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 action is in response to the RCE filed 01/16/2026 in which claim 1, 8 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-15, 17-20 are rejected.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, Applicant argues that the recited steps could not be performed by “mentally recognizing or observing a characteristic such as the color or shape of a surrounding vehicle,” and therefore claims 1 and 8 (and their dependents) are not directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant’s argument is respectfully not persuasive for the following reasons.
Applicant’s argument mischaracterizes the basis of the rejection. The rejection does not allege that a human mentally observes the color or shape of a vehicle. Rather, the abstract idea resides in the “specifying” step — i.e., correlating/matching received information about a second vehicle against information about surrounding vehicles to identify corresponding communication identification information. The physical observation is performed by the sensor, and the sensor output is received as data. What the claim then requires is comparing/matching data to identify a corresponding record — a step that falls squarely within the “mental processes” grouping (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion — MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). By analogy, a human dispatcher who is told (or reads a report stating) “the target is a red sedan near intersection X” can mentally or on paper match that description against a list of vehicles known to be in that area and identify the corresponding vehicle’s identifier. The fact that a sensor, rather than a human eye, originally captured the color/shape does not remove the matching step from the mental-process category. Furthermore, that a step is nominally recited as performed by a processor does not preclude it from being an abstract idea. Under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III), a claim recites a mental process even when it is claimed as being performed on a generic computer, so long as the underlying acts could otherwise be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Merely invoking a “processor” or “controller” to perform the matching is an instruction to “apply” the abstract idea using generic technology (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and does not, by itself, confer eligibility.
The sensor here is recited at a high level of generality and functions only as a data-gathering device (insignificant extra-solution activity, MPEP § 2106.05(g)); the claim does not recite any improvement to the sensor or to sensing technology.
For the foregoing reasons, the § 101 rejection of claims 1–14 is maintained.
With respect to the prior art rejection of claims 1 and 8, Applicant’s arguments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 102 rejections of claims 1 and 8 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chen et al. (WO 2020/002267 A1) (“Chen”).
However, claim 15 has not been amended similarly to claim 1 and 8 and therefore the previous rejection of claim 15 has been maintained.
Nishimura teaches Fig. 1, [0030] “The electronic apparatus 102 may receive the captured one or more images 114 and may detect the license plate 116 of the second vehicle 108A in the captured one or more images 114.;”, the examiner notes that the license plate number here corresponds to the claimed communication identification information on [a] second vehicle); Further Nishimura discloses at [0033] “The depth map may indicate information related to a distance of the first license plate 118A from the first image capture device 106A installed on the first vehicle 104. The one or more images 114 of the second vehicle 108A, from which the first license plate 118A may be detected, may be captured by the first image capture device 106A. In some embodiments, the real dimension of the detected first license plate 118A may be fixed as per a geo-location of the first vehicle 104 or the second vehicle 108A...” Lastly Nishimura teaches in [0083] “As the road 510 may be non-overtaking road, the circuitry 202 may alert a traffic control department of an area about the over-taking event with information about the one or more license plate characters of the detected license plate 512 of the second vehicle 504. In some embodiments, the circuitry 202 may alert the second vehicle 504 via the communication network 112 (or via vehicle to vehicle (V2V) communication) about the over-taking event on the non-overtaking road 510.”
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 15 have been fully considered but have been found unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Independent Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to an information processing method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An information processing method executed by an information processing apparatus in accordance with a request from a first in-vehicle terminal installed in a first vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving first information relating to a second vehicle acquired by using a sensor from the first in-vehicle terminal;
specifying communication identification information on the second vehicle which is configured to enable the first vehicle to communicate with the second vehicle based on the first information and second information relating to a surrounding vehicle present in a same tracking area (TA) or having a same cell ID as the first vehicle; and
sending the communication identification information to the first in-vehicle terminal.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, “specifying communication identification information … based on the first information and second information” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally recognizing/observing a characteristic (e.g. color, shape) of a surrounding vehicle present around the first vehicle. Correlating observed information about an object against a set of candidate records to identify a match is a process that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (e.g., a dispatcher matching a described vehicle against a list of vehicles known to be in a given area). The receiving and sending steps are mere data gathering and data outputting (insignificant extra-solution activity, MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2A Prong 2: Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are above (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations (underlined) do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of “…receiving first information relating to a second vehicle acquired by using a sensor from the first in-vehicle terminal…” and “…sending the communication identification information to the first in-vehicle terminal These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The sensors are recited at a high level of generality that simply performs their intended function and performs extra solution activity of data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The information processing apparatus is a generic computer component that is recited at a high level of generality and is employed as a tool to perform the recited mental process of specifying. The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality and simply performs extra solution activity and are limitations that amount to necessary data gathering (receiving monitored environment data). The sending step is an extra solution activity of outputting information (sending a notification) (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claim 1 fails to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, use of processing apparatus in its ordinary capacity for tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The receiving data and the sending is drawn toward insignificant post-solution activity that has been determined by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362.
Independent claim 8 recites the same limitation as in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 8.
Therefore, claims 1-14 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Nishimura et al. (US 2022/0245390 A1) (“Nishimura”).
Nishimura teaches:
15. An information processing method executed by a first in-vehicle terminal included in a first vehicle, the method comprising: sending first information relating to a second vehicle acquired by using a sensor to an information processing apparatus; ([0030]; [0083]); receiving communication identification information on the second vehicle from an information processing apparatus that has received the first information ([0052] “the electronic apparatus 102 may receive the current geo-location of the first vehicle 104 or the second vehicle 108A from a navigation server (not shown) and accordingly retrieve or determine the first size of the license plate 116 based on the current geo-location.”), and communicating with a second in-vehicle terminal included in the second vehicle using the received communication identification information. (Fig. 1, [0029], [0030], [0042])
17. The information processing method according to claim 15, wherein the first in-vehicle terminal performs adjusting of an operation planned for the first vehicle through communication with the second in-vehicle terminal. ([0083] “The circuitry 202 may further control an alert operation of the first vehicle 502 based on the detected over-taking event related to the second vehicle 504. As the road 510 may be non-overtaking road, the circuitry 202 may alert a traffic control department of an area about the over-taking event with information about the one or more license plate characters of the detected license plate 512 of the second vehicle 504.”)
18. The information processing method according to claim 17, wherein the adjusting of the operation includes at least one of adjusting a timing at which the first vehicle performs an operation and adjusting a traveling speed of the first vehicle. ([0035], “the electronic apparatus 102 may further estimate time of the one or more events related to the second vehicle 108A based on the determined depth map and/or based on the position of the second vehicle 108A with respect to the first vehicle 104. The electronic apparatus 102 may further control one or more operations of the first vehicle 104 based on the estimated time of the one or more events related to the second vehicle 108A.”)
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.
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.
Claims 1-11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US 2022/0245390 A1) (“Nishimura”) in view of Chen et al. (WO 2020/002267 A1) (“Chen”)
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Nishimura teaches: an information processing method executed by an information processing apparatus in accordance with a request from a first in-vehicle terminal installed in a first vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving first information relating to a second vehicle acquired by using a sensor from the first in-vehicle terminal; ([0052] “the electronic apparatus 102 may receive the current geo-location of the first vehicle 104 or the second vehicle 108A from a navigation server (not shown) and accordingly retrieve or determine the first size of the license plate 116 based on the current geo-location.”)
specifying communication identification information on the second vehicle (Fig. 1, [0030] “The electronic apparatus 102 may receive the captured one or more images 114 and may detect the license plate 116 of the second vehicle 108A in the captured one or more images 114.;”; [0033] “The depth map may indicate information related to a distance of the first license plate 118A from the first image capture device 106A installed on the first vehicle 104. The one or more images 114 of the second vehicle 108A, from which the first license plate 118A may be detected, may be captured by the first image capture device 106A. In some embodiments, the real dimension of the detected first license plate 118A may be fixed as per a geo-location of the first vehicle 104 or the second vehicle 108A. The electronic apparatus 102 may extract a dimension in pixels of the first license plate 118A from the captured one or more images 114. The electronic apparatus 102 may further determine the depth map based on the real dimension and the dimensions in pixels of the detected first license plate 118A.The details of the calculation of the depth map of the first license plate 118A of the second vehicle 108A are further provided, for example, in FIG. 3.”; [0083] “As the road 510 may be non-overtaking road, the circuitry 202 may alert a traffic control department of an area about the over-taking event with information about the one or more license plate characters of the detected license plate 512 of the second vehicle 504. In some embodiments, the circuitry 202 may alert the second vehicle 504 via the communication network 112 (or via vehicle to vehicle (V2V) communication) about the over-taking event on the non-overtaking road 510.”) and
sending the communication identification information to the first in-vehicle terminal. (Fig. 1, [0029], [0030], [0042])
Nishimura does not appear to expressly teach
which is configured to enable the first vehicle to communicate with the second vehicle based on the first information and second information relating to a surrounding vehicle present in a same tracking area (TA) or having a same cell ID as the first vehicle (Emphasis Added)However Chen teaches which is configured to enable the first vehicle to communicate with the second vehicle based on the first information and second information relating to a surrounding vehicle present in a same tracking area (TA) or having a same cell ID as the first vehicle (Chen, page 13, lines 9-14, “an acquirer 201 , configured to obtain a communication identificator of a first vehicle, license plate information of a second vehicle to be communicated with, and positioning information of the first vehicle; a transmitter 202, configured to send the communication identificator of the first vehicle, the license plate information of the second vehicle and the positioning information of the first vehicle to a server;”) Chen constrains communication by a geographic distance threshold (“distance … less than a pre-set value D”) computed from GNSS positioning information (Chen, pages 14-15 “The server determines whether the distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle is less than a pre-set value D, and if the distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle is less than the pre-set value D, the server sends a communication instruction to permit communication with the second vehicle to the first vehicle. After receiving the permission instruction, the first vehicle acquires the information content required to be sent from the vehicle user. The information content may be text information or voice information, and may also be image information. Then, the first vehicle sends the acquired information content to the server. The server establishes a communication connection with the second vehicle according to the communication identificator of the second vehicle, and sends the information content to the second vehicle.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the license-plate-recognition-based vehicle system of Nishimura to incorporate Chen’s teaching of using a server to determine a communication identificator of the second vehicle from the second vehicle’s license-plate information and to enable vehicle-to-vehicle communication therewith. Nishimura already captures and recognizes the second vehicle’s license plate (Nishimura ¶¶ [0030]–[0031]) and contemplates alerting/communicating with the second vehicle via V2V communication (Nishimura ¶ [0083]), but does not disclose how the first vehicle obtains the identifier needed to address the second vehicle. Chen supplies this missing mechanism (Chen, claims 4, 6, 8), expressly to enable communication “in the case where … the first vehicle does not have the contact information of … the second vehicle”. The combination represents the use of a known technique (server-mediated resolution of a communication identifier from a license plate) to improve a similar device (Nishimura’s plate-recognition-based vehicle system) in the same way, and combines prior-art elements according to their established functions to yield the predictable result of enabling the first vehicle to communicate with the identified second vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Nishimura teaches wherein the second information includes position information on the surrounding vehicle. ([0052])
Regarding claim 3, Nishimura teaches wherein the second information includes information on at least one of a shape, a type, a color, and matters written on a license plate3 of the surrounding vehicle. (Fig. 4A, 404A, [0067])
Regarding claim 4, Nishimura teaches wherein the receiving first information includes receiving the first information acquired by using the sensor installed in the first vehicle. ([0067] “…. A plurality of image capture devices may be installed on the first vehicle 402. The plurality of image capture devices 412 (i.e. similar to the plurality of image capture devices 106) may include a first image capture device 412A”)
Regarding claim 5, Nishimura teaches wherein the receiving first information includes receiving the first information acquired by using a sensor provided in a transportation infrastructure used by the first vehicle. ([0028])
Regarding claim 6, Nishimura teaches wherein the specifying communication identification information on the second vehicle includes specifying the communication identification information on the second vehicle based on the first information, the second information, and third information acquired by a base station. (Fig. 1, [0014], [0015])
Regarding claim 7, Nishimura teaches wherein the communication identification information on the second vehicle is used by the first in-vehicle terminal to communicate with a second in-vehicle terminal installed in the second vehicle. ([0029], [0030])
Regarding claim 9, Nishimura teaches wherein the second information includes position information on the surrounding vehicle. ([0052])
Regarding claim 10, Nishimura teaches wherein the second information includes information on at least one of a shape, a type, a color, and matters written on a license plate of the surrounding vehicle. (Fig. 4A, 404A, [0067])
Regarding claim 11, Nishimura teaches wherein the controller receives the first information acquired by using the sensor installed in the first vehicle. ([0067] “…. A plurality of image capture devices may be installed on the first vehicle 402. The plurality of image capture devices 412 (i.e. similar to the plurality of image capture devices 106) may include a first image capture device 412A”)
Regarding claim 12, Nishimura teaches wherein the controller receives the first information acquired by using a sensor provided in a transportation infrastructure used by the first vehicle. ([0028])
Regarding claim 13, Nishimura teaches wherein the controller specifies the communication identification information on the second vehicle based on the first information, the second information, and third information acquired by a base station. (Fig. 1, [0014], [0015])
Regarding claim 14, Nishimura teaches wherein the communication identification information on the second vehicle is used by the first in-vehicle terminal to communicate with a second in-vehicle terminal installed in the second vehicle. ([0029], [0030])
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.
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.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Nishimura et al. (US 2022/0245390 A1) (“Nishimura”) in view of SUGAHARA et al. (US 2019/0227547 A1) (“Sugahara”)
Regarding claim 19, Nishimura teaches the information processing method according to claim 15. Although Nishimura discloses that based on the license plate detection/recognition, the disclosed electronic apparatus may provide the first vehicle 104 an inexpensive and real-time fleet management of nearby second vehicles, and may be widely implemented in all the autonomous or non-autonomous vehicles spanning over a variety of price range. (See [0035]) Nishimura does not appear to expressly teach wherein the first in-vehicle terminal suspends or interrupts executing automatic driving assistance with respect to the first vehicle when not receiving the communication identification information.
However Sugahara teaches wherein the first in-vehicle terminal suspends or interrupts executing automatic driving assistance with respect to the first vehicle when not receiving the communication identification information. (See Sugahara, [0043] “When receiving a determination result indicating that the driver camera 7 operates abnormally from the driver camera fault monitor 613 during the driving control in the automatic drive mode, the forced drive-mode switch signal output unit 614 performs control for outputting a forced drive mode switch signal for forcibly switching the drive mode from the automatic drive mode to the manual drive mode.”)
It would have been obvious to a person that skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to combine autonomous driving features of Sugahara with the autonomous system of Nishimura to prevent unsafe driving (see Sugahara [0004])
Regarding claim 20, Nishimura teaches the information processing method according to claim 15. Although Nishimura discloses that based on the license plate detection/recognition, the disclosed electronic apparatus may provide the first vehicle 104 an inexpensive and real-time fleet management of nearby second vehicles, and may be widely implemented in all the autonomous or non-autonomous vehicles spanning over a variety of price range. (See [0035]) Nishimura does not appear to expressly teach wherein the first in-vehicle terminal decreases an automatic driving assistance level with respect to the first vehicle when not receiving the communication identification information.
However Sugahara teaches wherein the first in-vehicle terminal decreases an automatic driving assistance level with respect to the first vehicle when not receiving the communication identification information. (See Sugahara, [0043] “When receiving a determination result indicating that the driver camera 7 operates abnormally from the driver camera fault monitor 613 during the driving control in the automatic drive mode, the forced drive-mode switch signal output unit 614 performs control for outputting a forced drive mode switch signal for forcibly switching the drive mode from the automatic drive mode to the manual drive mode.” e.g. level 5 to level 1)
It would have been obvious to a person that skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to combine autonomous driving features of Sugahara with the autonomous system of Nishimura to prevent unsafe driving (see Sugahara [0004])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANISS CHAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3832. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00pm 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, James Trammell can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
/ANISS CHAD/
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights