DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a Final rejection is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 19 August 2026. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-102 are currently pending, as discussed below. Claims 2 and 6 are canceled.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 7/22/2026 has been considered by examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and is persuasive. Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection for claims 1, 3-5, and 7-10 set forth in office action of 19 May 2026 but is moot in view of new obviousness rejection necessitated by the amendments. Amendments regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1, 3-5, and 7-10 has been fully considered and is persuasive and rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a route command unit in claim 1
an information detector in claim 1
an external force vector estimation unit in claim 1, 3-4 and 7-8
a control command unit in claim 1
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for a route command unit:
" Each block shown in the block diagrams of FIGS. 2 and 3 can be implemented by an element, such as a processor, a CPU, or memory of a computer, an electronic circuit, or a mechanism in terms of hardware, and by a computer program or the like in terms of software.", [¶ 32], Route command unit 50, Fig. 2
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for an information detector:
" Each block shown in the block diagrams of FIGS. 2 and 3 can be implemented by an element, such as a processor, a CPU, or memory of a computer, an electronic circuit, or a mechanism in terms of hardware, and by a computer program or the like in terms of software.", [¶ 32], Information Detector 21, Fig. 2
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for an external force vector estimation unit:
" Each block shown in the block diagrams of FIGS. 2 and 3 can be implemented by an element, such as a processor, a CPU, or memory of a computer, an electronic circuit, or a mechanism in terms of hardware, and by a computer program or the like in terms of software.", [¶ 32], external force vector estimation unit, 28, Fig. 2
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for a control command unit:
" Each block shown in the block diagrams of FIGS. 2 and 3 can be implemented by an element, such as a processor, a CPU, or memory of a computer, an electronic circuit, or a mechanism in terms of hardware, and by a computer program or the like in terms of software.", [¶ 32], control command unit 15, Fig. 2
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamamatsu et al. (US 20120259489 A1) in view of Igarashi; Kazuyuki et al. (US 20090043436 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hamamatsu teaches, a ship control system (Ship Maneuvering Device 3, see at least, Fig.1, 2, Hamamatsu), comprising: a route command unit that outputs a route command including a target ship position and a target bow direction of a ship (Fig.2 depicts a route information input unit 15 which receives operator’s external inputs of information regarding a route which is must have target ship position and the ship maneuvering device 3 determines a ship maneuvering condition including bow azimuth for causing ship 2 to sail along set route, see at least, ¶76-78, Fig.2, Hamamatsu); an information detector that detects ship information including an actual ship position and an actual bow direction of the ship (Fig.3 depicts positional information 58 and azimuth information 59, see at least, ¶83, Fig.3, Hamamatsu); an external force vector estimation unit that estimates an external force vector received by the ship based on at least one of a wave, wind, and a tidal current, using an actual acceleration or deceleration related to a ship position and a bow direction of the ship calculated from the ship information, and an estimated value of an acceleration or deceleration related to the ship position and the bow direction of the ship calculated by a hull motion model related to a hull motion of the ship (Fig.1 depicts the planned route designing device 4 , which calculates an actual marine area performance simulation model set to take into account the performance of the ship 2 in calm water and the performance of the ship 2 influenced by disturbances. The model calculates the transverse force by the disturbances on the hull which is interpreted as an external force vector. A ship in calm water is interpreted to be a state where no external force is applied or disturbances equal to zero, see at least, ¶68, Fig.1, 4, Hamamatsu); and a control command unit that controls both rotational frequency of a main engine and a rudder angle of the ship (Controller 16 sends operating commands to the propulsor 17 which includes a main propulsor 21 and a rudder 22, see at least, ¶80, Hamamatsu), based on the route command, the ship information, and the external force vector (based on the ship speed commend input from the short-term planned route (route command) and ship speed information, (ship information) the speed control portion outputs a propulsor operating command to the main propulsor 21, see at least, ¶85 and 65, Hamamatsu).
Hammatsu does not explicitly teach an external force vector estimation unit that estimates an external force vector received by the ship based on at least one of a wave, wind, and a tidal current, using an actual acceleration or deceleration related to a ship position and a bow direction of the ship calculated from the ship information, and an estimated value of an acceleration or deceleration related to the ship position and the bow direction of the ship calculated by a hull motion model related to a hull motion of the ship and a control command unit that controls both rotational frequency of a main engine and a rudder angle of the ship, based on the route command, the ship information, and the external force vector.
Iragashi, directed to an automatic vessel position holding control method teaches, an external force vector estimation unit that estimates an external force vector received by the ship based on at least one of a wave, wind, and a tidal current, using an actual acceleration or deceleration related to a ship position and a bow direction of the ship calculated from the ship information, and an estimated value of an acceleration or deceleration related to the ship position and the bow direction of the ship calculated by a hull motion model related to a hull motion of the ship (Fig. 7 block 114 calculation of acting force acting on hull using an estimated acceleration related on the ship and vessel position and heading in block S111. This method is calculation of a hull motion model which is an estimation of the force of the waves on a vessel , see at least, ¶ 69, 116-117, Iragashi) and a control command unit that controls both rotational frequency of a main engine and a rudder angle of the ship (the propulsive force generating device 30 can give effective control force to the vessel to the main propeller, steering and heading thrusters, see at least ¶57, Iragashi), based on the route command, the ship information, and the external force vector (Fig. 7 block S132 calculating the Feed Forward Control Force calculated from the position of the vessel and acting force acting on the hull (external force vector), see at least ¶119, Iragashi)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hamamatsu to incorporate the teachings of Iragashi which teaches an external force vector estimation unit that estimates an external force vector received by the ship based on at least one of a wave, wind, and a tidal current, using an actual acceleration or deceleration related to a ship position and a bow direction of the ship calculated from the ship information, and an estimated value of an acceleration or deceleration related to the ship position and the bow direction of the ship calculated by a hull motion model related to a hull motion of the ship and a control command unit that controls both rotational frequency of a main engine and a rudder angle of the ship, based on the route command, the ship information, and the external force vector since they are both related to automatic vessel control and incorporation of the teachings of Iragashi would reduce vehicle from drifting away from its planned route.
Regarding Claim 3, Hamamatsu in view of Iragashi teaches, the ship control system according to claim 1, wherein the external force vector estimation unit estimates an external force vector using an actual ship speed and actual acceleration or deceleration (Fig.1 depicts the planned route designing device 4 , which calculates an actual marine area performance simulation model set to take into account the performance of the ship 2 in calm water and the performance of the ship 2 influenced by disturbances. Fig. 4 depicts the disturbance factors which are used to generate the actual marine are performance simulation model, the terminal device 7 calculates the actual marine area performance information such as the sea margin distribution depicted by figures 12a of hull resistance increase and decrease (resistance is a function of acceleration F=ma, see at least, ¶68, and 57, Fig.1, Fig.4, Fig. 12a, Hamamatsu) in the actual bow direction of the ship (Fig.12A depicts hull resistance along the direction (deg) axis that spans 0 to 180 degrees. 0 degrees and 180 degrees which includes the actual bow direction of the ship, see at least, Fig. 12A, Hamamatsu).
Regarding Claim 4, Hamamatsu in view of Iragashi teaches, the ship control system according to claim 1, wherein the external force vector estimation unit estimates an external force vector using an actual ship speed and actual acceleration or deceleration (Fig.1 depicts the planned route designing device 4 , which calculates an actual marine area performance simulation model set to take into account the performance of the ship 2 in calm water and the performance of the ship 2 influenced by disturbances. Fig. 4 depicts the disturbance factors which are used to generate the actual marine are performance simulation model, the terminal device 7 calculates the actual marine area performance information such as the sea margin distribution depicted by figures 12a of hull resistance increase and decrease (resistance is a function of acceleration F=ma, and Figure 12b which depicts upward and downward acceleration of the actual marine area performance of the ship), see at least, ¶68, and 57, Fig.1, Fig.4, Fig. 12a, Fig. 12b, Hamamatsu) in a direction perpendicular to the actual bow direction of the ship (Fig.12A depicts hull resistance along the direction (deg) axis that spans 0 to 180 degrees. 90 degrees is perpendicular to the bow direction of the ship, see at least, Fig. 12A, Hamamatsu).
Regarding Claim 5, Hamamatsu in view of Iragashi teaches, The ship control system according to claim 1, wherein the external force vector is estimated using a measurement result of an external force received by the ship from at least one of wind or a tidal current (Fig.4 depicts calculating the actual marine area performance simulation model set to take into account the performance of the ship 2 influenced by disturbances such as wind, wave, ocean current and swell, see at least, ¶68, Fig. 4, Hamamatsu).
Regarding Claim 7, Hamamatsu in view of Iragashi teaches, The ship control system according to claim 1, wherein the external force vector estimation unit performs part or all of processing of generating or updating the hull motion model, using a device outside the ship via a communication means connected with the device outside the ship using wireless communication network (Fig.1 depicts the terminal Device 7 where the actual marine area performance simulation model is built, which is received by the planned route designing device 4 through wireless communication means with a land office, see at least, ¶68, Fig.1, Hamamatsu).
Regarding Claim 8, Hamamatsu in view if Iragashi teaches, an external force vector estimation device, comprising an external force vector estimation unit that estimates an external force vector received by the ship based on at least one of a wave, wind, and a tidal current (Fig.1 depicts the planned route designing device 4 , which calculates an actual marine area performance simulation model set to take into account the performance of the ship 2 influenced by disturbances such as wind, wave. The model takes into account the transverse force by the disturbances on the hull which is interpreted as an external force vector, see at least, ¶68, Fig.1, 4, Hamamatsu), using an actual acceleration or deceleration related to a ship position and a bow direction of the ship calculated from the ship information, and an estimated value of an acceleration or deceleration related to the ship position and the bow direction of the ship calculated by a hull motion model related to a hull motion of the ship (Fig.3 positional information 58, azimuth information 59, and hull motion model 55 are used in the short-term planned route designation portion 28, ¶83, Fig.3, Hamamatsu).
Hammatsu does not explicitly teach using an actual acceleration or deceleration related to a ship position and a bow direction of the ship calculated from the ship information, and an estimated value of an acceleration or deceleration related to the ship position and the bow direction of the ship.
Iragashi, directed to an automatic vessel position holding control method teaches, using an actual acceleration or deceleration related to a ship position and a bow direction of the ship calculated from the ship information, and an estimated value of an acceleration or deceleration related to the ship position and the bow direction of the ship (Fig. 7 block 114 calculation of acting force acting on hull using an estimated acceleration related on the ship and vessel position and heading in block S111. This method is calculation of a hull motion model which is an estimation of the force of the waves on a vessel , see at least, ¶ 69, 116-117, Iragashi).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hamamatsu to incorporate calculation of transverse forces using the hull motion model to include using an actual acceleration or deceleration related to a ship position and a bow direction of the ship calculated from the ship information, and an estimated value of an acceleration or deceleration related to the ship position and the bow direction of the ship since they are both related to automatic vessel control and incorporation of the teachings of Iragashi would reduce vehicle from drifting away from its planned route.
Regarding Claim 9, Hamamatsu teaches, a control method for a ship control system (Ship Maneuvering Device 3, see at least, Fig.1, 2, Hamamatsu), the control method comprising: outputting a route command including a target ship position and a target bow direction of a ship (Fig.2 depicts a route information input unit 15 which receives operator’s outputs information regarding a route which is must have target ship position and the ship maneuvering device 3 determines a ship maneuvering condition including bow azimuth for causing ship 2 to sail along set route, see at least, ¶76-78, Fig.2, Hamamatsu); detecting ship information including an actual ship position and an actual bow direction of the ship (Fig.3 depicts detecting positional information 58 and azimuth information 59, see at least, ¶83, Fig.3, Hamamatsu); estimating an external force vector received by the ship based on at least one of a wave, wind, and a tidal current (Fig.1 depicts the planned route designing device 4 , which calculates an actual marine area performance simulation model set to take into account the performance of the ship 2 influenced by disturbances such as wind, wave. The model takes into account the transverse force by the disturbances on the hull which is interpreted as an external force vector, see at least, ¶68, Fig.1, 4, Hamamatsu), using an actual acceleration or deceleration related to a ship position and a bow direction of the ship calculated from the ship information, and an estimated value of an acceleration or deceleration related to the ship position and the bow direction of the ship calculated by a hull motion model related to a hull motion of the ship (Fig.3 positional information 58, azimuth information 59, and hull motion model 55 are used in the short-term planned route designation portion 28, ¶83, Fig.3, Hamamatsu).
Hammatsu does not explicitly teach using an actual acceleration or deceleration related to a ship position and a bow direction of the ship calculated from the ship information, and an estimated value of an acceleration or deceleration related to the ship position and the bow direction of the ship.
Iragashi, directed to an automatic vessel position holding control method teaches, using an actual acceleration or deceleration related to a ship position and a bow direction of the ship calculated from the ship information, and an estimated value of an acceleration or deceleration related to the ship position and the bow direction of the ship (Fig. 7 block 114 calculation of acting force acting on hull using an estimated acceleration related on the ship and vessel position and heading in block S111. This method is calculation of a hull motion model which is an estimation of the force of the waves on a vessel , see at least, ¶ 69, 116-117, Iragashi).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hamamatsu to incorporate calculation of transverse forces using the hull motion model to include using an actual acceleration or deceleration related to a ship position and a bow direction of the ship calculated from the ship information, and an estimated value of an acceleration or deceleration related to the ship position and the bow direction of the ship since they are both related to automatic vessel control and incorporation of the teachings of Iragashi would reduce vehicle from drifting away from its planned route.
Regarding Claim 10, Hamamatsu teaches, a non-transitory computer-readable memory medium storing a control program for a ship control system (Fig. 2 Storage Portion 63 stores computer programs executed by the controller of the ship maneuvering device, see at least, ¶80, Fig.2, Hamamatsu), the control program causing a computer to perform: outputting a route command including a target ship position and a target bow direction of a ship (Fig.2 depicts a route information input unit 15 which receives operator’s external inputs of information regarding a route which is must have target ship position and the ship maneuvering device 3 determines a ship maneuvering condition including bow azimuth for causing ship 2 to sail along set route, see at least, ¶76-78, Fig.2, Hamamatsu); detecting ship information including an actual ship position and an actual bow direction of the ship (Fig.3 depicts positional information 58 and azimuth information 59, see at least, ¶83, Fig.3, Hamamatsu); estimating an external force vector received by the ship based on at least one of a wave, wind, and a tidal current (Fig.1 depicts the planned route designing device 4 , which calculates an actual marine area performance simulation model set to take into account the performance of the ship 2 influenced by disturbances such as wind, wave. The model takes into account the transverse force by the disturbances on the hull which is interpreted as an external force vector, see at least, ¶68, Fig.1, 4, Hamamatsu), using an actual acceleration or deceleration related to a ship position and a bow direction of the ship calculated from the ship information, and an estimated value of an acceleration or deceleration related to the ship position and the bow direction of the ship calculated by a hull motion model related to a hull motion of the ship (Fig.3 positional information 58, azimuth information 59, and hull motion model 55 are used in the short-term planned route designation portion 28, ¶83, Fig.3, Hamamatsu).
Hammatsu does not explicitly teach using an actual acceleration or deceleration related to a ship position and a bow direction of the ship calculated from the ship information, and an estimated value of an acceleration or deceleration related to the ship position and the bow direction of the ship.
Iragashi, directed to an automatic vessel position holding control method teaches, using an actual acceleration or deceleration related to a ship position and a bow direction of the ship calculated from the ship information, and an estimated value of an acceleration or deceleration related to the ship position and the bow direction of the ship (Fig. 7 block 114 calculation of acting force acting on hull using an estimated acceleration related on the ship and vessel position and heading in block S111. This method is calculation of a hull motion model which is an estimation of the force of the waves on a vessel , see at least, ¶ 69, 116-117, Iragashi).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hamamatsu to incorporate caculation of transverse forces using the hull motion model to include using an actual acceleration or deceleration related to a ship position and a bow direction of the ship calculated from the ship information, and an estimated value of an acceleration or deceleration related to the ship position and the bow direction of the ship since they are both related to automatic vessel control and incorporation of the teachings of Iragashi would reduce vehicle from drifting away from its planned route.
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 whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (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 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.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights