DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4, 24-27 and 47 have been amended.
Claims 5, 6, 11, 13-23, 32-46 and 48 have been cancelled.
Claims 49 and 50 have been added.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 12, 24-31, 47, 49 and 50 are pending.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claims 1 and 24 (see applicant’s remarks; pages 8 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.
In particular, the examiner has introduced Roy to disclose the amended limitation “wherein the second set of video conferencing functionality comprises an auto-initiate option that, upon selection, automatically initiates the video conference call with the user device when a change is detected in the autonomous state of the autonomous vehicle from a non-autonomous state to an autonomous state”, as shown in the rejection below.
The applicant states the same argument for dependent claims 8-12, 31 and 47 as that of independent claims 1 and 24 above (see applicant’s remarks; page 9). Therefore, the argument is moot for the same reason discussed above.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 47, the claims recite alternative language, i.e. using the term “or”, and as such, the Examiner interprets certain features to not be required due to the claim language listing the features in the alternative. The rejection below specifies the particular limitations.
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 1-4, 7, 24-30, 49 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al. (U.S. 2019/0361694 A1) in view of Sugioka et al. (U.S. 2016/0205146 A1) and further in view of Roy (U.S. 2025/0063330 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 24, Gordon discloses a method comprising:
receiving an invitation on a user device, from a caller device, to join a video conference call (see Gordon; paragraphs 0821 and 0878; Gordon discloses a tablet computer or phone device utilized during a video conference. For example, an interface may be displayed to indicate to a user of a second device, i.e. “user device”, such as the tablet or phone, that a user of a first device, i.e. “a caller device”, such as the tablet or phone, sent a request, i.e. “an invitation”, to start a video conference, i.e. “a video conference call”, and to prompt the user of the second device to accept, i.e. “to join”);
determining that the user device is associated with an autonomous vehicle (see Gordon; paragraphs 1345 and 1378; Gordon discloses when a user’s tablet or phone device, i.e. “the user device”, is within a predetermined proximity of a vehicle, an application on the device may be activated to control at least some aspect of the vehicular system, e.g. a vehicle control mode, such as configure settings associated with an autonomous car, i.e. “the user device is associated with an autonomous vehicle”).
While Gordon discloses a video conference utilized on user devices associated with an autonomous vehicle, as discussed above, Gordon does not explicitly disclose automatically sharing data relating to an autonomous state of the autonomous vehicle to an application platform that is accessible by the caller device; and changing a configuration of a user interface of the caller device based on the shared data accessed by the caller device, wherein the change in the user interface of the caller device provides a second set of video conferencing functionality to the caller device for engaging the user device in the video conference call.
In analogous art, Sugioka discloses automatically sharing data relating to an autonomous state of the autonomous vehicle to an application platform that is accessible by the caller device (see Sugioka; paragraphs 0075 and 0078; Sugioka discloses determining there will be autonomous driving during a planned route and the duration of the autonomous driving, i.e. “data relating to an autonomous state of the autonomous vehicle”, is sent to a scheduling unit, i.e. “application platform”. Further, data of when the autonomous driving has ended is also sent to the scheduling unit, i.e. “automatically sharing data relating to an autonomous state of the autonomous vehicle”); and
changing a configuration of a user interface of the caller device based on the shared data accessed by the caller device, wherein the change in the user interface of the caller device provides a second set of video conferencing functionality to the caller device for engaging the user device in the video conference call (see Sugioka; paragraphs 0029, 0040, 0066, 0072 and 0078; Sugioka discloses a call request may be based on a scheduled conference call comprised in a calendar of a participant. The contents of the calendar for the participant, e.g. a driver, is received whenever the driver’s mobile phone is connected within a vehicle. The calling request may be an incoming or an outgoing request from any participants of a video conference call. The driver may participate in the call via a speaker phone without the use of a video. In particular, the call may be started as a video conference call and thereafter be switched, i.e. “changing a configuration”, to an audio call once the autonomous driving has ended, i.e. “the shared data accessed by the caller device”. In other words, “changing a configuration of a user interface of the caller device” occurs by the call starting off as a video conference, i.e. functionality for video would be provided for the video conference, on the device, such as the mobile phone, i.e. “caller device”, connected within the vehicle and when data of the autonomous driving has ended is sent, i.e. “the shared data”, then the conference call being switched to an audio call, in which, functionality for the audio call via a speaker phone, i.e. “a second set of video conferencing functionality”, would be provided in order to continue the call. The examiner notes that support for this interpretation can be found in the applicant’s specification where it states that when the mode of operation is non-autonomous the driver’s conferencing device is adapted for audio only; see applicant’s specification as filed; paragraphs 0090 and 0121).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Gordon and Sugioka because they both disclose features of video conferencing in a vehicle, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of determining autonomous and non-autonomous vehicle modes as taught by Sugioka into the system of Gordon in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing a user who has joined a video conference using a device associated with an autonomous vehicle (see Gordon; paragraphs 0878 and 1378) to have minimum distraction, such as, when the driver/user attention should be directed towards the operation of the vehicle when in non-autonomous mode (see Sugioka; paragraphs 0005 and 0008).
While Sugioka discloses a “second set of video conferencing functionality”, as discussed above, the combination of Gordon and Sugioka does not explicitly disclose wherein the second set of video conferencing functionality comprises an auto-initiate option that, upon selection, automatically initiates the video conference call with the user device when a change is detected in the autonomous state of the autonomous vehicle from a non-autonomous state to an autonomous state.
In analogous art, Roy discloses wherein the second set of video conferencing functionality comprises an auto-initiate option that, upon selection, automatically initiates the video conference call with the user device when a change is detected in the autonomous state of the autonomous vehicle from a non-autonomous state to an autonomous state (see Roy; paragraphs 0061, 0066, 0076 and 0083; Roy discloses automatically querying availability of occupants in a vehicle. Information about the vehicle, such as, specifying whether the vehicle is being driven autonomously or by a human driver is received. When the vehicle is not operating in autonomous mode then an audio call is placed, but when the vehicle is being driven in the autonomous mode then a video call is automatically initiated, i.e. “automatically initiates the video conference call when a change is detected in the autonomous state of the autonomous vehicle from a non-autonomous state to an autonomous state”, and a function such as a conference call can be provided, i.e. “auto-initiate option...”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Gordon, Sugioka and Roy because they all disclose features of video conferencing in a vehicle, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of video calls in autonomously driven vehicles as taught by Roy into the combined system of Gordon and Sugioka in order to provide the benefit of allowing a user who has joined a video conference using a device associated with an autonomous vehicle (see Gordon; paragraphs 0878 and 1378) to see additional information of the initiator of the call, such as, vehicle type of the initiator, name of the vehicle owner, etc. (see Roy; paragraph 0066), thus improving user experience.
Further, Gordon discloses the additional limitations of claim 24, a system comprising: communications circuitry configured to access a user device (see Gordon; paragraphs 0181 and 1867; Gordon discloses audio circuitry and a specific integrated circuit); and control circuitry (see Gordon; paragraphs 0181 and 1867; Gordon discloses audio circuitry and a specific integrated circuit).
Regarding claims 2 and 25, Gordon, Sugioka and Roy disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 24, as discussed above, and further the combination of Gordon, Sugioka and Roy clearly discloses determining that the autonomous vehicle is currently in the non-autonomous state (see Sugioka; paragraph 0085; Sugioka discloses determining the vehicle is not in an autonomous driving mode, i.e. “non-autonomous state”); and
in response to receiving the invitation on the user device, from the caller device, to join the video conference call while the autonomous vehicle is in the non-autonomous state (see Sugioka; paragraphs 0082 and 0085; Sugioka discloses an incoming video conference call request, i.e. “receiving the invitation…to join the video conference call”, and determining the vehicle is not in an autonomous driving mode, i.e. “non-autonomous state”):
changing a configuration of the user interface of the user device such that the user device can accept the invitation to join the video conference call in an audio only mode (see Sugioka; paragraphs 0085-0087; Sugioka discloses if it is determined that the vehicle is not in an autonomous driving mode then the call is provided to the user in non-video mode, i.e. “user device can accept the invitation to join the video conference call in an audio only mode”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claims 1 and 24.
Regarding claims 3 and 26, Gordon, Sugioka and Roy disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 24, as discussed above, and further the combination of Gordon, Sugioka and Roy clearly discloses determining, based on the shared data, that the autonomous state of the autonomous vehicle is currently in the non-autonomous state (see Sugioka; paragraphs 0085 and 0087; Sugioka discloses determining that the vehicle is not in an autonomous driving mode, i.e. “non-autonomous state”); and
in response to the determination that autonomous vehicle is currently in a non-autonomous state, configuring the user interface of the caller device to provide a scheduling tool (see Sugioka; paragraphs 0081 and 0087; Sugioka discloses the participant placing the call, i.e. “caller device”, may be able to reschedule, i.e. “caller device to provide a scheduling tool”, the call until after the recipient is in an autonomous driving mode).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claims 1 and 24.
Regarding claims 4 and 27, Gordon, Sugioka and Roy disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 24, as discussed above, and further the combination of Gordon, Sugioka and Roy clearly discloses determining a change in the autonomous state of the autonomous vehicle from the non- autonomous state to an autonomous state (see Sugioka; paragraphs 0081 and 0089; Sugioka discloses postponing a video conference call until the participating vehicles are in an autonomous driving mode, i.e. “determining a change…from a non-autonomous state to an autonomous state”, and an evaluation is made as to when the recipient enters an autonomous driving mode); and
automatically initiating the video conference call with the user device in response to determining the changed state to the autonomous state (see Sugioka; paragraphs 0081 and 0089; Sugioka discloses initiating the postponed video conference when the recipient enters an autonomous driving mode, i.e. “automatically initiating the video conference call…in response to determining the changed state to the autonomous state”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claims 1 and 24.
Regarding claims 7 and 30, Gordon, Sugioka and Roy disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 24, as discussed above, and further the combination of Gordon, Sugioka and Roy clearly discloses determining a future time when the autonomous state of the autonomous vehicle will be in an autonomous state (see Sugioka; paragraph 0089; Sugioka discloses an evaluation of when the recipient will enter, i.e. “determining a future time”, an autonomous driving mode, i.e. “an autonomous state”); and
providing for selection on a user interface of the user device, an option to automatically join the video conference call at the determined future time (see Sugioka; paragraph 0089; Sugioka disclose determining when, i.e. “determined future time”, the recipient will enter an autonomous driving mode and the recipient is provided a list of scheduled video conference calls for selection); and
automatically initiating the video conference call with the user device upon a) receiving the selection of the option to automatically join the video conference call at the determined future time and b) determining that the autonomous state of the autonomous vehicle is in the autonomous state (see Sugioka; paragraph 0089; Sugioka discloses once it is detected the recipient is in an autonomous driving mode, i.e. “determining that the autonomous state of the autonomous vehicle is in the autonomous state”, and the recipient has selected, i.e. “receiving the selection”, from the list of scheduled video conference calls, the video conference call is initiated, i.e. “automatically initiating the video conference call”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claims 1 and 24.
Regarding claim 28, Gordon, Sugioka and Roy disclose all the limitations of claim 27, as discussed above, and further the combination of Gordon, Sugioka and Roy clearly discloses generating an alert to the user device prior to the automatically initiating of the video conference call with the user device, wherein the alert notifies the user device that the video conference call is being automatically initiated (see Sugioka; paragraph 0081; Sugioka discloses a notification may be sent to the participants, i.e. “the user device”, before the scheduled video conference is started, i.e. “generating an alert to the user device prior to the automatically initiating of the video conference call…”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 27.
Regarding claim 29, Gordon, Sugioka and Roy disclose all the limitations of claim 27, as discussed above, and further the combination of Gordon, Sugioka and Roy clearly discloses generating an alert to the caller device prior to the automatically initiating of the video conference call with the user device, wherein the alert notifies the caller device that the user device is joining the video conference call (see Sugioka; paragraphs 0081 and 0088; Sugioka discloses a notification may be sent to the participants, i.e. “the caller device”, before the scheduled video conference is started, i.e. “generating an alert to the user device prior to the automatically initiating of the video conference call…”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 27.
Regarding claims 49 and 50, Gordon, Sugioka and Roy disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 24, as discussed above, and further the combination of Gordon, Sugioka and Roy clearly discloses wherein automatically initiating the video conference call further comprises, in response to detecting the change to the autonomous state, transmitting an alert to the user device to notify a driver of the autonomous vehicle of the automatic initiation (see Roy; paragraphs 0067 and 0076; Roy discloses an incoming call, such as the video call, notification can be displayed, i.e. “transmitting an alert…”, to the occupants of the recipient vehicle when it is determined that the vehicle is being driven in an autonomous mode, i.e. “to notify a driver of the autonomous vehicle…”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claims 1 and 24.
Claims 8, 10, 12 and 31, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al. (U.S. 2019/0361694 A1) in view of Sugioka et al. (U.S. 2016/0205146 A1) and Roy (U.S. 2025/0063330 A1), as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Jorasch et al. (U.S. 2021/0399911 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 31, Gordon, Sugioka and Roy disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 24, as discussed above. While Gordon discloses joining the user device into the video conference call (see Gordon; paragraph 0878-0880; Gordon discloses a user accepting a request for a video conference and the video conference being established, i.e. “joining the user device into the video conference”), the combination of Gordon, Sugioka and Roy does not explicitly disclose providing a plurality bookmarking options on a user interface of the user device to bookmark certain segments of the video conference call or content presented during the video conference call.
In analogous art, Jorasch disclose providing a plurality bookmarking options on a user interface of the user device to bookmark certain segments of the video conference call or content presented during the video conference call (see Jorasch; paragraphs 0306, 2251 and 2252; Jorasch discloses the use of tagging, i.e. “bookmarking”, in relation to slide presentations and/or content, as well as, allowing users to integrate voice notes, i.e. “bookmarking”, into content being reviewed. For example, users on a video conference call are able to append voice notes to the content being discussed, i.e. “bookmark certain segments of the video conference call or content”. In other words, tagging and voice notes are “a plurality bookmarking options”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Gordon, Sugioka, Roy and Jorasch because they all disclose features of video conferencing, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of tagging and voice noting content in a video conference as taught by Jorasch into the combined system of Gordon, Sugioka and Roy in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing some discussions to not be lost when the meeting/conference is concluded (see Jorasch; paragraph 2251).
Regarding claim 10, Gordon, Sugioka, Roy and Jorasch disclose all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, and further the combination of Gordon, Sugioka, Roy and Jorasch clearly discloses receiving a selection of a bookmaking option, from the plurality of provided bookmarking options, wherein the selected bookmarking option is a voice note (see Jorasch; paragraph 2252; Jorasch discloses users on a video conference call are able to append voice notes to the content being discussed).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, Gordon, Sugioka, Roy and Jorasch disclose all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, and further the combination of Gordon, Sugioka, Roy and Jorasch clearly discloses wherein a bookmarking option, from the plurality of the bookmarking options provided, is an annotation to a particular portion of a document presented during the video conference call (see Jorasch; paragraphs 0268 and 1112; Jorasch discloses providing a text note, i.e. “an annotation”, associated with a document during a meeting); and
receiving the annotation associated with the particular portion of the document presented during the video conference call (see Jorasch; paragraphs 0268 and 1112; Jorasch discloses the text note is received and associated with a document of the meeting); and
generating a new copy of the document with the received annotation (see Jorasch; paragraphs 0268 and 1112; Jorasch discloses the text note is assembled into the document and stored as part of that meeting record, i.e. “generating a new copy of the document with the received annotation”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 8.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al. (U.S. 2019/0361694 A1) in view of Sugioka et al. (U.S. 2016/0205146 A1), Roy (U.S. 2025/0063330 A1) and Jorasch et al. (U.S. 2021/0399911 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kozak (U.S. 2017/0102700 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Gordon, Sugioka, Roy and Jorasch disclose all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. While Jorasch discloses “bookmarking options”, as discussed above, the combination of Gordon, Sugioka, Roy and Jorasch does not explicitly disclose wherein a bookmarking option, from the plurality of the bookmarking options provided, is a snapshot of a road from a field of view of a camera associated with the autonomous vehicle.
In analogous art, Kozak discloses wherein a bookmarking option, from the plurality of the bookmarking options provided, is a snapshot of a road from a field of view of a camera associated with the autonomous vehicle (see Kozak; paragraphs 0036, 0055 and 0078; Kozak discloses a modification, i.e. “bookmarking option”, during a video conference call, in an autonomous vehicle, such as, records, i.e. “a snapshot”, of a road segment representing roads, streets or paths during the video conference).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Gordon, Sugioka, Roy, Jorasch and Kozak because they all disclose features of video conferencing, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of modification during a video conference as taught by Kozak into the combined system of Gordon, Sugioka, Roy and Jorasch in order to provide the benefit of scalability by allowing a user who has joined a video conference using a device associated with an autonomous vehicle (see Gordon; paragraphs 0878 and 1378) to make modifications to a route of the autonomous vehicle while on a video conference call (see Kozak; paragraph 0055).
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al. (U.S. 2019/0361694 A1) in view of Sugioka et al. (U.S. 2016/0205146 A1) and Roy (U.S. 2025/0063330 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jensen (U.S. 2024/0137464 A1).
Regarding claim 47, Gordon, Sugioka and Roy disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. While Sugioka and Roy discloses “the caller device provides a second set of video conferencing functionality to the caller device”, as discussed above, the combination of Gordon, Sugioka and Roy does not explicitly disclose wherein the second set of video conferencing functionality provided to the caller device includes an option for the caller device to select a meeting importance level at any time while the video conference call is in progress or at any time prior to the video conference call based at least in part on determining that the autonomous state of the autonomous vehicle is currently in the non-autonomous state.
In analogous art, Jensen discloses wherein the second set of video conferencing functionality provided to the caller device includes an option for the caller device to select a meeting importance level at any time while the video conference call is in progress or at any time prior to the video conference call based at least in part on determining that the autonomous state of the autonomous vehicle is currently in the non-autonomous state (see Jensen; paragraphs 0045, 0047, 0079, 0083 and 0086; Jensen discloses a client device contacts a video conference provider to schedule a meeting. The user may select various meeting options, i.e. “includes an option for the caller device to select…”, for the scheduled meeting, i.e. “…prior to the video conference call”, such as the date/time for the meeting, the duration for the meeting, and privacy controls, i.e. “meeting importance level”, based on the context of the client device, such as, the location, which indicates speed information, of an autonomous vehicle for which the client device is traveling in, i.e. “determining that the autonomous state of the autonomous vehicle is currently in a non-autonomous state”. In other words, location could be the autonomous vehicle is not moving, e.g. 0 speed, and therefore non-autonomous state) (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “at any time prior to the video conference call” alternative).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Gordon, Sugioka, Roy and Jensen because they all disclose features of video conferencing, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of determining context of a client device e as taught by Jensen into the combined system of Gordon, Sugioka and Roy in order to provide the benefit of scalability by allowing a user who has joined a video conference using a device associated with an autonomous vehicle (see Gordon; paragraphs 0878 and 1378) to adjust settings based on the context (see Jensen; paragraphs 0084-0086).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim et al. (U.S. 2021/0329116 A1) discloses receiving a signal of conversion to an autonomous driving mode from a manual driving mode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM A COONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm (every other Fri off).
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/A.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2458 02/19/26
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458