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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendments filed on January 13, 2026, has been entered and made of record.
Currently pending Claim(s) 1-18
Independent Claims(s) 1 and 9
Amended Claim(s) 1, 7, 9, and 15
Canceled Claim(s) None
New Claim(s) 17-18
Response to Arguments
This office action is responsive to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment received on January 13, 2026.
In view of the amendments filed on January 13, 2026, the Applicant has amended Independent Claims 1 and 9 to include two new limitations: that the first information is received from a plurality of connected vehicles and roadside apparatuses that are located within a predetermined radius from the first vehicle, and determining whether the first object is located in a traveling direction of the first vehicle based on a sign of at least one coordinate of the first object in a first coordinate system. Originally, (in the claims set dated January 13, 2026), Claims 1 and 9 were rejected using Horihata (US Pub No 2023/0120095).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Horihata fails to anticipate the limitations of a predetermined radius and a sign. However, upon conducting a new search, the Examiner argues that the newly amended Claims 1 and 9 are unpatentable over Horihata in view Nakamura (US Pub No 2024/0135808) and Xie et al. (US Pub No 2023/0034574).
In view of the Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed on January 13, 2026, with respect to the claims, the Applicant explained (on Remarks page 8-9,) that Horihata fails to disclose the limitations of receiving first information from a plurality of vehicles and apparatuses within a predetermined radius and determining whether the first object is located in a traveling direction of the first vehicle based on a sign of at least one coordinate of the first object in a first coordinate system.
Horihata teaches receiving first information from a plurality of vehicles and apparatuses within a certain range (see paragraph [0066]), but Horihata fails to explicitly teach radius. Horihata teaches a coordinate system (see paragraph [0082]), and teaches locating an object located in the traveling direction of the first vehicle (see paragraph [0157]), but fails to explicitly teach a sign of the coordinate system. Thus, the examiner agrees that Horihata fails to teach the newly added limitations.
As to dependent Claim 17, Horihata teaches a controller that is configured to further execute the processing of: obtaining, in response to receiving the first information, a present location of the first vehicle; and converting geographical coordinates corresponding to the present location into coordinates in the first coordinate system (see paragraph [0082]). However, Horihata, Pisz, and Suzuki fails to explicitly teach the first coordinate system includes an orthogonal coordinate system having its origin set at the present location of the vehicle.
As to dependent Claim 18, Horihata, Pisz and Suzuki all fail to teach a positive sign or a negative sign of a Y coordinate of the first object in the first coordinate system.
Thus, the Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action, and the independent Claims 1, 9, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Horihata, Nakamura, and Xie.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horihata (US Pub No 2023/0120095), hereinafter Horihata, in view of Nakamura (US Pub No 2024/0135808), hereinafter Nakamura, and further in view of Xie et al. (US Pub No 2023/0034574), hereinafter Xie.
As to Claim 1, Horihata teaches an information processing apparatus, (see paragraph [0004], “obstacle information management device”),
provided on a first vehicle that is a connected vehicle capable of performing V2X (Vehicle-to-Everything) communication, (see vehicle in Fig. 1, see V2X-In-Vehicle device 15 in Fig. 2)
comprising a controller including at least one processor (see ECU (electronic control unit) 60 in Fig. 2 and processing unit 51 in Fig. 2)
the controller being configured to execute the processing of: receiving first information (see paragraph [0066], “including location information of a first object (see paragraph [0052], “The front camera 11 detects a predetermined detection target object, and specifies a relative position of the detection object with respect to the subject vehicle”, where the relative position is the first information),
from a plurality of connected vehicles and roadside apparatuses (see paragraph [0066], “The short range communication unit provided in the V2X in-vehicle device 15 is a communication module for directly performing wireless communication with other moving objects or roadside devices existing around the subject vehicle…The other moving objects are not limited to the vehicle, and may include the pedestrian or the bicycle…For example, the short range communication unit broadcasts vehicle information on the subject vehicle to surrounding vehicles at a predetermined transmission cycle, and receives the vehicle information transmitted from other vehicles.”),
determining whether the first object is located in a traveling direction of the first vehicle (see paragraph [0157], “For example, it is determined that an obstacle Obs exists at a point in the traveling direction by a predetermined distance (for example, 5 m) further from a separation point (hereinafter, referred to as a rearmost separation point) Pd 1 located on the closest side in the traveling direction in the corresponding lane”),
outputting second information based on the first information, the second information being information to caution about the first object (see paragraph [0070], “The obstacle notification image 80 is an image for notifying the user of information about the obstacle”, where the obstacle notification image is the second information),
and outputting third information based on the first information, the third information being information to indicate the existence of the first object (see paragraph [0043], “Obstacle notification image 80 includes, for example, information such as the positional relationship between the lane in which the obstacle exists and the lane in which the vehicle is traveling… Image 83 shows an obstacle and image 84 shows a roadside. Further, the obstacle notification image 80 may include an image 85 showing the remaining distance to the point where the obstacle exists”, where the image showing the obstacle and remaining distance is the third information).
Horihata fails to teach to teach that the other connected vehicles and roadside apparatuses are located within a predetermined radius. Horihata teaches a predetermined range that other vehicles and apparatuses can be located within (see paragraph [0066], “The short range communication unit provided in the V2X in-vehicle device 15 is a communication module for directly performing wireless communication with other moving objects or roadside devices existing around the subject vehicle in accordance with a communication standard in which a communication distance is limited within several hundred meters”).
However, Nakamura teaches a vehicle with a V2X communication unit (see paragraph [0044], “The communication unit 100 broadcasts vehicle-A-position data including, inter alia, current position information and travel-plan information pertaining to the vehicle A. A direct communication scheme is used in the broadcast transmission. The direct communication scheme is, for example, DSRC (frequency: 5.9 GHz band), which is compliant with IEEE 802.11p, or Cellular V2X, which is compliant with specifications in 3GPP Release 14 or later” which is capable of producing a beam with a predetermined radius (see paragraph [0039], “The normal beam Bn is formed in a circular range that is centered on the communication unit 100 and has a prescribed distance as a radius.”, which can be used to communicate with other vehicles (see paragraph [0040], “The vehicle A can communicate with a vehicle B present in the region in which the normal beam Bn is formed”, and see Fig. 2A, where vehicle B is within a radius centered on vehicle A). Nakamura is combinable with Horihata because both are from the analogous art of obstacle detection in vehicles. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the beam taught by Nakamura with the information processing apparatus taught by Horihata. The motivation for doing so would be to expand the communication range of the vehicle with other objects ahead of the vehicle. Nakamura teaches in paragraph [0039], “Thus, the prescribed range in which the normal beam Bn is formed can be a circular range that has the prescribed distance as a radius or, as another example, can be a prescribed range having directivity in a prescribed direction, such as a vehicle advancement direction.”
Both Horihata and Nakamura fail to teach determining whether the first object is located in a traveling direction of the first vehicle based on a sign of at least one coordinate of the first object in a first coordinate system. Horihata teaches that the position of the first object can be given as a coordinate (see paragraph [0082], “The obstacle detection position can be expressed in any optional absolute coordinate system such as World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84). The obstacle detection position can be calculated by combining current position coordinates of the subject vehicle and relative position”), but fails to disclose a sign associated with the coordinate.
However, Xie teaches a vehicle coordinate system (see paragraph [0013]), that teaches a positive Y direction with the traveling direction of the vehicle (see paragraph [0055], “a location of a vehicle V serves as an origin of a coordinate system, a traveling direction of the vehicle serves as a positive direction of a Y axis, and a direction perpendicular to the traveling direction of the vehicle (namely, a width direction of a road) serves as a positive direction of an X axis”). Xie is combinable with Horihata and Nakamura as all three are from the analogous field of image analysis in vehicles. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the coordinate system taught by Horihata and radius taught by Nakamura with the sign taught by Xie. The motivation for doing so would be to would be to determine the location of objects with respect to the first vehicle. Xie teaches in paragraph [0064], “it may be determined that a location corresponding to S2 is a location that is N±S below (in the negative direction of the Y axis or an opposite direction of the traveling direction of the vehicle) a current location of the vehicle, and a location corresponding to E2 is a location that is Xi−M±S above (in the positive direction of the Y axis) the current location of the vehicle”). Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the sign taught Xie with the teachings of Horihata and Nakamura in order to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 1.
As to Claim 6, Horihata in view of Nakamura and Xie teaches a first vehicle provided with a navigation system and a controller (see Horihata, ECU 60 in Fig. 2 connected to map cooperation device 50 in Fig. 2) is configured to further execute the processing of transmitting a command signal to display the location of the first object on a map based on the first information to the navigation system, (see paragraph [0266], “The map cooperation device outputs the obstacle information acquired from the map server to the navigation device or the autonomous driving device” and paragraph [0089], “The notification processing unit F6 is configured to notify the driver’s seat occupant of information on the obstacle existing in front of the vehicle in cooperation with the HMI system 16, based on the on-map obstacle information. For example, the notification processing unit F6 generates an obstacle notification image illustrated in FIG. 4 , and causes the display 161 to display the obstacle notification image, based on the on-map obstacle information”). It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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 to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, because Horihata explicitly motivates doing so at least in paragraph [210] including “For example, various modification examples to be described below can be executed in combination as appropriate within a scope that does not cause technical inconsistency” and otherwise motivating combining the obstacle detection system with the navigation system in order to notify the user of the existence of an obstacle in front of the user and the position of the object relative to the user, (see paragraph [0070], “The obstacle notification image 80 is an image for notifying the user of information on the obstacle. For example, the obstacle notification image 80 includes information on a positional relationship between the lane on which the obstacle exists and the subject vehicle traveling lane. FIG. 4 illustrates a case where the obstacle exists on the subject vehicle traveling lane. An image 81 in FIG. 4 indicates the subject vehicle, and an image 82 indicates the lane boundary. An image 83 indicates the obstacle, and an image 84 represents the roadside”).
As to Claim 14, Claim 14 claims the same limitation as Claim 6 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 6.
As to Claim 7, Horihata in view of Nakamura and Xie teaches a controller configured to: outputting the second information and the third information on condition that it is determined that the first object is located in the traveling direction of the first vehicle (see paragraph [0093] of Horihata, “When the obstacle recognized by the map server 2 does not exist within the reference distance in Step S102, this flow ends. On the other hand, when the obstacle exists within the reference distance, that is, when the obstacle registration point exists, a process of Step S103 is performed”, where in step 103 an obstacle point report is generated and transmitted, and the obstacle notification image with second and third information is displayed to the user).
As to Claim 8, Horihata in view of Nakamura and Xie teaches that the first object is a vehicle in accident, a vehicle in trouble, a service vehicle, or a fallen object (see paragraph [0053], “The front camera 11 detects an obstacle such as a dead animal, a fallen tree, and a fallen object”).
As to Claim 9, Claim 9 teaches an information processing method that when executed by a computer provided in a first vehicle (see paragraph [0075], the driver-assistance ECU 60 is configured to mainly include a computer including the processing unit, the RAM, the storage, the communication interface, and the bus connecting all of these.”),
that is a connected vehicle capable of performing V2X (Vehicle-to-Everything) communication (see vehicle in Fig 1, see V2X-In-Vehicle device 15 in Fig 2).
executes a process performing the same process executed by the information processing apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 1.
As to Claim 15, Claim 15 claims the same limitation as Claim 7 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 7.
As to Claim 16, Claim 16 claims the same limitation as Claim 8 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 8.
As to Claim 17, Horihata in view of Nakamura teaches in response to receiving the first information, a present location of the first vehicle and obtaining geographic coordinates corresponding to the present location and a first coordinate system based on the first vehicle (see Horihata, paragraph [0082], “The detection object information acquisition unit F4 acquires information on the obstacle detected by the front camera 11…The obstacle detection position can be expressed in any optional absolute coordinate system such as World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84). The obstacle detection position can be calculated by combining current position coordinates of the subject vehicle and relative position information of the obstacle with respect to the subject vehicle.”). Horihata fails to teach that the first coordinate system including an orthogonal coordinate system having its origin set at the present location of the vehicle.
However, Xie teaches an orthogonal coordinate system having its origin set at the present location of the vehicle (see paragraph [0055], “Referring to FIG. 2 , at a time point of the timestamp T, first, a location of a vehicle V serves as an origin of a coordinate system, a traveling direction of the vehicle serves as a positive direction of a Y axis, and a direction perpendicular to the traveling direction of the vehicle (namely, a width direction of a road) serves as a positive direction of an X axis”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the coordinate system taught by Horihata and radius taught by Nakamura with the sign taught by Xie. The motivation for doing so would be to would be to determine the location of objects with respect to the first vehicle, as taught by Xie in paragraph [0064].
As to Claim 18, Horihata in view of Nakamura fails to teach wherein the sign is a positive sign or a negative sign of a Y coordinate of the first object in the first coordinate system. However, Xie teaches the sign is can be a positive sign of the Y coordinate (see paragraph [0055], “a traveling direction of the vehicle serves as a positive direction of a Y axis”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the positive Y coordinate sign taught Xie with the teachings of Horihata and Nakamura in order to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 18. The motivation for doing so would be to would be to determine the location of objects with respect to the first vehicle, as taught by Xie in paragraph [0064].
Horihata (US Pub No 2023/0120095), in view of Nakamura (US Pub No 2024/0135808), hereinafter Nakamura, further in view of Xie (US Pub No 2023/0034574), and further in view of Pisz (US Pub No 2016/0057335), hereinafter Pisz.
As to Claim 2, Horihata in view of Nakamura and Xie teaches an information apparatus that received first information which includes first imaged data obtained by capturing an image of the first object (see Horihata, paragraph [0051], “The front camera 11 includes a camera body portion that generates an image frame, and an ECU that detects a predetermined detection target object by performing recognition processing on the image frame”). However, Horihata fails to explicitly teach the controller outputs the first image data as the third information. However, Pisz teaches that first image data can be output as third information (see paragraph [0060], “Such images can be displayed on the navigation display 240 to provide the vehicle driver with a recent or real-time image of the traffic conditions on the roadway 30”, where an object may be a vehicle on the roadway). Pisz is combinable with Horihata, Nakamura, and Xie because all four are from the analogous field of image capture and analysis in vehicles. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the information apparatus taught by Horihata with the display method taught by Pisz. The motivation for doing so would be to alert the driver of obstacles or objects ahead of the driver, which would allow the driver to decide to take an alternate path if necessary. Pisz teaches in [0037], “This allows the driver a choice to either continue along his original route or to take an alternate route to avoid traffic congestion, a traffic accident that just occurred, temporary road construction, etc.” A vehicle in an accident would be an example of an object. Thus, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Horihata, Nakamura, and Xie with the teachings of Pisz to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 2.
As to Claim 3, Horihata in view of Nakamura and Xie fails to teach first information that further includes information on first date and time, which is the date and time when the first image data was captured, and the controller outputs the first image data and the first date and time as the third information. However, Pisz teaches that date and time can be captured (see paragraph 0057], “When activated, the image sensor 64 captures images of the traffic conditions on the roadway 30 forward of the vehicle 12 as the vehicle 12 moves in one direction along the roadway 30. Such images are date and time stamped by the computing device 100”) and then output to the driver (see paragraph [0068], “along with time and date stamp information which can be displayed on the display 240 to alert the driver that the image being displayed were taken at a particular time and day”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Horihata, Nakamura, and Xie with the display method taught by Pisz. The motivation for doing so would be to provide recent pictures to drivers of current traffic conditions. Pisz teaches in paragraph [0005] and [0006], “Mobile applications such as Google Maps®, can provide a still photograph of a particular road segment, intersection, etc. However, such photographic information is completely independent of current road conditions as the visual images are old images stored in memory and very infrequently updated. It would be desirable to obtain current traffic condition reports which can be downloaded and viewed or otherwise made available to a vehicle driver in advance of a particular road segment ahead of the current position of the vehicle”. Thus, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Horihata, Nakamura, and Xie with the teachings of Pisz to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 3.
As to Claim 4, Horihata in view of Nakamura and Xie fails to teach first information further includes second image data, the second image data being image data obtained by capturing an image of the first object and a road where the first object is located, and the controller outputs the second image data as the third information. However, Pisz teaches that second image data of roads can be captured (see paragraph [0012], “to store the images in conjunction with coordinates of the road segment where the images were taken” and displayed (see paragraph [0022], “A display can be carried in the vehicle and coupled to the computing device in the vehicle for displaying the traffic condition images. The computing device can be responsive to a vehicle driver input specifying a roadway location for image download”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Horihata, Nakamura, and Xie with the display method taught by Pisz. The motivation for doing so would be to allow drivers to view traffic on road segments ahead of their current position. Pisz teaches in paragraph [0006], “It would be desirable to obtain current traffic condition reports which can be downloaded and viewed or otherwise made available to a vehicle driver in advance of a particular road segment ahead of the current position of the vehicle”. Thus, by showing obstacles and the roads they appear on beforehand, the driver has the opportunity to avoid these particular road segments. Thus, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Horihata, Nakamura, and Xie with the teachings of Pisz to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 4.
As to Claim 10, Claim 10 claims the same limitation as Claim 2 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 2.
As to Claim 11, Claim 11 claims the same limitation as Claim 3 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 3.
As to Claim 12, Claim 12 claims the same limitation as Claim 4 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 4.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Horihata (US Pub No 2023/0120095), in view of Nakamura (US Pub No 2024/0135808), further in view of Xie (US Pub No 2023/0034574), and further in view of Suzuki (JP Pub No 2003/254756A), hereinafter Suzuki.
As to Claim 5, Horihata in view of Nakamura and Xie teaches first information includes information on a first elevation, the first elevation being an elevation of a place where the first object is located (see Horihata, paragraph [0141], “The distribution processing unit G4 selects the destination of the obstacle notification packet by using a road link or height information. Accordingly, it is possible to reduce a risk of misdistribution to the vehicle traveling on a road annexed on the upper/lower side of the road where the obstacle exists. In other words, it is possible to reduce a risk of misspecifying a distribution target in a road segment having an elevated road or a double-deck structure”),
Horihata fails to teach a controller configured to further execute the processing of outputting fourth information including the first elevation and a second elevation when outputting the second information and the third information, the second elevation being an elevation of the place where the first vehicle is located. However, Suzuki teaches that the elevation of a vehicle can be displayed with reference to a second reference elevation (see paragraph [0004], “here is provided a height difference display method for displaying a height difference from a reference height based on the height of the vehicle at the time of instructing”). Suzuki is combinable with Horihata, Nakamura, and Xie because all four are from analogous fields of displays in vehicles. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the information apparatus taught by Horihata with the display method taught by Suzuki. The motivation for doing so would be to allow drivers to easily see and understand the elevation difference between the vehicle and a reference point. Suzuki teaches in paragraph [0003], “Despite being equipped with such a large display device, the conventional altitude display is performed only with numbers before the old state, and there is a problem that the display utilizing the characteristics of the device is not made. In addition, the conventional altitude display of only numbers has a problem that it is impossible to display in consideration of the display in a mountainous area that only happens occasionally. From the above, an object of the present invention is to display a height difference and altitude (altitude above sea level) graphically so as to be easily understood visually using a large display device”. Thus, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Horihata with the teachings of Suzuki to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 5.
As to Claim 13, Claim 5 claims the same limitation as Claim 5 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 5.
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 SOUMYA THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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.
/S.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2664
/JENNIFER MEHMOOD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2664