DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1, 6, 8, 17-18, and 52-66 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment
The specification was objected to due to minor informalities. Applicant amended the specification accordingly; therefore, the objection is withdrawn.
Claims 8 was objected to due to minor informalities. Applicant amended the claims accordingly; therefore, the objection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 1-4 of the response, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 8-20, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chack, Tamilarasan, and Lefebvre.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 18, and 52-65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chack of US 20170183006 A1, filed 12/22/2016, hereinafter “Chack”, in view of Tamilarasan of US 20220176957 A1, filed 12/09/2020, hereinafter “Tamilarasan”, and further in view of Lefebvre of US 20210387629 A1, published 05/26/2021, hereinafter “Lefebvre”.
Regarding claim 1, Chack teaches:
A method for limiting a speed of a vehicle performed by an Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) system of the vehicle, comprising the steps of: (See at least [0006]: “…the system for limiting a speed of a vehicle can comprise a speed threshold generator that is communicatively coupled with the speed limiter to provide the threshold speed to the speed limiter based at least upon a location of the vehicle. The speed threshold generator can comprise a location generator that may identify the location of the vehicle; and may comprise a speed database that has data indicative of locations with corresponding speed limits.”)
(a) identifying, as the vehicle is traveling and in accordance with speed limit identification logic, legal speed limits for the vehicle from, (i) a geographical database of legal speed limits using a current location of the vehicle; and (See at least [0048]: “…the local processor 516 may use the identified vehicle location to look up a speed limit associated with that location in the database 514. The database 514, stored in local storage memory (e.g., memory unit(s), such as comprising RAM, EEPROM and/or flash portions), can comprise data indicative of locations (e.g., GPS coordinates), respectively linked to speed limits that are set for that locations, such as by local or federal authorities. In this way, for example, the real-time location of the vehicle can be used to identify an actual posted speed limit for that location…”)
(b) applying a speed policy to the identified legal speed limits to derive practical speed limits for the vehicle, the speed policy comprising a plurality of predefined top speeds each corresponding to a different legal speed limit; (See at least [0046]: “Additionally, in this implementation 500, a speed threshold generator 508 is communicatively coupled with the speed limiter 510, and is configured to provide the threshold speed 522 to the speed limiter 510 based at least upon a location of the vehicle. The speed threshold generator 508 comprises a location generator 512 that is configured to identify the location of the vehicle. The speed threshold generator 508 also comprises a speed database 514 that comprises data indicative of locations with corresponding speed limits. In one implementation, a processor 516 can be used to identify the speed limit associated with the identified location, using the database 514. The threshold speed 522 can be communicated to the speed limiter 510, which may be based on the identified speed limit, and can be stored in local memory 520 in the speed limiter 510.” See also [0058].)
Chack does not explicitly teach:
(ii) posted speed limits determined from processing, using one or more deep neural networks, images captured by a camera of the vehicle;
(c) for each derived practical speed limit, (i) applying a contextual profile for deriving a contextual speed limit by which to limit the speed of the vehicle, wherein the applied contextual profile is determined from one of a plurality of predefined contextual profiles based on the processed images captured by the camera of the vehicle, the applied contextual profile being applicable to an environment in which the vehicle is traveling, at least one of the plurality of predefined contextual profiles comprising a predefined contextual speed limit that is a predefined function of the derived practical speed limit; and
(ii) limiting the speed of the vehicle to the derived contextual speed limit.
Tamilarasan teaches:
(ii) posted speed limits determined from processing, using one or more deep neural networks, images captured by a camera of the vehicle; (See at least [0041]: “…In particular, the image processor 304 can process the input image 302 to extract regions of interest within the traffic sign 120. The extracted regions of interest can be fed as inputs to a pre-trained deep neural network or machine-learned model to classify the traffic sign 120 and determine a camera-based speed limit 306 for the road 118, which provides a direct indication of the speed limit for the road 118.”)
(See at least [0050-0053]: “At 406, the speed-determination module 114 obtains region-approved speed limits based on regional policies for the vehicle location. The speed-determination module 114 can use the estimated or precise location to identify the appropriate regional policies. For example, based on the estimated or precise location, the speed-determination module 114 can identify the maximum speed limits from federal and state guidelines for that location…At 408, the speed-determination module 114 determines whether the camera-based speed limit 306 correlates to the regional policies...At 412, the speed-determination module 114 identifies the correlated speed limit 412 in response to determining that the camera-based speed limit 306 correlates to the regional policies (at operation 408)…”)
(ii) limiting the speed of the vehicle to the derived contextual speed limit. (See at least [0082-0085]: “At 906, a processor of the vehicle determines at least one indirect indication of the speed limit for the road based on the contextual information. For example, the processor 110 executes the speed-determination module 114 to determine at least one indirect indication of the speed limit for the road 118. The indirect indications of the speed limit can include the correlated speed limit 412…At 908, the processor determines whether the direct indication of the speed limit is consistent with the indirect indication of the speed limit…At 910, the processor computes a composite speed limit by applying a respective weight to the direct indication of the posted speed limit and the at least one indirect indication of the speed limit…At 910, the processor controls the vehicle based on the direct indication of the speed limit or the composite speed limit. For example, the processor 110 causes the driving systems 116 or the speed-control module 324 to control the vehicle 102 based on the composite speed limit 322…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Chack’s method with Tamilarasan’s technique of identifying legal speed limits from posted speed limits determined from processing images using a deep neural network, applying a contextual profile for deriving a contextual speed limit, and limiting the speed of the vehicle to the contextual speed limit. Doing so would be obvious “to improve the accuracy and confidence in detecting posted speed limits” (See [0002] of Tamilarasan).
However, Chack and Tamilarasan in combination do not explicitly teach applying a contextual profile for each derived practical speed limit, where the contextual profile comprises a predefined contextual speed limit that is a predefined function of the derived practical speed limit.
Lefebvre teaches creating a speed policy that specifies the top speeds for a vehicle in a plurality of speed limit zones, where the speed policy can include “an overspeed by which a vehicle is allowed to travel over the specified top speeds of the vehicle in speed limit zones”, and, further, identifying a particular speed policy based on matching the parameters of an associated profile with a given driving instance (See at least Fig. 7, [0135] & [0137]).
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Chack and Tamilarasan’s method with Lefebvre’s technique of applying a contextual profile for each derived practical speed limit and including in the contextual profile a predefined contextual speed limit that is a predefined function of the derived practical speed limit. Doing so would be obvious since “By using profiles associated with speed policies, a greater degree of granular control in limiting speeds of a vehicle based on specific parameters of a given driving instance is achieved, which greater degree of granular control is believed to be an improvement over the prior art” (See [0138] of Lefebvre).
Regarding claim 6, Chack, Tamilarasan, and Lefebvre in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Chack additionally teaches:
wherein one or more steps of the method are performed continuously. (See at least [0048]: “…the real-time location of the vehicle can be used to identify an actual posted speed limit for that location…”)
Regarding claim 8, Chack, Tamilarasan, and Lefebvre in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Tamilarasan additionally teaches:
wherein the limiting the speed of the vehicle to the determined contextual speed comprises outputting the contextual speed to a speed-limiting mechanism. (See at least [0085]: “At 910, the processor controls the vehicle based on the direct indication of the speed limit or the composite speed limit. For example, the processor 110 causes the driving systems 116 or the speed-control module 324 to control the vehicle 102 based on the composite speed limit 322…”)
Regarding claim 18, Chack, Tamilarasan, and Lefebvre in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Chack additionally teaches:
wherein the step of identifying legal speed limits for the vehicle from the geographical database of legal speed limits using a current location of the vehicle comprises determining the current location of the vehicle using a GNSS receiver or an IMU. (See at least [0040]: “…a vehicle's location may be used to identify an actual speed limit for the location, such as using a GPS in association with a database (e.g., stored locally or remotely) of speed limits for locations expected to be travelled by the vehicle…”)
Regarding claim 52, Chack, Tamilarasan, and Lefebvre in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Lefebvre additionally teaches:
wherein one of the plurality of predefined contextual profiles comprises a predefined contextual speed limit that is a predetermined percentage of the derived practical speed limit. (See at least [0034]: “In a feature of the foregoing aspects, a predetermined speed policy specifies top speeds of the vehicle for a plurality of speed limit zones. The predetermined speed policy further may specify an overspeed by which a vehicle is allowed to travel over the specified top speeds of the vehicle in speed limit zones. The overspeed may be specified by a speed or by a percentage.”)
Regarding claim 53, Chack, Tamilarasan, and Lefebvre in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Lefebvre additionally teaches:
wherein one of the plurality of predefined contextual profiles comprises a predefined contextual speed limit that is a predetermined nominal reduction of the derived practical speed limit. (See at least [0026]: “In a feature of each of the foregoing aspects that includes the implementing step, such step comprises limiting the vehicle from exceeding a certain speed for a particular speed limit zone that is specified in the identified speed policy. The certain speed for a particular speed limit zone may comprise a top speed or a top speed plus an overspeed. Moreover, it will be appreciated that the top speed within a particular speed limit zone may be significantly less than the posted speed limit. For example, during inclement weather, a speed policy may be identified and implemented in which the top speed is 25% less than the top speed would be in a different speed policy that would have been implemented but for the inclement weather.”)
Regarding claim 54, Chack, Tamilarasan, and Lefebvre in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Lefebvre additionally teaches:
wherein one of the plurality of predefined contextual profiles comprises a predefined contextual speed limit that is a constant and independent of the derived practical speed limit. (See at least [0135]: “…A user also may specify in the speed policy a maximum speed of the vehicle that is absolute and irrespective of any particular speed limit zone…”)
Regarding claim 55, Chack, Tamilarasan, and Lefebvre in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Lefebvre additionally teaches:
wherein the derived contextual speed limit is a predetermined percentage of the derived practical speed limit, a predetermined nominal reduction of the derived practical speed limit, or constant and independent of the derived practical speed limit. (See at least [0034]: “In a feature of the foregoing aspects, a predetermined speed policy specifies top speeds of the vehicle for a plurality of speed limit zones. The predetermined speed policy further may specify an overspeed by which a vehicle is allowed to travel over the specified top speeds of the vehicle in speed limit zones. The overspeed may be specified by a speed or by a percentage.”)
Regarding claim 56, Chack, Tamilarasan, and Lefebvre in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Lefebvre additionally teaches:
wherein the applied contextual profile is determined further based on context priorities when multiple contextual profiles are indicated as being applicable to an environment in which the vehicle is traveling. (See at least [0137]: “A program preferable matches parameters of a given driving instance to identify an applicable profile and, based on the identified profile, a speed policy is identified through the association previously made. The identified speed profile then is implemented in an intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) system in limiting speeds of a vehicle in accordance with such implemented policy. Preferably, a predetermined profile is identified for a given driving instance by selecting the profile for which the highest number of identified parameters of the driving instance are members of the specified groupings of the profile. A tie-braking procedure also may be used if more than one profile is identified. Such tie-breaking procedure may comprise simply taking the speed policy with the most limiting speeds. Alternatively, the tie-breaking procedure may comprise identifying a composite predetermined speed policy by taking the lowest speed specified by the speed policies with respect to each speed limit zone and with respect to the maximum speed and the overspeed.”)
Regarding claim 57, Chack, Tamilarasan, and Lefebvre in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Lefebvre additionally teaches:
wherein the applied contextual profile is determined further based on data from one or more sensors at the vehicle used for determining a context under which the vehicle is traveling. (See at least [0140]: “Preferably, step 122 of identifying parameters of a given driving instance is performed at the vehicle using one or more sensors. The parameters may be circumstance parameters, vehicle parameters, behavior parameters, driver parameters (such as hours of service), and combinations of those parameters.”)
Regarding claim 58, Chack, Tamilarasan, and Lefebvre in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Lefebvre additionally teaches:
wherein a single contextual profile is applied to a derived practical speed limit in deriving the contextual speed limit. (See at least [0032]: “In a feature of the foregoing aspects, the applicable policy is identified out of a plurality of predetermined policies based on the identified profile. Further in this regard, there may be a one-to-one mapping of at least one profile to a policy, and there may be a many-to-one mapping of at least some profiles to a policy.”)
Regarding claim 59, Chack, Tamilarasan, and Lefebvre in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Lefebvre additionally teaches:
wherein the speed policy is selected from a plurality speed policies, each being applicable to a different driver of the vehicle. (See at least [0145]: “In method 140 the identification of the applicable profile and resulting speed policy may be dependent on certain driver parameters and may be dependent on certain vehicle parameters. Consequently, an identification of the driver and/or an identification of the vehicle will be necessary and preferably is communicated from the vehicle in step 148.”)
Regarding claim 60, Chack, Tamilarasan, and Lefebvre in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Lefebvre additionally teaches:
wherein the vehicle is part of a vehicle fleet and the speed policy is selected from a plurality speed policies, each speed policy being applicable to different drivers of the vehicle fleet. (See at least [0128]: “…Another contemplated parameter type—but not shown in the drawings—comprises “fleet parameters” and includes, for example and not by way of limitation, equipment usage, operational capacity, and CSA percentile thresholds. Fleet parameters are outside of any particular driving instance but nonetheless may be relevant to the identification and implementation of preferred speed policies in driving instances.” See also [0145] regarding identifying an applicable profile and resulting speed policy based on driver parameters.)
Regarding claim 61, Chack, Tamilarasan, and Lefebvre in combination teach all the limitations of claim 60 as discussed above.
Lefebvre additionally teaches:
wherein the plurality of predefined contextual profiles are used for all of the vehicles of the fleet. (See at least [0128]: “The four types of parameters are: “driver parameters” illustrated at 102; “vehicle parameters” illustrated at 104; “behavior parameters” 106; and “circumstance parameters” 108. All of these types of parameters are believed to be relevant in determining a speed by which to limit the vehicle during a particular driving instance. Another contemplated parameter type—but not shown in the drawings—comprises “fleet parameters” and includes, for example and not by way of limitation, equipment usage, operational capacity, and CSA percentile thresholds. Fleet parameters are outside of any particular driving instance but nonetheless may be relevant to the identification and implementation of preferred speed policies in driving instances” & [0161]: “When providing a fleet vehicle to an inexperienced driver, an organization is able to provide a more restrictive speed policy than to experienced drivers…”. See also [0137] regarding identifying an applicable profile and speed policy based on identifying a predetermined profile.)
Regarding claim 62, Chack, Tamilarasan, and Lefebvre in combination teach all the limitations of claim 61 as discussed above.
Lefebvre additionally teaches:
wherein a single contextual profile is applied to a derived practical speed limit in deriving the contextual speed limit. (See at least [0032]: “In a feature of the foregoing aspects, the applicable policy is identified out of a plurality of predetermined policies based on the identified profile. Further in this regard, there may be a one-to-one mapping of at least one profile to a policy, and there may be a many-to-one mapping of at least some profiles to a policy.”)
Regarding claim 63, Chack, Tamilarasan, and Lefebvre in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Lefebvre additionally teaches:
wherein the vehicle is part of a vehicle fleet, and the speed policy is selected from a plurality speed policies, each speed policy being applicable to different vehicles of the vehicle fleet. (See at least [0128]: “…Another contemplated parameter type—but not shown in the drawings—comprises “fleet parameters” and includes, for example and not by way of limitation, equipment usage, operational capacity, and CSA percentile thresholds. Fleet parameters are outside of any particular driving instance but nonetheless may be relevant to the identification and implementation of preferred speed policies in driving instances.” See also [0145] regarding identifying an applicable profile and resulting speed policy based on vehicle parameters.)
Regarding claim 64, Chack, Tamilarasan, and Lefebvre in combination teach all the limitations of claim 63 as discussed above.
wherein the plurality of predefined contextual profiles are used for all of the vehicles of the fleet. (See at least [0128]: “The four types of parameters are: “driver parameters” illustrated at 102; “vehicle parameters” illustrated at 104; “behavior parameters” 106; and “circumstance parameters” 108. All of these types of parameters are believed to be relevant in determining a speed by which to limit the vehicle during a particular driving instance. Another contemplated parameter type—but not shown in the drawings—comprises “fleet parameters” and includes, for example and not by way of limitation, equipment usage, operational capacity, and CSA percentile thresholds. Fleet parameters are outside of any particular driving instance but nonetheless may be relevant to the identification and implementation of preferred speed policies in driving instances” & [0161]: “When providing a fleet vehicle to an inexperienced driver, an organization is able to provide a more restrictive speed policy than to experienced drivers…”. See also [0137] regarding identifying an applicable profile and speed policy based on identifying a predetermined profile.)
Regarding claim 65, Chack, Tamilarasan, and Lefebvre in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Tamilarasan additionally teaches:
wherein the legal speed limits for the vehicle are not identified from the geographical database when a determined contextual profile indicates that the vehicle is traveling in a work zone, a construction zone, an unmapped area, or a rural area other than along a rural highway. (See at least [0052]: “At 410, if the speed-determination module 114 determines that the camera-based speed limit 306 does not correlate to the regional policies, the speed-determination module 114 can determine whether the vehicle is traveling in a temporary speed-limit zone. The temporary speed-limit zone can include a construction zone, a traffic-based speed limit, a weather-based speed limit, or some other temporary speed limit. The speed-determination module 114 can use the camera system 104 to determine whether the vehicle is traveling in a temporary speed limit zone. As one example, the camera system 104 can detect that the vehicle 102 is traveling in a construction zone on the Idaho highway with a temporary speed limit of 55 mph. The speed-determination module 114 can also use the communication devices 108 to obtain information from nearby traffic signs or structures indicating the temporary speed limit.”)
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chack in view of Tamilarasan and Lefebvre and further in view of Wilkinson of US 20190025843 A1, filed 07/18/2017, hereinafter “Wilkinson”.
Regarding claim 17, Chack, Tamilarasan, and Lefebvre in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Chack, Tamilarasan, and Lefebvre in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the limiting the speed of the vehicle to the determined contextual speed limit cannot be overridden by a driver.
Wilkinson teaches:
wherein the limiting the speed of the vehicle to the determined contextual speed limit cannot be overridden by a driver. (See at least [0111]: “At 810, the computing system can provide the maximum speed limit data for use in determining a motion plan for the autonomous vehicle, for example, by the motion planning system 114. For instance, based on a model output, an autonomous vehicle motion plan could slow down the vehicle autonomously (e.g., without being overridden by an operator) in certain context scenarios, such as on busy streets with numerous pedestrians and/or parked vehicles.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Chack, Tamilarasan, and Lefebvre’s method with Wilkinson’s technique of preventing the driver from overriding the limiting the speed of the vehicle to the determined contextual speed limit. Doing so would be obvious “to achieve safer driving behavior” (See [0022] of Wilkinson).
Claim(s) 66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chack in view of Tamilarasan and Lefebvre and further in view of Heitzmann of US 20240371265 A1, filed 05/04/2023, hereinafter “Heitzmann”.
Regarding claim 66, Chack, Tamilarasan, and Lefebvre in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Chack, Tamilarasan, and Lefebvre in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the legal speed limits for the vehicle are not identified from the posted speed limits when a determined contextual profile indicates that the vehicle is traveling along an urban highway, a rural highway, or in a school zone.
Heitzmann teaches:
wherein the legal speed limits for the vehicle are not identified from the posted speed limits when a determined contextual profile indicates that the vehicle is traveling along an urban highway, a rural highway, or in a school zone. (See at least [0027]: “The ECU 15 also receives overarching maximum and minimum speed limits that are associated with each context. The overarching maximum and minimum speed limits may be legal speed limits determined by a government entity, or speed limits determined by a user or manufacturer of the system. For example, an ECU 15 receives data that indicates that the maximum speed limit for the “country side” context is 50 Miles Per Hour (MPH) (80 Kilometers Per Hour (KPH)), while the minimum speed limit is 25 MPH (50 KPH). Once the ECU 15 has identified the overall context of the environment, the ECU 15 assigns the overarching speed limits to the identified environment as maximum and minimum allowable speed limits. Each context of the region may be associated with different overarching speed limits, or one or more contexts may have some or all of the same limits as the other contexts, or overlap therewith.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Chack, Tamilarasan, and Lefebvre’s method with Heitzmann’s technique of the legal speed limits for the vehicle are not identified from the posted speed limits when a determined contextual profile indicates that the vehicle is traveling along an urban highway, a rural highway, or in a school zone. Doing so would be obvious since “Such is beneficial for discarding false and inaccurate information that communicates the designated speed limit” (See [0065] of Lefebvre).
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 NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA whose telephone number is (571)272-5180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-6pm PT.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights