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 .
Applicant(s) Response to Official Action
The response filed on 08/10/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Presented arguments have been fully considered but are held unpersuasive. Examiner’s response to the presented arguments follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Summary of Arguments:
Regarding claims 1, 10-11, the Applicant argues:
“Claim 1 includes, inter alia, "either, increasing luminous intensity of the light pattern, or changing the colours of at least some of the groups of square pixels, in response to a first acquired image in which the object is detected." Claims 10 and 11 have analogous language. The Examiner concedes that Szatmary and Dolgov do not disclose this feature and relies exclusively on Hall, paragraphs [0069] and [0071], to supply it. Hall does not disclose this limitation.” [Remarks: Page 6]
“Hall expressly states that an object must be detected for a second, predetermined period of time after the first, predetermined period of time before controller 140 increases the average illumination intensity, and that these thresholds are specifically designed to prevent spurious signals from causing rapid fluctuations in the average illumination intensity. Hall's controller therefore deliberately withholds any intensity increase upon the first acquired image in which an object is detected, acting only after the object has persisted across a second, separate temporal window.” [Remarks: Page 6]
“Hall is further directed to a 3-D LIDAR system that operates by emitting repetitive sequences of pulsed illumination light and measuring distance by time-of-flight, and does not project a structured light pattern of dark and lighted groups of square pixels onto a road surface for shape and position comparison and does not teach colour changes of any kind. The Examiner has provided no adequate technical rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate Hall's pulse-intensity management logic into the structured-light architecture of the amended claims”. [Remarks: Page 7]
Regarding claims 2-5, 7-9, the Applicant argues:
“Claims 2-5 and 7-9 depend from claim 1. Thus, for at least the stated reasons, claim 1 is believed to be patentable, and dependent claims 2-5 and 7-9 are likewise believed patentable over the cited references under 35 U.S.C. § 103.” [Remarks: Page 8]
Examiner’s Response:
Regarding claims 1, 10-11, the Examiner contends:
In order to elucidate how the limitation, is being mapped, see the following explicit claim mapping of the limitation in question: “either, increasing luminous intensity of the light pattern, or changing the colours of at least some of the groups of square pixels, in response to a first acquired image in which the object is detected (Hall: Para. [0070] discloses “the imaging device includes a separate imaging sensor (e.g., camera) that captures an image [claimed a first acquired image] of at least a portion of the field of view of the pulsed illumination source” and Para. [0071] discloses “the average illumination intensity is increased [claimed increasing luminous intensity of the light pattern] when an object is detected in the image [claimed in response to a first acquired image in which the object is detected] of the field of view of the pulsed illumination source.”.).”
The updated paragraph mappings should now better explain the Examiner’s interpretation and position. Further, the limitation does not specify a period of time associated with the acquiring of a first image in which the object is detected. Simply, a first image is acquired in which the object is detected.
The mappings correspond to the limitation that recites: “… increasing luminous intensity of the light pattern …”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a structured light pattern of dark and lighted groups of square pixels onto a road surface for shape and position comparison”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, Hall is not used to teach the features corresponding light and dark pixels, since the primary reference (Szatmary) already discloses them.
Regarding claims 2-5, 7-9, the Examiner contends:
The arguments fail for the independent claims and therefore, the dependent claims inherit the rejections corresponding to the independent claims. See Examiner’s response for claims 1, 10-11 above.
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: processing unit in claim 11.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szatmary et al., hereinafter referred to as Szatmary (US 2016/0378117 A1) in view of Dolgov (US 9,120,485 B1) in further view of Hall et al., hereinafter referred to as Hall (US 2017/0269197 A1).
As per claim 1, Szatmary discloses a method for detecting an object (Szatmary: Abstract), comprising:
defining a light pattern including dark and lighted groups of square pixels (Szatmary: Paras. [0089], [0091] [0110] disclose LED and other light sources project pattern 300 including dark and light pixel groups (e.g., similar to a QR code pattern));
projecting the light pattern (Szatmary: Paras. [0089], [0091] [0110] disclose LED and other light sources project pattern 300 including dark and light pixel groups (e.g., similar to a QR code pattern));
acquiring an image of the projected light pattern (Szatmary: Fig. 2B & Paras. [0081], [0084] disclose the image sensor acquiring an image of the projected light 300);
comparing the shape and position of some groups of square pixels in the acquired image with respect of the defined light pattern utilizing an image equalization to enhance the contrast between the lighted pixels and the dark pixels (Szatmary: Figs. 3A-3B, 9A & Paras. [0011] & [0088] disclose utilizing contrast enhancement by increasing contrast of a first area compared to a second area associated with the background portion, wherein the first area and second area represent elements of alternating black and white [the lighted pixels and the dark pixels] and Paras. [0054], [0087]-[0091], [0097]-[0099], [0212]-[0215], [0235] disclose the received image and/or a portion of the received image may be compared via processing component to the projected pattern to determine parameters (e.g., a ratio of dimension 336 to the dimension 346, a ratio of dimension 336 and/or 346 to the dimension 338, absolute values of the dimensions 336, 338, 346, values and/or ratios of diagonal dimensions of the shape of the reflected pattern 330, an area of the reflected pattern) of a reflected pattern to determine whether an expected pattern may be present within the image/sub-image using e.g. correlation-based analysis and/or block matching for the image patch or block of pixels. For example, the parameters may indicate orientation [position], skewness [shape] and vertical deviations); and
using the comparison to infer features of an object (Szatmary: Figs. 3A-3B, 9A & Paras. [0054], [0087]-[0091], [0097]-[0099], [0212]-[0215], [0235] disclose absence of the expected pattern may indicate a presence of an object, such as a wall within the sampling area. For example, the parameters may indicate orientation [position], skewness [shape] and vertical deviations [features of an object] with respect to the floor or a non-rectangular shape (e.g., a trapezoid) of certain height, and width dimensions, indicating an absence of the expected pattern and thus, inferring detection of an object (e.g., wall).).
However, Szatmary does not explicitly disclose “… detecting an object in a road surface … projecting the light pattern on a road surface; either, increasing luminous intensity of the light pattern, or changing the colours of at least some of the groups of square pixels, in response to a first acquired image in which the object is detected …”.
Further, Dolgov is in the same field of endeavor and teaches detecting an object in a road surface and projecting the light pattern on a road surface (Dolgov: Col. 8, ll. 31-39 & Col. 9 ll. 21-41 disclose projecting structured light on a road surface environment to detect an object.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Szatmary and Dolgov before him or her, to modify the autonomous robot vehicle of Szatmary to include the detecting object and light pattern projection of a road surface feature as described in Dolgov. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve autonomous navigation and object detection by providing transitional trajectory logic and additional lighting configurations when travelling in pre-mapped environments.
However, Szatmary-Dolgov do not explicitly disclose either, increasing luminous intensity of the light pattern, or changing the colours of at least some of the groups of square pixels, in response to a first acquired image in which the object is detected …”.
Further, Hall is in the same field of endeavor and teaches either, increasing luminous intensity of the light pattern, or changing the colours of at least some of the groups of square pixels, in response to a first acquired image in which the object is detected (Hall: Para. [0070] discloses “the imaging device includes a separate imaging sensor (e.g., camera) that captures an image [claimed a first acquired image] of at least a portion of the field of view of the pulsed illumination source” and Para. [0071] discloses “the average illumination intensity is increased [claimed increasing luminous intensity of the light pattern] when an object is detected in the image [claimed in response to a first acquired image in which the object is detected] of the field of view of the pulsed illumination source.”.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Szatmary-Dolgov and Hall before him or her, to modify the lighting configuration of Szatmary-Dolgov to include the increasing luminous intensity feature as described in Hall. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve reduced energy consumption and heat generation by providing techniques that enable greater control over light elements.
As per claim 10, Szatmary discloses a method for autonomous managing of a vehicle (Szatmary: Abstract), comprising:
performing detection of an object with the performing including defining a light pattern including dark and lighted groups of square pixels, projecting the light pattern acquiring an image of the projected light pattern (Szatmary: Fig. 2B & Paras. [0081], [0084] disclose the image sensor acquiring an image of the projected light 300), (Szatmary: Paras. [0011] & [0088] disclose utilizing contrast enhancement by increasing contrast of a first area compared to a second area associated with the background portion, wherein the first area and second area represent elements of alternating black and white [the lighted pixels and the dark pixels].), and using the comparison to infer features of an object (Szatmary: Figs. 3A-3B, 9A & Paras. [0054], [0087]-[0091], [0097]-[0099], [0212]-[0215], [0235] disclose the received image and/or a portion of the received image may be compared via processing component to the projected pattern to determine parameters (e.g., a ratio of dimension 336 to the dimension 346, a ratio of dimension 336 and/or 346 to the dimension 338, absolute values of the dimensions 336, 338, 346, values and/or ratios of diagonal dimensions of the shape of the reflected pattern 330, an area of the reflected pattern) of a reflected pattern to determine whether an expected pattern may be present within the image/sub-image using e.g. correlation-based analysis and/or block matching for the image patch or block of pixels. Absence of the expected pattern may indicate a presence of an object, such as a wall within the sampling area. For example, the parameters may indicate orientation [position], skewness [shape] and vertical deviations [features of an object] with respect to the floor or a non-rectangular shape (e.g., a trapezoid) of certain height, and width dimensions, indicating an absence of the expected pattern and thus, inferring detection of an object (e.g., wall).);
However, Szatmary does not explicitly disclose “… projecting the light pattern on a road surface, either, increasing luminous intensity of the light pattern, or changing the colours of at least some of the groups of square pixels, in response to a first acquired image in which the object is detected … using the obtained features of the object to decide a suitable vehicle maneuver; checking if the vehicle maneuver can be performed in secure conditions; and performing the maneuver.”.
Further, Dolgov is in the same field of endeavor and teaches projecting the light pattern on a road surface (Dolgov: Col. 8, ll. 31-39 & Col. 9 ll. 21-41 disclose projecting structured light on a road surface environment to detect an object.),
using the obtained features of the object to decide a suitable vehicle maneuver (Dolgov: Col. 5, ll. 29-38; Col. 8, ll. 31-39; Col. 12 ll. 44-50; Col. 13, ll. 5-20 disclose using the obtained features of the object to decide a suitable vehicle maneuver.);
checking if the vehicle maneuver can be performed in secure conditions (Dolgov: Col. 12 ll. 44-50; Col. 13, ll. 5-20 disclose considering other objects/vehicles before performing a vehicle maneuver according to an updated/new trajectory.); and
performing the maneuver (Dolgov: Col. 13, ll. 5-20 discloses the vehicle moving towards the new trajectory carefully/smoothly.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Szatmary and Dolgov before him or her, to modify the autonomous robot vehicle of Szatmary to include the suitable vehicle maneuver decision road surface feature as described in Dolgov. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve autonomous navigation and object detection by providing transitional trajectory logic and additional lighting configurations when travelling in pre-mapped environments.
However, Szatmary-Dolgov do not explicitly disclose “… either, increasing luminous intensity of the light pattern, or changing the colours of at least some of the groups of square pixels, when the object is initially detected …”.
Further, Hall is in the same field of endeavor and teaches either, increasing luminous intensity of the light pattern, or changing the colours of at least some of the groups of square pixels, in response to a first acquired image in which the object is detected (Hall: Paras. [0070]-[0071] disclose increasing the luminous intensity of the light pattern after detecting an object.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Szatmary-Dolgov and Hall before him or her, to modify the lighting configuration of Szatmary-Dolgov to include the increasing luminous intensity feature as described in Hall. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve reduced energy consumption and heat generation by providing techniques that enable greater control over light elements.
As per claim 2, Szatmary-Dolgov-Hall disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the comparison provides at least one disparity value, which reveals some features of the object (Szatmary: Figs. 3A-3B, 9A & Paras. [0054], [0087]-[0091], [0097]-[0099], [0212]-[0215], [0235] disclose absence of the expected pattern may indicate a presence of an object, such as a wall within the sampling area. For example, the parameters may indicate orientation [position], skewness [shape] and vertical deviations [features of an object].).
As per claim 3, Szatmary-Dolgov-Hall disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein some groups of square pixels contain specific information about the dimensions of the object (Szatmary: [0090]-[0091], [0215], [0218]-[0220] disclose portions of the image (block-based equal pixel dimensions or squared patches) may be evaluated with an object being present in a given image portion and the reflections reveal height differences between different objects).
As per claim 4, Szatmary-Dolgov-Hall disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the light groups are lighted in coloured light (Szatmary: [0090], [0102], [0106], [0215] disclose portions of the image (block-based equal pixel dimensions or squared patches) may be evaluated and assigned a probability associated with an object being present in a given image portion using a combination of different colors).
As per claim 5, Szatmary-Dolgov-Hall disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the light pattern is projected by a headlamp or by a reverse light (Dolgov: Fig 2; Col. 7, ll. 43-52; Col. 8, ll. 31-39 disclose wherein the light pattern is projected by a headlamp (206, 208).).
As per claim 7, Szatmary-Dolgov-Hall disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the features contain a position, a width and/or a height of the object (Szatmary: Paras. [0089], [0130]-[0131], [0213] disclose the pattern portion or subset reflected by an object may be used to determine the distance to the object [features containing position] and may comprise a non-rectangular shape (e.g., a trapezoid) of certain height, and widths [features containing width and/or the height of the object].).
As per claim 8, Szatmary-Dolgov-Hall disclose the method according to claim 1, further comprising defining a size and/or shape of the groups of square pixels as a function of a desired detection range (Szatmary: Paras. [0091], [0111], [0120], [0215] disclose defining the size and/or shape of the groups of patch square pixels based on controlling the projected light to be closer or further away from the autonomous robot [as a function of a desired detection range]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szatmary in view of Hall.
As per claim 11, Szatmary discloses an automotive lighting device (Szatmary: [0075] – autonomously operating robotic device 200 of FIG. 2A) comprising:
a plurality of solid-state light sources (LED, light bulb, laser, and/or other source), configured to project a light pattern (expected light pattern 300) including dark and lighted groups of square pixels (Szatmary: Paras. [0089], [0091] [0110] disclose LED and other light sources project pattern 300 including dark and light pixel groups (e.g., similar to a QR code pattern));
an image sensor (camera 252 includes an image sensor) configured to acquire an image of the projected light (Szatmary: Fig. 2B & Paras. [0081], [0084] disclose the image sensor acquiring an image of the projected light 300); and
a processing unit (processing component) configured to compare a shape and position of some groups of square pixels (block of pixels or patches of image) in the acquired image with respect of a defined light pattern (expected light pattern 300) utilizing an image equalization to enhance the contrast between the lighted pixels and the dark pixels (Szatmary: Paras. [0011] & [0088] disclose utilizing contrast enhancement by increasing contrast of a first area compared to a second area associated with the background portion, wherein the first area and second area represent elements of alternating black and white [the lighted pixels and the dark pixels].), and use the comparison to infer features of an object (Szatmary: Figs. 3A-3B, 9A & Paras. [0054], [0087]-[0091], [0097]-[0099], [0212]-[0215], [0235] disclose the received image and/or a portion of the received image may be compared via processing component to the projected pattern to determine parameters (e.g., a ratio of dimension 336 to the dimension 346, a ratio of dimension 336 and/or 346 to the dimension 338, absolute values of the dimensions 336, 338, 346, values and/or ratios of diagonal dimensions of the shape of the reflected pattern 330, an area of the reflected pattern) of a reflected pattern to determine whether an expected pattern may be present within the image/sub-image using e.g. correlation-based analysis and/or block matching for the image patch or block of pixels. Absence of the expected pattern may indicate a presence of an object, such as a wall within the sampling area. For example, the parameters may indicate orientation [position], skewness [shape] and vertical deviations [features of an object] with respect to the floor or a non-rectangular shape (e.g., a trapezoid) of certain height, and width dimensions, indicating an absence of the expected pattern and thus, inferring detection of an object (e.g., wall).).
However, Szatmary does not explicitly disclose “… either, increasing luminous intensity of the light pattern, or changing the colours of at least some of the groups of square pixels, in response to a first acquired image in which the object is detected …”.
Further, Hall is in the same field of endeavor and teaches either, increasing luminous intensity of the light pattern, or changing the colours of at least some of the groups of square pixels, in response to a first acquired image in which the object is detected (Hall: Para. [0070]-[0071] disclose increasing the luminous intensity of the light pattern after detecting an object.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Szatmary and Hall before him or her, to modify the lighting configuration of Szatmary to include the increasing luminous intensity feature as described in Hall. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve reduced energy consumption and heat generation by providing techniques that enable greater control over light elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PEET DHILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 5am-1:30pm.
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, Sath V. Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/PEET DHILLON/Primary Examiner
Art Unit: 2488
Date: 09-24-2026
