, a message instructing the human 11 to re-teach the teaching point used to calculate the position error L, in this case, the teaching point A4. Alternatively, the instruction unit 22 may output a sound instructing the human 11 to re-teach the teaching point. [0040] Then, in step S17, it is determined whether or not it is necessary to select another line of the operation program. In the example shown in FIG. 3C, a plurality of teaching points A3 to A5 corresponding to respective vertexes of the workpiece W are included in the region B. In other words, in step S17, it is determined whether or not there is another teaching point at which the tool T actually contacts, etc., the workpiece W or the workpiece W′. Specifically, this is determined by determining whether or not an instruction for the tool T to perform an operation at each of a plurality of taught teaching points is described in the operation program. [0041] If such a line or teaching point exists, the process returns to step S12. Thereafter, a line of operation program including another teaching point, e.g., teaching point A5, is selected and the same process is repeated. If such a line or teaching point does not exist, the process ends.)
Regarding claim 11: Satou discloses: The controller of claim 10,
Satou further discloses: wherein the first operation command is configured by one command statement or one command diagram, and the at least one second operation command is configured by at least one command statement or at least one command diagram. ([0038] In this case, proceeding to step S16, the instruction unit 22 displays, on the screen 39 or the screen 29, a message instructing the human 11 to re-teach the teaching point used to calculate the position error L, in this case, the teaching point A4. Alternatively, the instruction unit 22 may output a sound instructing the human 11 to re-teach the teaching point. [0039] Due to the foregoing, human 11 can easily determine whether or not it is necessary to correct the already set teaching point. Thus, human 11 can re-teach the teaching point used to calculate the position error L, in this case, the teaching point A4. At this time, the teaching point A4, which has already been taught, may be temporarily deleted. Note that if the position error L is greater than the maximum value of the predetermined range, the instruction unit 22 does not issue an instruction to re-teach, because a position unrelated to the teaching point A4, which has already been taught, may be re-taught. [0040] Then, in step S17, it is determined whether or not it is necessary to select another line of the operation program. In the example shown in FIG. 3C, a plurality of teaching points A3 to A5 corresponding to respective vertexes of the workpiece W are included in the region B. In other words, in step S17, it is determined whether or not there is another teaching point at which the tool T actually contacts, etc., the workpiece W or the workpiece W′. Specifically, this is determined by determining whether or not an instruction for the tool T to perform an operation at each of a plurality of taught teaching points is described in the operation program. [0041] If such a line or teaching point exists, the process returns to step S12. Thereafter, a line of operation program including another teaching point, e.g., teaching point A5, is selected and the same process is repeated. If such a line or teaching point does not exist, the process ends.)
Regarding claim 12: Satou discloses: The controller of claim 10,
Satou further discloses: wherein the first operation command includes the at least one second operation program. ([0032] During teaching, the plurality of lines of the operation program of the robot 10 are displayed on the screen 39 of the teach pendant 30. Each time a single teaching point is taught, the teaching position and teaching orientation are automatically entered and stored numerically in the corresponding line of the operation program. Note that, for the purpose of facilitating understanding, illustration of human 11 has been omitted from FIG. 3A and the like. [0033] After the single teaching point or all of the teaching points of the robot 10 have been taught, in step S12, the human 11 (operator) uses the selection buttons 17, 18 to scroll the operation program in a desired direction on the screen 39. Further, the human 11 selects a desired line of the operation program by releasing the depression of the selection buttons 17, 18 or by depressing the determination button 19. This operation is advantageous when human 11 notices that there has been a teaching mistake during the teaching operation.)
Regarding claim 13: Satou discloses: The controller of claim 10,
Satou further discloses: wherein the at least one processor is configured to: set a teaching point based on the information of the position and the orientation acquired for each predefined interval; and generate the at least one second operation command based on the teaching point. ([0038] In this case, proceeding to step S16, the instruction unit 22 displays, on the screen 39 or the screen 29, a message instructing the human 11 to re-teach the teaching point used to calculate the position error L, in this case, the teaching point A4. Alternatively, the instruction unit 22 may output a sound instructing the human 11 to re-teach the teaching point. [0039] Due to the foregoing, human 11 can easily determine whether or not it is necessary to correct the already set teaching point. Thus, human 11 can re-teach the teaching point used to calculate the position error L, in this case, the teaching point A4. At this time, the teaching point A4, which has already been taught, may be temporarily deleted. Note that if the position error L is greater than the maximum value of the predetermined range, the instruction unit 22 does not issue an instruction to re-teach, because a position unrelated to the teaching point A4, which has already been taught, may be re-taught. [0040] Then, in step S17, it is determined whether or not it is necessary to select another line of the operation program. In the example shown in FIG. 3C, a plurality of teaching points A3 to A5 corresponding to respective vertexes of the workpiece W are included in the region B. In other words, in step S17, it is determined whether or not there is another teaching point at which the tool T actually contacts, etc., the workpiece W or the workpiece W′. Specifically, this is determined by determining whether or not an instruction for the tool T to perform an operation at each of a plurality of taught teaching points is described in the operation program. [0041] If such a line or teaching point exists, the process returns to step S12. Thereafter, a line of operation program including another teaching point, e.g., teaching point A5, is selected and the same process is repeated. If such a line or teaching point does not exist, the process ends.)
Regarding claim 14: Satou discloses: The controller of claim 10,
Satou further discloses: wherein the at least one processor is configured to display the first operation command and the at least one second operation command on the display in line. ([0032] During teaching, the plurality of lines of the operation program of the robot 10 are displayed on the screen 39 of the teach pendant 30. Each time a single teaching point is taught, the teaching position and teaching orientation are automatically entered and stored numerically in the corresponding line of the operation program. Note that, for the purpose of facilitating understanding, illustration of human 11 has been omitted from FIG. 3A and the like. [0033] After the single teaching point or all of the teaching points of the robot 10 have been taught, in step S12, the human 11 (operator) uses the selection buttons 17, 18 to scroll the operation program in a desired direction on the screen 39. Further, the human 11 selects a desired line of the operation program by releasing the depression of the selection buttons 17, 18 or by depressing the determination button 19. This operation is advantageous when human 11 notices that there has been a teaching mistake during the teaching operation.)
Regarding claim 15: Satou discloses: The controller of claim 10,
Satou further discloses: wherein the at least one processor is configured to expand, after receiving information of an operation input to the display or an input part by the operator, the first operation command based on the received information of the operation input, and display the at least one second operation command included in the first operation command. ([0032] During teaching, the plurality of lines of the operation program of the robot 10 are displayed on the screen 39 of the teach pendant 30. Each time a single teaching point is taught, the teaching position and teaching orientation are automatically entered and stored numerically in the corresponding line of the operation program. [0038] When the position error L is within the predetermined range, it can be determined that the tool T of the robot 10 is spaced from the teaching point by more than the minimum value. The minimum value is on the order of, for example, a few millimeters to 10 millimeters. In this case, proceeding to step S16, the instruction unit 22 displays, on the screen 39 or the screen 29, a message instructing the human 11 to re-teach the teaching point used to calculate the position error L, in this case, the teaching point A4.)
Regarding claim 16: Satou discloses: The controller of claim 10,
Satou further discloses: wherein the at least one processor is configured to generate the at least one second operation command based on an operation condition of the robot and/or a trajectory of the robot in response to the direct teaching operation by the operator. ([0038] When the position error L is within the predetermined range, it can be determined that the tool T of the robot 10 is spaced from the teaching point by more than the minimum value. The minimum value is on the order of, for example, a few millimeters to 10 millimeters. In this case, proceeding to step S16, the instruction unit 22 displays, on the screen 39 or the screen 29, a message instructing the human 11 to re-teach the teaching point used to calculate the position error L, in this case, the teaching point A4. [0033] After the single teaching point or all of the teaching points of the robot 10 have been taught, in step S12, the human 11 (operator) uses the selection buttons 17, 18 to scroll the operation program in a desired direction on the screen 39. Further, the human 11 selects a desired line of the operation program by releasing the depression of the selection buttons 17, 18 or by depressing the determination button 19. This operation is advantageous when human 11 notices that there has been a teaching mistake during the teaching operation.)
Regarding claim 17: Satou discloses: The controller of claim 10,
Satou further discloses: wherein the operation program includes another operation command different from the first operation command and the at least one second operation command. ([0040] Then, in step S17, it is determined whether or not it is necessary to select another line of the operation program. In the example shown in FIG. 3C, a plurality of teaching points A3 to A5 corresponding to respective vertexes of the workpiece W are included in the region B. In other words, in step S17, it is determined whether or not there is another teaching point at which the tool T actually contacts, etc., the workpiece W or the workpiece W′. Specifically, this is determined by determining whether or not an instruction for the tool T to perform an operation at each of a plurality of taught teaching points is described in the operation program. [0041] If such a line or teaching point exists, the process returns to step S12. Thereafter, a line of operation program including another teaching point, e.g., teaching point A5, is selected and the same process is repeated. If such a line or teaching point does not exist, the process ends.)
Regarding claim 18: Satou discloses: The controller of claim 10,
Satou further discloses: wherein the at least one processor is configured to modify, after receiving information of an operation input to the display or an input part by the operator, the first operation command or the generated at least one second operation command based on the received information. ([0040] Then, in step S17, it is determined whether or not it is necessary to select another line of the operation program. In the example shown in FIG. 3C, a plurality of teaching points A3 to A5 corresponding to respective vertexes of the workpiece W are included in the region B. In other words, in step S17, it is determined whether or not there is another teaching point at which the tool T actually contacts, etc., the workpiece W or the workpiece W′. Specifically, this is determined by determining whether or not an instruction for the tool T to perform an operation at each of a plurality of taught teaching points is described in the operation program. [0041] If such a line or teaching point exists, the process returns to step S12. Thereafter, a line of operation program including another teaching point, e.g., teaching point A5, is selected and the same process is repeated. If such a line or teaching point does not exist, the process ends.)
Regarding claim 19: Satou discloses: The controller of claim 10,
Satou further discloses: wherein each operation command of the first operation command and the at least one second operation command is displayed as an icon on the display. ([0032] During teaching, the plurality of lines of the operation program of the robot 10 are displayed on the screen 39 of the teach pendant 30. Each time a single teaching point is taught, the teaching position and teaching orientation are automatically entered and stored numerically in the corresponding line of the operation program. [0038] When the position error L is within the predetermined range, it can be determined that the tool T of the robot 10 is spaced from the teaching point by more than the minimum value. The minimum value is on the order of, for example, a few millimeters to 10 millimeters. In this case, proceeding to step S16, the instruction unit 22 displays, on the screen 39 or the screen 29, a message instructing the human 11 to re-teach the teaching point used to calculate the position error L, in this case, the teaching point A4.)
Regarding claim 20: Satou discloses: The controller of claim 10,
Satou further discloses: wherein the at least one memory is configured to store information of an image of the robot, and the at least one processor is configured to: display the image of the robot on the display; generate a trajectory based on the information of the position and the orientation acquired for each predefined interval; and superimpose the trajectory on the image of the robot and display the trajectory on the display. ([0038] When the position error L is within the predetermined range, it can be determined that the tool T of the robot 10 is spaced from the teaching point by more than the minimum value. The minimum value is on the order of, for example, a few millimeters to 10 millimeters. In this case, proceeding to step S16, the instruction unit 22 displays, on the screen 39 or the screen 29, a message instructing the human 11 to re-teach the teaching point used to calculate the position error L, in this case, the teaching point A4. [0033] After the single teaching point or all of the teaching points of the robot 10 have been taught, in step S12, the human 11 (operator) uses the selection buttons 17, 18 to scroll the operation program in a desired direction on the screen 39. Further, the human 11 selects a desired line of the operation program by releasing the depression of the selection buttons 17, 18 or by depressing the determination button 19. This operation is advantageous when human 11 notices that there has been a teaching mistake during the teaching operation. [0032] During teaching, the plurality of lines of the operation program of the robot 10 are displayed on the screen 39 of the teach pendant 30. Each time a single teaching point is taught, the teaching position and teaching orientation are automatically entered and stored numerically in the corresponding line of the operation program. Note that, for the purpose of facilitating understanding, illustration of human 11 has been omitted from FIG. 3A and the like. [0033] After the single teaching point or all of the teaching points of the robot 10 have been taught, in step S12, the human 11 (operator) uses the selection buttons 17, 18 to scroll the operation program in a desired direction on the screen 39. Further, the human 11 selects a desired line of the operation program by releasing the depression of the selection buttons 17, 18 or by depressing the determination button 19. This operation is advantageous when human 11 notices that there has been a teaching mistake during the teaching operation.)
Regarding claim 21: Satou discloses: The controller of claim 10,
Satou further discloses: wherein the trajectory is configured based on the at least one second operation command. ([0003] The operator moves the robot to the desired position by such a hand-guiding function, and teaches the position to the robot. Thereafter, such operation is repeated to teach the robot trajectory. [0032] During teaching, the plurality of lines of the operation program of the robot 10 are displayed on the screen 39 of the teach pendant 30. Each time a single teaching point is taught, the teaching position and teaching orientation are automatically entered and stored numerically in the corresponding line of the operation program. Note that, for the purpose of facilitating understanding, illustration of human 11 has been omitted from FIG. 3A and the like. [0033] After the single teaching point or all of the teaching points of the robot 10 have been taught, in step S12, the human 11 (operator) uses the selection buttons 17, 18 to scroll the operation program in a desired direction on the screen 39. Further, the human 11 selects a desired line of the operation program by releasing the depression of the selection buttons 17, 18 or by depressing the determination button 19. This operation is advantageous when human 11 notices that there has been a teaching mistake during the teaching operation.)
Regarding claim 22: Satou discloses: The controller of claim 20,
Satou further discloses: wherein the at least one processor is configured to display, after receiving a designation of the at least one second operation command by an operation input of the operator, positional information corresponding to the designated at least one second operation command on the trajectory. ([0032] During teaching, the plurality of lines of the operation program of the robot 10 are displayed on the screen 39 of the teach pendant 30. Each time a single teaching point is taught, the teaching position and teaching orientation are automatically entered and stored numerically in the corresponding line of the operation program. Note that, for the purpose of facilitating understanding, illustration of human 11 has been omitted from FIG. 3A and the like. [0033] After the single teaching point or all of the teaching points of the robot 10 have been taught, in step S12, the human 11 (operator) uses the selection buttons 17, 18 to scroll the operation program in a desired direction on the screen 39. Further, the human 11 selects a desired line of the operation program by releasing the depression of the selection buttons 17, 18 or by depressing the determination button 19. This operation is advantageous when human 11 notices that there has been a teaching mistake during the teaching operation.)
Regarding claim 23: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou et al. (US20190160662A1, referred to as Satou), in view of Ishikawa et al. (US11141855, referred to as Ishikawa).
Regarding claim 24: Rejected using the same rationale as claims 10 and 23, however, additionally directed to a “non-transitory medium storing a computer program of a controller for causing at least one processor to execute the computer program”, which is not explicitly disclosed by Satou: non-transitory medium storing a computer program of a controller for causing at least one processor to execute the computer program
Satou does not disclose the following limitations, however Ishikawa, in an analogous field of endeavor teaches: non-transitory medium storing a computer program of a controller for causing at least one processor to execute the computer program ([col. 15, lines 46-51] Embodiment(s) of the present invention can also be realized by a computer of a system or apparatus that reads out and executes computer executable instructions ( e.g., one or more programs) recorded on a storage medium (which may also be referred to more fully as a ‘non-transitory computer-readable storage medium’)
Satou and Ishikawa are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of robotic arm teaching pendant devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the point teaching system of Satou to enable the non-transitory storage medium.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the point teaching method disclosed in Satou with the non-transitory storage medium taught in Ishikawa.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATTICUS A CAMERON whose telephone number is 703-756-4535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 4:30 pm. 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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/ATTICUS A CAMERON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3658A /JASON HOLLOWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658