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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/12/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 13, and 27 are amended.
Claims 1-27 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 U. S.C. §103
Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully disagrees with the above rejections, and submits that the pending claims, without amendments, are allowable over any combination of the cited references. Nevertheless, for purposes of expediting prosecution, and without conceding the propriety of the Office's rejections, independent claims 1, 13, and 27 and various dependent claims are amended.
It is submitted that a showing of "obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim." CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 [Fed. Cir. 2003] [citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 [CCPA 1974]] [emphasis added]. As discussed herein, Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of cited references fails to teach or suggest all the features of the claims.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The art is all analogous and would be obvious, especially under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of the instant claims. Examiner would like to point out that; 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.
Examiner believes that obviousness rejection has been achieved in the 103 rejection below.
Note that under a broadest reasonable interpretation [BRI], words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. 2111.01 [I]. See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 [Fed. Cir. 1983] ["'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'"2111.01 [II]
With respect to the interpretation of claim terms, MPEP 2111 states:
The Patent and Trademark Office ["PTO"] determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] [Fed. Cir. 2004]. Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75[d][1].
The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 [Fed. Cir. 1989].
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 [Fed. Cir. 2004].[see MPEP 2111.01].
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term [unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification], and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 [Fed. Cir. 1999] [see PMEP 2111].
Accordingly, the claims herein will be interpreted in accordance with the MPEP 2111.
Applicant further argues:
However, Applicant submits that the combination of Adibi and Laine fails to describe "restricting, by the one or more processors of the vehicle, an allowed positive acceleration of the vehicle to be no greater than an acceleration limit in response to determining the FOV of the driver is limited and detecting the one or more objects within the threshold distance," as recited in amended claim 1…
For example, as noted above, Adibi describes "executing a corrective action in response to determining that the driver is driving in an unsafe manner" and that "the vehicle speed may be reduced by a first amount, such as 5%, 10%, etc." Adibi, paras. [0060] and [0064]. Applicant respectfully submits, for the reasons articulated below, that Adibi's disclosure of "automatically reduc[ing]" a vehicle's speed does not teach or suggest the amended limitation of "restricting ... an allowed positive acceleration of the vehicle to be no greater than an acceleration limit..."
For at least the reasons discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of Adibi and Laine fails to disclose or make obvious all features of claim 1. The Lee reference, alone or in combination with Adibi and Laine, also fails to describe or make obvious the features of claim 1, and were not used in such a manner. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that claim 1 is in condition for allowance…
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that claims 13 and 27 are also in condition for allowance for at least the same reasons.
Accordingly, reconsideration of the independent claims and withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are requested.
Examiner respectively disagrees but to further prosecution the Examiner is adding an additional piece of ART to show the concept and the BRI of the instant claims and their amendments.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-20, 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADIBI [US20180173975, now ADIBI] in view of LAINE [US20160272215, now LAINE], further in view of ALTMANNSHOFER et al. [WO 2020249535, now ALTMAN] (description WIPO translation with paragraph numbers attached).
Claim 1:
ADIBI discloses a method for enabling vehicle acceleration control, the method comprising: [see at least ADIBI, ¶ 0010 (shows that speed is a factor in control of the vehicle using parameters); 0050, ("Additionally, the speed of the vehicle can be automatically reduced..” if the speed can be reduced then it can also accelerated based on parameters)];
determining, by one or more processors of a vehicle and based on driver sensor data, a field of view [FOV] of a driver of the vehicle; [see at least ADIBI, ¶ 0007 ("The measuring of the plurality of eye parameters may include, for example, measuring a gaze alignment…” thus determining driver sensor data); 0028-0029 (“processor”); ¶ 0034 (discuses driver data.); ¶ 0053 ("a gaze alignment [i.sub.alignment] indicating an alignment of a gaze of the driver with a road in front of the vehicle can be measured to detect if the driver's gaze is angularly misaligned with the road ahead and/or oncoming traffic.” Thus indicating FOV of the driver is being determined)];
determining, by the one or more processors, that the FOV of the driver is limited based on a FOV threshold, wherein the FOV threshold is one of a predetermined threshold angle for the FOV of the driver or a percentage of the predetermined threshold angle for the FOV of the driver [see at least ADIBI, ¶ 0037 ("Calculation of the endangerment score”); 0039 ("calculation of the endangerment score [l.sub.E] is the gaze alignment index [i.sub.alignment]… Thus, if the deviation of the driver's gazing angle with respect to the road ahead or oncoming traffic is never greater than 10 degrees.” FOB); ¶ 0047("The endangerment threshold can be set in light of the range of possible endangerment scores... In one non-limiting example, the endangerment threshold can be set as equal to 0.2*maximum possible endangerment score” Thus FOV being determined); ¶ 0048 ("The endangerment threshold may change in real-time according to environmental or contextual conditions...Furthermore, a history of previously set endangerment thresholds can be recalled and utilized to set the endangerment threshold. In one example, the endangerment threshold can be initialized as equal to the most recent previously set endangerment threshold."): ¶ 0057 (“endangerment score and/or the endangerment threshold.")];
restricting, by the one or more processors of the vehicle, an acceleration of the vehicle in response to determining the FOV of the driver is limited and [see at least ADIBI, ¶ 0030 ("parameters are measured to determine whether the driver is exhibiting an appropriate amount of concentration”); 0046; 0050; 0064 (“the speed of the vehicle may be automatically reduced [step 425].” If can be reduced can be acerated); 0065("the calculated endangerment score [l.sub.E] may once again be compared to the endangerment threshold [step 430] in order to once again verify whether the driver has changed his or her driving state [e.g., whether the driver is less distracted, more alert, more concentrated, etc.]._);
ADIBI does not disclose, but LAINE teaches:
detecting, by the one or more processors of the vehicle and based on traffic sensor data, one or more objects within a threshold distance relative to the vehicle; and [see at least LAINE, ¶ 0050 ("At 325, method 300 includes determining if there are obstacles present within a threshold range of the vehicle”); 0053 ("However, if obstacles are present within the threshold range, method 300 continues to… includes calculating the obstacle path/trajectory. The obstacle path may be calculated based on a velocity, acceleration, and position of the obstacle…”)];
detecting the one or more objects within the threshold distance. [see at least LAINE, ¶ 0059 ("determining if the driver gaze includes the obstacle.” FOV); 0089 ("in-vehicle computing system 200 may continuously calculate the intended path of the vehicle 201 as well as the intended path of each obstacle within the threshold range”)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the endangerment score calculations monitoring driver distraction and the modifying of vehicle performance within ADIBI to implement the external obstacle tracking of LAINE for a safer automatic vehicle collision prevention system by overriding unplanned distracted driver behaviors.
Neither ADIBI or LAINE specifically disclose/teach but ALTMAN does teach in a more specific way, restricting, by the one or more processors of the vehicle, an acceleration an allowed positive acceleration of the vehicle to be no greater than an acceleration limit [see at least ALTMAN, ¶ 0003 (“control of a longitudinal acceleration, wherein the longitudinal direction is arranged along a direction of movement of the host vehicle, on the basis of information about a lateral acceleration,“ thus using driver data and parameters to determine accelleration); 0014 („preferably determining a longitudinal acceleration target value“); 0016 (data gathering for acceleration); 0032 („controlling the positive longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle,“); 0033 („positive acceleration control)“); 0051 („disclosure may typically include both positive acceleration (i.e. increasing speed) and negative acceleration (i.e. loop or decreasing speed“)];
ALTMAN also teaches determination of Field of view (FOV. [see at least ALTMAN, ¶ 0004; 0009 (determination if in FOV); 0039 (FOV)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the endangerment score calculations monitoring driver distraction and the modifying of vehicle performance within ADIBI to implement the external obstacle tracking of LAINE, further with the determination and control of positive acceleration of ALTMAN, for a safer automatic vehicle collision prevention system by overriding unplanned distracted driver behaviors.
EXAMINERS NOTE: Even though ADIBI does not define the gaze tracking as a "field of view", the actions performed by ADIBI perform the task of tracking a field of view by tracking where the drivers view is at any given time.
Claim 2
ADIBI in view of LAINE discloses the limitations of claim 1.
ADIBI further discloses determining, by the one or more processors based on the driver sensor data, a head of the driver is rotated in a position looking away from a road on which the vehicle is traveling for a period of time [see at least ADIBI, ¶ 0048 ("The endangerment threshold may change in real-time according to environmental or contextual conditions.”); 0053 (“plurality of eye parameters can be measured using the sensed light information.”)];
comparing, by the one or more processors, the period of time with a predetermined threshold amount of time for the head of the driver looking away from the road; and determining, by the one or more processors, the FOV of the driver is limited based on the period of time being greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold amount of time [see at least ADIBI, ¶ 0034 ("a gaze alignment [FOV]… the gaze of the driver deviates from the road in front of the vehicle beyond a predefined acceptable amount [e.g., 5 to 30 degrees] using the sensed light information.”); 0038; 0039; [AltContent: textbox ()](“according to Equation 2 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
106
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
EXAMINERS NOTE: Although ADIBI does not explicitly state the time the driver is distracted is tracked and counted, the equations underlining the calculation of the endangerment score relies on the variable alignment which itself is computed by tracking changes in the drivers gazing angle over time.
Claim 3
ADIBI in view of LAINE discloses the limitations of claim 1.
ADIBI does not disclose, but LAINE teaches determining, by the one or more processors of the vehicle, an intention to move by the driver based on detecting at least one of a release of a brake pedal of the vehicle, a press of a gas pedal of the vehicle, or a shifting of a transmission of the vehicle to drive. [see at least LAINE, ¶ 0032 ("Sensor subsystem 210 of in-vehicle computing system 200 may communicate with and receive inputs from various vehicle sensors and may receive user inputs. For example, the inputs received by sensor subsystem 210 may include transmission gear position, transmission clutch position, gas pedal input, brake input, transmission selector position, vehicle speed…")].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the vehicle performance modification based on endangerment score within ADIBI in view of LAINE with the sensor subsystem monitoring the vehicle conditions of LAINE to effectively yield a correction system capable of appropriately reacting to current vehicle driving states.
Claim 4
ADIBI in view of LAINE discloses the limitations of claim 1.
ADIBI further discloses activating, by the one or more processors of the vehicle, a forward collision warning [FCW] [see at least ADIBI, ¶ 0049 ("If the calculated endangerment score exceeds the endangerment threshold, a corrective action can be executed.”); 0050]
ADIBI does not disclose, but LAINE teaches based on determining the intention to move by the driver. [see at least LAINE, ¶ 0032 (“Sensor subsystem 210 of in-vehicle computing system 200 may communicate with and receive inputs from various vehicle sensors”)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the vehicle performance modification based on endangerment score and warning indicator within ADIBI in view of LAINE with the sensor subsystem monitoring the vehicle conditions of LAINE to effectively yield a correction system capable of appropriately reacting to current vehicle driving states, such as warning of unsafe conditions only upon specific vehicle states.
Claim 5
ADIBI in view of LAINE discloses the limitations of claim 1.
ADIBI further discloses the FCW comprises at least one of a visual display warning, an audio warning, or a vibration. [see at least ADIBI ¶ 0049 ("If the calculated endangerment score exceeds the endangerment threshold, a corrective action can be executed.”): For example, a warning indicator can be provided to the driver. The warning indicator can be visual or audible depending on the time of day, level of noise in the vehicle, etc. The warning indicator may also be tangible, i.e., a physical ping, such as a nudge or "stick shaker.""]
Claim 6
ADIBI in view of LAINE discloses the limitations of claim 1.
ADIBI does not disclose but LAINE teaches the one or more objects comprise at least one of one or more vulnerable road users [VRUs] or one or more other vehicles [see at least LAINE, ¶ 0028 ("One or more additional sensors may be included in a sensor subsystem…the sensor subsystem 210 may include an obstacle sensor” which includes other vehicles); 0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the detection of nearby objects within ADIBI in view of LAINE with the detection of vehicles and pedestrians of LAINE to yield a safer automatic correction for distracted drivers by accounting for external vehicles and pedestrians.
Claim 7
ADIBI in view of LAINE discloses the limitations of claim 1.
ADIBI further discloses sensing, by one or more driver sensors of the vehicle, the driver of the vehicle to obtain the driver sensor data [see at least ADIBI, ¶ 0031 ("For example, the optical sensor 100 may be mounted on a rear-view mirror 110 of the vehicle [e.g., see FIG. 1A], on a windshield, on a dashboard, or the like.” To gather driver information and his FOV); 0033].
Claim 8
ADIBI in view of LAINE discloses the limitations of claim 1.
ADIBI does not disclose but LAINE teaches sensing, by one or more traffic sensors of the vehicle, an environment of the vehicle to obtain the traffic sensor data. [see at least LAINE, ¶ 0050 ("determining if there are obstacles present within a threshold range of the vehicle.” Thus if in the FOV of the vehicle); 0053].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the detection of nearby objects within ADIBI in view of LAINE with the obstacle detection sensors of LAINE to yield a safer automatic correction for distracted drivers by accounting for external environmental factors such as other vehicles and pedestrians.
Claim 10
ADIBI in view of LAINE discloses the limitations of claim 1.
ADIBI further discloses determining that the FOV of the driver is limited based on the FOV of the driver being less than the FOV threshold. [see at least ADIBI, ¶ 0034]
Claim 11
ADIBI in view of LAINE discloses the limitations of claim 1.
ADIBI does not disclose but LAINE teaches the one or more objects are detected as approaching the vehicle [see at least LAINE, ¶ 0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the detection of nearby objects within ADIBI in view of LAINE with the prediction and tracking of obstacle path of LAINE to yield a safer automatic correction for distracted drivers by accounting for external environmental factors that may pose a collision risk.
Claim 12
ADIBI in view of LAINE discloses the limitations of claim 1.
ADIBI further discloses the FOV of the driver is determined based on a pre-determined number of gazes of the driver being within the FOV [see at least ADIBI, ¶ 0041 ("representing a high number of eye movements over a given period of time may indicate that the driver is distracted.")].
Claim 13
With regards to claim 13, this is the apparatus claim for method claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claim 14
With regards to claim 14, this claim is substantially similar to claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claim 15
With regards to claim 15, this claim is substantially similar to claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claim 16
With regards to claim 16, this claim is substantially similar to claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claim 17
With regards to claim 17, this claim is substantially similar to claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claim 18
With regards to claim 18, this claim is substantially similar to claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claim 19
With regards to claim 19, this claim is substantially similar to claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claim 20
With regards to claim 20, this claim is substantially similar to claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claim 22
With regards to claim 22, this claim is substantially similar to claim 12 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claim 23
With regards to claim 23, this claim is substantially similar to claim 10 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claim 24
With regards to claim 24, this claim is substantially similar to claim 11 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claim 25
ADIBI in view of LAINE discloses the limitations of claim 1.
ADIBI further discloses the apparatus is part of the vehicle. [see at least ADIBI, ¶ 0017 ("a system includes: an optical sensor mounted in a vehicle”)0028]
Claim 26:
ADIBI in view of LAINE discloses the limitations of claim 1.
ADIBI further discloses the at least one memory and the at least one processor are integrated into the vehicle. [see at least ADIBI, ¶ 0028 (memory and processor included)]
Claim 27
With regards to claim 27, this is the computer-readable storage claim for method claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claims 9, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAINE [US20160272215A1] in view of ADIBI [US20180173975A1], in view of ALTMANNSHOFER et al. [WO 2020249535, now ALTMAN] in further view of GUIM et al. [US 20210097854, now GUIM].
Claim 9
ADIBI in view of LAINE discloses the limitations of claim 1.
ADIBI does not disclose but LAINE teaches obtaining the traffic sensor data [see at least LAINE, ¶ 0050; 0053]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the endangerment score calculations monitoring driver distraction and the modifying of vehicle performance within ADIBI to implement the external obstacle tracking of LAINE for a safer automatic vehicle collision prevention system by overriding unplanned distracted driver behaviors.
ADIBI in view of LAINE does not disclose, but GUIM more specifically teaches from at least one of another vehicle or a roadside unit [RSU] [see at least GUIM, ¶ 0014 (“The monitoring system 130 may be configured to send data to the one or more roadside units 110 and/or to the one or more vehicles 120 and/or to broadcast data to allow for a reception of the data by the one or more roadside units 110 and/or the one or more vehicles 120.”); 0025 (“monitoring device”… The respective vehicle 120 [e.g., the on-board unit of the vehicle 120] may generate the one or more additional estimations, e.g., based on additional sensor data based on additional sensor data [e.g., obtained by one or more sensors of the respective vehicle 120].")].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the detection of nearby objects within ADIBI in view of LAINE with the ability to receive data from other vehicles via V2V and other V2X of GUIM to yield a safer automatic correction for distracted drivers by incorporating more data sources to enhance the base vehicle's built-in sensors.
Claim 21
With regards to claim 21, this claim is substantially similar to claim 9 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOAN T GOODBODY whose telephone number is (571) 270-7952. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7-3 (US Eastern time).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RACHID BENDIDI can be reached at (571) 272-4896. The Fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspot.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from the USPTO Customer Serie Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOAN T GOODBODY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
(571) 270-7952
Prosecution Insights