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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 08/08/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the newly added limitations as written with respect to claim(s) 1, 9, 18 and all subsequent dependent claims have been considered but are moot in view of the references cited in the most current rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect applicants arguments of “Nowhere does Kwahara disclose the described system doing anything more than detecting the presence of an object, not other properties based on the received signals resulting from the controlled waveforms.” Kawahara teaches a controller (14) configured to calculate the distance (properties) from vehicle C to the object based on the reflection waves (See Paragraphs 68-69, Figs.1-2 of Kawahara). Furthermore, applicant does not claim specific properties and Kawahara teaches a property (distance from vehicle C to the object), thus Kawahara properly teaches the limitation as written.
Regarding applicants argument to claim 7, applicant states “the Examiner fails to provide any motivation to modify Kwahara with the missing claim limitations, and the alleged motivation to add switch of Yamane to Kwahara fails to expressly address this deficiency” examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in this and the most previous rejection, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Kawahara to incorporate the vehicle further comprising: a switch coupled to an output of the transmit channel, an input of the first transmitter, and an input of the second transmitter, the switch configured to alternate the excitation voltage output from the transmit channel between the first transmitter and the second transmitter as taught by Yamane in order to provide an ultrasonic object detector in which transmission and reception are controlled by a single main body while switching a plurality of sensor units.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara (US 20210190605 A1) in view of Hustava (US 20200233071 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kawahara teaches a vehicle (C) comprising: a set of ultrasonic transmitters (10A to 10H, 11) mounted to an exterior of a vehicle, the set of ultrasonic transmitters (10A to 10H, 11) directed in a first direction (sensors are mounted on front and back of vehicle) and each transmitter of the set of ultrasonic transmitters being configured to output a set of ultrasonic waves (externally transmits an ultrasound wave). (Abstract, Paragraphs 54-55, 48-49, Figs.1-2)
Kawahara also teaches a set of ultrasonic receivers (10A to 10H, 13) mounted to the exterior of the vehicle (sensors are mounted on front and back of vehicle), each receiver of the set of ultrasonic receivers configured to receive reflections of the set of ultrasonic waves (receives a reflection wave returning from the outside and outputs a signal indicating an echo intensity of the reflection wave) and convert the received reflections into electrical signals (Reception circuit 13 performs A/D conversion processing on the signal indicating the echo intensity of the reflection wave). (Paragraphs 54-57, 48-49, Figs.1-2)
Kawahara also teaches a controller (14) coupled to a transmit channel (20) and the ultrasonic receivers (10A to 10H, 13), the transmit channel (20) being coupled to the ultrasonic transmitters (11), the controller (14) configured to define a set of waveform instructions comprising frequency and/or a pulse width for each wave of a set of ultrasonic waves for each transmitter of the set of ultrasonic transmitters and providing the set of waveform instructions to the transmit channel (transmission/reception controller 14a, for example, issues a command of a timing for generating a driving signal and a pulse width of the driving signal for drive circuit 12). (Paragraphs 54-56, 59-60, Figs.1-2)
Kawahara also teaches wherein the transmit channel (20) generates a set of electrical waveforms from the set of waveform instructions (the operation of drive circuit 12 is controlled on the basis of a transmission command from controller 14 (transmission/reception controller 14a)) and provides an electrical waveform of the set of electrical waveforms to each transmitter of the set of ultrasonic transmitters and each of the transmitters output ultrasonic waves corresponding to the provided electrical waveform such that the set of ultrasonic transmitters generate the set of ultrasonic waves. (Paragraphs 54-60, Figs.1-2)
Kawahara also teaches the controller (14) being configured to determine properties of an object based on the electrical signals provided by the set of ultrasonic receivers based on reflections of the set of ultrasonic waves. (Paragraphs 68-69, Figs.1-2)
Kawahara does not explicitly teach the controller configured to define a set of waveform instructions comprising a shape, phase for each wave of a set of ultrasonic waves for each transmitter of the set of ultrasonic transmitters.
Hustava teaches a controller configured to define a set of waveform instructions comprising a shape, phase for each wave of a set of ultrasonic waves for each transmitter of the set of ultrasonic transmitters. (Paragraphs 47-48, Fig.6)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Kawahara to incorporate a controller configured to define a set of waveform instructions comprising a shape, phase for each wave of a set of ultrasonic waves for each transmitter of the set of ultrasonic transmitters in order to optimize the efficiency of acoustic burst transmission.
Regarding claim 2, Kawahara teaches a second set of ultrasonic transmitters mounted to the exterior of the vehicle, the second set of ultrasonic transmitters coupled to the transmit channel (20) directed in a second direction different from the first direction, and the second set of ultrasonic transmitters configured to output a second set of ultrasonic waves; and a second set of ultrasonic receivers mounted to the exterior of the vehicle, the second set of ultrasonic receivers configured to receive reflections of the second set of ultrasonic waves. (Paragraphs 54-60, 48-49, Figs.1-2)
Regarding claim 3, Kawahara teaches wherein the first direction is towards a front of the vehicle, and the second direction is towards a back of the vehicle. (Fig.2)
Regarding claim 5, Kawahara teaches wherein the set of ultrasonic transmitters comprises: a first ultrasonic transmitter configured to transmit a first ultrasonic wave having a first frequency; and a second ultrasonic transmitter configured to transmit a second ultrasonic wave having a second frequency. (Paragraphs 54-55, 48-49, 65, Figs.1-2)
Kawahara discloses the claimed invention except for the second frequency higher than the first frequency. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to incorpate the second frequency higher than the first frequency, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 6, Kawahara teaches wherein the set of ultrasonic receivers comprises: a first ultrasonic receiver configured to detect waves at the first frequency; and a second ultrasonic receiver configured to detect waves at the second frequency. (Paragraphs 54-55, 48-49, 65, Figs.1-2)
Regarding claim 18, Kawahara teaches a method for sensing an object, the method comprising: transmitting a first ultrasonic wave comprising a first waveform having a frequency and/or a pulse width (transmission/reception controller 14a, for example, issues a command of a timing for generating a driving signal and a pulse width of the driving signal for drive circuit 12). (Abstract, Paragraphs 54-60, 48-49, Figs.1-2)
Kawahara also teaches transmitting a second ultrasonic wave, the second ultrasonic wave comprising a second waveform a frequency and/or a pulse width, the second waveform being different from the first waveform. (Paragraphs 54-60, 48-49, Figs.1-2)
Kawahara also teaches receiving a first reflection of the first ultrasonic wave and a second reflection of the second ultrasonic wave, and each first and second reflection having first and second reflection waveforms that vary from the first and second waveforms. (Paragraphs 65, 69, 54-57, 48-49, Figs.1-2)
Kawahara also teaches processing the first and second reflection waveforms. (Paragraphs 57, 69, Claims 19-20, Fig.1)
Kawahara also teaches determining properties of an object based on the processing signals. (Paragraphs 68-69, Figs.1-2)
Kawahara does not explicitly transmitting a first ultrasonic wave comprising a first waveform having a shape, phase and transmitting a second ultrasonic wave, the second ultrasonic wave comprising a second waveform having a shape, phase.
Hustava teaches transmitting a first ultrasonic wave comprising a first waveform having a shape, phase and transmitting a second ultrasonic wave, the second ultrasonic wave comprising a second waveform having a shape, phase. (Paragraphs 47-48, Fig.6)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Kawahara to incorporate transmitting a first ultrasonic wave comprising a first waveform having a shape, phase and transmitting a second ultrasonic wave, the second ultrasonic wave comprising a second waveform having a shape, phase in order to optimize the efficiency of acoustic burst transmission.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara in view of Hustava and Lee (US 20230393252 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kawahara does not explicitly teach a second transmit channel, the second set of ultrasonic transmitters being coupled to the second transmit channel and uncoupled from the transmit channel.
Lee teaches a second transmit channel, the second set of ultrasonic transmitters being coupled to the second transmit channel and uncoupled from the transmit channel. (Paragraphs 92, 102, Fig.3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Kawahara to incorporate a second transmit channel, the second set of ultrasonic transmitters being coupled to the second transmit channel and uncoupled from the transmit channel as taught by Lee in order to prevent the ultrasonic wave signal from causing the interference rather than being blocked by the obstacle.
Claim(s) 7-11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara in view of Hustava and Yamane (JP 2854692 B2, all citations provided from machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 7, Kawahara teaches the set of ultrasonic transmitters comprising a first transmitter and a second transmitter. (Paragraphs 54-56, 59, Figs.1-2)
Kawahara does not explicitly teach the vehicle further comprising: a switch coupled to an output of the transmit channel, an input of the first transmitter, and an input of the second transmitter, the switch configured to alternate the excitation voltage output from the transmit channel between the first transmitter and the second transmitter.
Yamane teaches the vehicle further comprising: a switch (25) coupled to an output of the transmit channel, an input of the first transmitter, and an input of the second transmitter, the switch configured to alternate the excitation voltage output from the transmit channel between the first transmitter and the second transmitter. (Page.2, line 39-Page.3, line 16, Claim 1, Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Kawahara to incorporate the vehicle further comprising: a switch coupled to an output of the transmit channel, an input of the first transmitter, and an input of the second transmitter, the switch configured to alternate the excitation voltage output from the transmit channel between the first transmitter and the second transmitter as taught by Yamane in order to provide an ultrasonic object detector in which transmission and reception are controlled by a single main body while switching a plurality of sensor units.
Regarding claim 8, Kawahara teaches wherein a receiver of the set of ultrasonic receivers is configured to receive reflections of the ultrasonic waves output by the first transmitter and the second transmitter. (Paragraphs 54-57, 48-49, Figs.1-2)
Regarding claim 9, Kawahara teaches a system comprising: a controller (14) configured to output instructions comprising a pulse width for generating an ultrasonic waveform (the operation of drive circuit 12 is controlled on the basis of a transmission command from controller 14), the ultrasonic waveform having a first frequency. (Paragraphs 56-59, 68-69, Figs.1-2)
Kawahara also teaches a transmit channel (20) coupled to the controller (14) and having a transmit processing unit, the transmit channel configured to output an excitation voltage for generating an ultrasonic wave (Drive circuit 12 generates a pulsed driving signal and outputs the driving signal to transmitter/receiver 11) the excitation voltage having an excitation waveform comprising a frequency and/or a pulse width based on the instructions output from the controller and an output of the transmit processing unit configured to generate an ultrasonic waveform having a second frequency. (Paragraphs 54-60, Figs.1-2)
Kawahara also teaches an ultrasonic transmitter (10A to 10H, 11) coupled to the transmit channel (20), the ultrasonic transmitter configured to produce an ultrasonic wave in response to the excitation voltage. (Paragraphs 54-57, 48-49, Figs.1-2)
Kawahara also teaches a receiver (10A to 10H, 13) configured to receive a reflection of the ultrasonic wave off an object and to convert the received reflection into an electrical signal and provide the electrical signal to the controller, the controller configured to determine properties of the object based on the electrical signals. (Paragraphs 54-60, 68-69 48-49, Figs.1-2)
Kawahara does not explicitly teach to generate an ultrasonic waveform having a second frequency greater than the first frequency and a controller configured to output instructions comprising a shape, phase and an excitation waveform comprising a shape, phase.
Yamane teaches to generate an ultrasonic waveform having a second frequency greater than the first frequency. (Page.2, lines 17-40, Claim 1, Fig.1)
Hustava teaches a controller configured to output instructions comprising a shape, phase and an excitation waveform comprising a shape, phase. (Paragraphs 47-48, Fig.6)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Kawahara to incorporate to generate an ultrasonic waveform having a second frequency greater than the first frequency as taught by Yamane in order to transmit multiple ultrasound waves and detect a presence or absence of an object and further modify Kawahara to incorporate a controller configured to output instructions comprising a shape, phase and an excitation waveform comprising a shape, phase as taught by Hustava in order to optimize the efficiency of acoustic burst transmission.
Regarding claim 10, Kawahara teaches wherein the controller (14) is coupled to a time sensitive network (TSN) (14a), the transmit channel (12) further comprising a receiving component configured to receive the instructions from the controller via the TSN. (Paragraph 59, Fig.1)
Regarding claim 11, Kawahara does not explicitly teach wherein the ultrasonic wave is a first ultrasonic wave, the system further comprising: a second transmit channel configured to receive second instructions from the controller via the TSN; and a second ultrasonic transmitter coupled to the second transmit channel, the second ultrasonic transmitter configured to produce a second ultrasonic wave, the second ultrasonic wave synchronized with the first ultrasonic wave.
Yamane teaches wherein the ultrasonic wave is a first ultrasonic wave, the system further comprising: a second transmit channel configured to receive second instructions from the controller via the TSN; and a second ultrasonic transmitter coupled to the second transmit channel, the second ultrasonic transmitter configured to produce a second ultrasonic wave, the second ultrasonic wave synchronized with the first ultrasonic wave. (Page.2, lines 41-47, Claim 1, Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Kawahara to incorporate wherein the ultrasonic wave is a first ultrasonic wave, the system further comprising: a second transmit channel configured to receive second instructions from the controller via the TSN; and a second ultrasonic transmitter coupled to the second transmit channel, the second ultrasonic transmitter configured to produce a second ultrasonic wave, the second ultrasonic wave synchronized with the first ultrasonic wave in order to select the same channel and detect a presence or absence of an object.
Regarding claim 16, Kawahara teaches wherein an ultrasonic transceiver comprises the ultrasonic transmitter and the ultrasonic receiver. (Paragraphs 54-57, Figs.1-2)
Regarding claim 17, Kawahara teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine a distance to an object and a speed of the object based on the electrical signal. (Paragraphs 68-69, Figs.1-2)
Claim(s) 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara in view of Hustava, Yamane and Kruse (US 20220155440 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kawahara teaches a second ultrasonic transmitter configured to produce a second ultrasonic wave. (Paragraphs 54-55, 48-49, 65, Figs.1-2)
Kawahara does not explicitly teach a switch coupled to the transmit channel, the switch alternately coupling the transmit channel to the first ultrasonic transmitter or the second ultrasonic transmitter, wherein the first ultrasonic wave and the second ultrasonic wave are time multiplexed.
Yamane teaches a switch coupled to the transmit channel, the switch alternately coupling the transmit channel to the first ultrasonic transmitter or the second ultrasonic transmitter. (Page.2, line 39-Page.3, line 16, Claim 1, Fig.1)
Kruse teaches wherein the first ultrasonic wave and the second ultrasonic wave are time multiplexed. (Paragraphs 73, 83-84, Fig.1E)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Kawahara to incorporate a switch coupled to the transmit channel, the switch alternately coupling the transmit channel to the first ultrasonic transmitter or the second ultrasonic transmitter as taught by Yamane in order to detect a presence or absence of an object and further modify Kawahara to incorporate wherein the first ultrasonic wave and the second ultrasonic wave are time multiplexed as taught by Kruse in order to detect and localize the object with respect to the imaging aperture based on matching a known or parametrically-defined model of the object to the received echoes.
Regarding claim 13, Kawahara does not explicitly teach wherein the second frequency is at least ten times the first frequency.
Kruse teaches wherein the second frequency is at least bigger than the first frequency. (Paragraphs 217-219) Kawahara in view of Yamane and Kruse discloses the claimed invention except for the second frequency is at least ten times the first frequency. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to incorporate the second frequency is at least ten times the first frequency, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Kawahara to incorporate wherein the second frequency is at least ten times the first frequency in order to detect and localize the object with respect to the imaging aperture based on matching a known or parametrically-defined model of the object to the received echoes.
Regarding claim 14, Kawahara does not explicitly teach wherein the transmit channel further comprises: a power amplifier circuit coupled to the processing component, the power amplifier configured to generate an amplified signal based on a constructed waveform received from the processing component; and a filter coupled to the power amplifier, the filter configured to reduce noise in the amplified signal to generate a filtered signal.
Yamane teaches wherein the transmit channel further comprises: a power amplifier circuit coupled to the processing component; the power amplifier configured to generate an amplified signal based on a constructed waveform received from the processing component. (Page.2, line 36-Page.3, line 8, Fig.1)
Kruse teaches a filter coupled to the power amplifier; the filter configured to reduce noise in the amplified signal to generate a filtered signal. (Paragraphs 83-84, 91, Fig.1E)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Kawahara to incorporate wherein the transmit channel further comprises: a power amplifier circuit coupled to the processing component; the power amplifier configured to generate an amplified signal based on a constructed waveform received from the processing component as taught by Yamane in order to detect a presence or absence of an object and further modify Kawahara to incorporate a filter coupled to the power amplifier, the filter configured to reduce noise in the amplified signal to generate a filtered signal as taught by Kruse in order to improve the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of echoes and detect and localize the object with respect to the imaging aperture based on matching a known or parametrically-defined model of the object to the received echoes.
Regarding claim 15, Kawahara does not explicitly teach wherein the transmit channel further comprises a transformer coupled to the filter, the transmit channel configured to increase a voltage amplitude of the filtered signal.
Kruse teaches wherein the transmit channel further comprises a transformer coupled to the filter, the transmit channel configured to increase a voltage amplitude of the filtered signal. (Paragraphs 83-84, 91, Fig.1E)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Kawahara to incorporate wherein the transmit channel further comprises a transformer coupled to the filter, the transmit channel configured to increase a voltage amplitude of the filtered signal as taught by Kruse in order to detect and localize the object with respect to the imaging aperture based on matching a known or parametrically-defined model of the object to the received echoes.
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara in view of Hustava and Kruse.
Regarding claim 19, Kawahara teaches determining the distance to the object based on an electrical signal representing the second reflection (Paragraphs 54-59, 68-69, Figs.1-2) but does not explicitly teach detecting interference in the first reflection.
Kruse teaches detecting interference in the first reflection. (Paragraphs 90, 147)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Kawahara to incorporate detecting interference in the first reflection as taught by Kruse in order to detect and localize the object with respect to the imaging aperture based on matching a known or parametrically-defined model of the object to the received echoes.
Regarding claim 20, Kawahara teaches transmitting a third ultrasonic wave having a frequency as the first ultrasonic wave; receiving a third reflection of the third ultrasonic wave; converting the third reflection into an additional electrical signal having additional different frequency contents; and determining the distance to the object further based on the additional frequency contents of the additional electrical signal. (Paragraphs 54-59, 65, 69, Figs.1-2)
Kawahara does not explicitly teach transmitting a third ultrasonic wave having a same frequency as the first ultrasonic wave, the third ultrasonic wave and the first ultrasonic wave transmitted at different times.
Kruse teaches transmitting a third ultrasonic wave having a same frequency as the first ultrasonic wave, the third ultrasonic wave and the first ultrasonic wave transmitted at different times. (Paragraphs 217-219)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Kawahara to incorporate transmitting a third ultrasonic wave having a same frequency as the first ultrasonic wave, the third ultrasonic wave and the first ultrasonic wave transmitted at different times as taught by Kruse in order to detect and localize the object with respect to the imaging aperture based on matching a known or parametrically-defined model of the object to the received echoes.
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 ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights