DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed December 22, 2023, has been entered in full. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 22, 2023; January 3, 2024; and January 7, 2026, are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes the presence of reference characters (e.g., “(400)”) in at least some of the claims. Use of such reference characters is permissible, but Examiner notes that “Generally, the presence or absence of such reference characters does not affect the scope of a claim.” MPEP 608.01(m). Unless otherwise noted, none of the reference characters are interpreted as affecting the scope of any claim.
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.
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:
the “computing unit” of claim 12 and
the “computing unit” of claim 13.
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 Objections
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, line 2, “a chick” should be “the chick”
In claim 15, line 2, “comprising conveyor” should be “comprising a conveyor”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites several limitations that are indefinite, including:
“each line corresponding to a long feather of the set” at line 2 on page 4,
Claim 8 previously introduces “a set of lines corresponding to short feathers” at line 1 on page 4 (emphasis added). It is unclear how such a set of lines corresponding to short feathers could include any lines corresponding to a long feather”
“the line located at the maximum vertical position of the set” at line 3 on page 4,
The claim previously introduces lines corresponding to short feathers and lines corresponding to long feathers. It is unclear which of these lines is “the line” and whether “the set” is referring to a set of short feathers, a set of long feathers, or a set of short and long feathers.
“the lines not belonging to the set of lines corresponding to long feathers” at lines 1-2 on page 5,
It is unclear what is being referred to as “the lines”. The claim previously recites “a set of lines corresponding to short feathers” and also recites “a long feather of the set”, so what is the “the set of lines corresponding to long feathers” and what does not belong to that set?
“the neighboring lines of the considered line” at line 2 on page 5
As discussed above, it is unclear what are the “the lines not belonging to the set of lines corresponding to long feathers,” so it is unclear what neighboring and considered lines would be “among the lines not belonging to the set of lines corresponding to long feathers” (emphasis added).
“the considered line” at lines 4 and 5 on page 5.
See above.
Claim 15 depends from claims 1 and 13.
Claim 1 recites “running … a classification model … to determine the male or female sex of the chick.” Claim 13 recites “a camera adapted to acquire at least one image of a chick” and “a computing unit configured to implement the method according to claim 1 on the image acquired by the camera” (reference characters omitted). In summary, claims 1 and 13 describe a classification model that classifies chicks in an image as male or female.
Claim 15 recites “a first classification optimized to detect the first sex” “on the image acquired by the camera” and “a second classification model optimized to detect the second sex, on images acquired on chicks not having been determined of the first sex.” In summary, claim 15 describes two different classification models, the first detecting one particular sex and the other operating on images not detected by the first classification model and detecting the other sex.
As can be seen above, claim 15 describes an embodiment that is fundamentally different from the embodiments of claims 1 and 13. This makes the scope of claim 15 unclear and indefinite. For example, it is unclear which of the first or second classification models – if any – corresponds to the “classification model” of claim 1. On the one hand, claim 15 depends from claims 1 and 13 and this dependency suggests that the classification model of claim 1 is included in claim 15. On the other hand, the classification model of claim 1 determines the male or female sex of a chick from a region of interest determined in one image, while the first and second classification models of claim 15 detect only one sex each and process different subsets of images, which suggests that they are distinct from the classification model of claim 1. If the first and second classification models of claim 15 are distinct from the classification model of claim 1, then are they used in addition to or in place of the classification model of claim 1? If the first and second classification models of claim 15 are used in addition to the classification model of claims 1 and 13, then how are their redundant classifications reconciled? If the first and second classification models of claim 15 replace the classification model of claims 1 and 13, then the scope of claim 15 is unclear because a dependent claim must include all limitations of a parent claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As explained above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), one possible reading of claim 15 is that the first and second classification models are used in place of the classification model of claims 1 and 13. This is improper under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) because claim 15 would not include all the limitations directed to the classification model of claims 1 and 13, from which claim 15 depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the scope of the claim encompasses embodiments of computer programs per se that do not fall within any of the statutory categories.
Claim 12 is to “A computer program product.” While the claim recites a possibility that code instructions are executed by a computing unit, the computing unit is not recited as being part of the computer program product. The scope of the claimed computer program product includes a computer program per se, which does not fall within any of the categories of patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. MPEP 2106.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ‘Tao’ (“Chick feather pattern recognition,” 2004; cited in IDS filed January 3, 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Tao discloses a method for determining the sex of a chick (e.g., Figures 1 and 4), the method being implemented by computer (e.g., Figs. 1 and 4, the method includes processing a digital image captured by a CCD, so it is within the scope of being implemented by computer) from an image of a chick (e.g., Figs. 1 and 6-7), the method comprising:
determining (100) a region of interest of the image on which the feathers of a wing are visible (e.g., Fig. 1, Section 3, ROI localization; Figs. 6a and 7a show examples of determined regions of interest (ROIs)),
running, on said region of interest, a classification model (400) (e.g., Fig. 4, “pattern classification (male or female)”) trained on a training data set comprising images of male chick wings and of female chick wings (e.g., Sec. 5, 1st paragraph, “During the training process, various features of the wing images were investigated for chick sex separation”; also see Figs. 10-11), to determine the male or female sex of the chick (e.g., Fig. 12 and description in Sec. 5, feature thresholds for classifying a chick as male or female are learned from the training data).
Regarding claim 4, Tao discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising processing the region of interest (200) (e.g., Fig. 4, directional filtering, thresholding, skeleton extraction, and/or trimming; Sec. 3 describes this processing in detail) to determine a set of lines corresponding to the feathers of the chick on the image (e.g., Figs. 6c-d and 7c-d, each white line on the image represents a feather), determining (300) of a set of parameters from the extracted lines (e.g., Fig. 4, feature extraction, the features being a set of parameters; Sec. 4 describes the feature extraction in detail), and the classification model is applied (400) to said set of parameters (e.g., Fig. 4, pattern classification; Sec. 5 describes the classification applied to the features/parameters).
Regarding claim 6, Tao discloses the method of claim 4, wherein determining the parameters (300) from the extracted lines comprises:
identifying a set of lines corresponding to long feathers (310) (e.g., Sec. 4, 1st par., length of line for each feather is determined; also see, e.g., Fig. 8c; This necessarily identifies a set of lines corresponding to long feathers, the distinction between long and short feathers being subjective; For example, in Fig. 8c, feathers 2, 4 and 6 have been identified as the three longest feathers by the determination of their lengths), and
identifying a set of lines corresponding to short feathers (320) (e.g., Sec. 4, 1st par., length of line for each feather is determined; also see, e.g., Fig. 8c; This necessarily identifies a set of lines corresponding to short feathers, the distinction between long and short feathers being subjective; For example, in Fig. 8c, feathers 5, 7 and 9 have been identified as the three shortest feathers by the determination of their lengths).
Regarding claim 10, Tao discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the classification model is trained on a database of annotated training images (e.g., Sec. 5, 1st par., training group of images annotated by human visual inspection), where each training image is obtained by applying steps of determining a region of interest and processing the region of interest to determine a set of lines representing the feathers, and of extracting parameters from said lines (e.g., Sec. 5 and Fig. 12, each training image is processed to extract features/parameters as shown in Fig. 4 and discussed above; The features of the training images are used to determine classification rules), and the annotation comprises an indication of the sex of the chick and an associated certainty level (e.g., Sec. 5, 1st par., annotation by human, which is assumed to be certainly true – i.e., it is taken as ground truth; Additionally or alternatively, page 344, 2nd par., “One of the female chicks was so close to the decision line that ambiguity or uncertainty was possible. This was due to feather underdevelopment and down intervention.”), determined from a number of lines corresponding to long feathers and a number of lines corresponding to short feathers (e.g., Sec. 1, 1st par., human inspection involves identifying a number of lines corresponding to long and short feathers; also see discussion of identification of feather line lengths in images discussed above and outlined at Fig. 4).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao in view of ‘Tschernezki’ (US 11,651,602 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Tao teaches the method according to claim 1.
Tao teaches capturing images of a chick traveling on a conveyor and classifying each image as male or female (e.g., Figs. 1 and 4). Tao does not explicitly teach whether multiple images of a same chick are captured and classified. In particular, Tao does not explicitly teach the method being implemented for each of a plurality of images acquired on a same chick, and further comprising a step of determining the sex of the chick from the results obtained by the classification model for all of the images.
However, Tschernezki does teach techniques for classifying an object traveling on a conveyor (e.g., Fig. 1 and Column 6, lines 16-23, 42-44, and 59-63), the techniques including applying a classification model to each of a plurality of images acquired on a same object (e.g., Fig. 4, steps 402-404, multiple images are acquired of same object, with each being classified by a machine learning model to predict the class of the object), and determining a classification of the object from the results obtained by the classification model for all of the images (e.g., Fig. 4, steps 406-408, individual classification outputs are combined, then the combined output is used to determine a classification).
Tschernezki teaches that its multi-view classification technique is preferable to single-view classification because it “can be more accurate and robust in situations where only partial image data is available, where a view of an object is partially occluded, or where only a limited amount of training data is available” (sentence spanning Cols. 5-6). The images used by Tao only show one of two wings for each chick (e.g., Fig. 6), so they can be seen as being partial image data and/or partially occluded. Furthermore, Tao uses only 20 training images (Sec. 5, 1st par.), which is a relatively limited amount of training data compared to other image classification training datasets available at the time of filing.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Tao with the multi-view classification of Tschernezki in order to improve the method with the reasonable expectation that this would result in a method that could be more accurate or robust than a single-view alternative. This technique for improving the method of Tao was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Tschernezki.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tao and Tschernezki to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, Tao teaches the method according to claim 1.
Tao teaches capturing images of a chick traveling on a conveyor and classifying each image as male or female (e.g., Figs. 1 and 4). Tao does not explicitly teach whether multiple images of a same chick are captured and classified. In particular, Tao does not explicitly teach the method being implemented on a set of images of the same chick, and comprises determining the sex of the chick from the result most frequently provided by the classification model.
However, Tschernezki does teach techniques for classifying an object traveling on a conveyor (e.g., Fig. 1 and Column 6, lines 16-23, 42-44, and 59-63), the techniques including applying a classification model to each of a plurality of images of the same object (e.g., Fig. 4, steps 402-404, multiple images are acquired of same object, with each being classified by a machine learning model to predict the class of the object), and determining a classification of the object from the result most frequently provided by the classification model (e.g., Fig. 4, steps 406-408, individual classification outputs are combined, then the combined output is used to determine a classification; e.g., Col. 12, lines 17-24, outputs of classifier are summed for the different images, in effect providing “a type of a voting mechanism that allows the result determined from each different view to equally influence the final classification”; I.e., a class with the highest sum of votes is the result most frequently provided by the classification model).
Tschernezki teaches that its multi-view classification technique is preferable to single-view classification because it “can be more accurate and robust in situations where only partial image data is available, where a view of an object is partially occluded, or where only a limited amount of training data is available” (sentence spanning Cols. 5-6). The images used by Tao only show one of two wings for each chick (e.g., Fig. 6), so they can be seen as being partial image data and/or partially occluded. Furthermore, Tao uses only 20 training images (Sec. 5, 1st par.), which is a relatively limited amount of training data compared to other image classification training datasets available at the time of filing.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Tao with the multi-view classification of Tschernezki in order to improve the method with the reasonable expectation that this would result in a method that could be more accurate or robust than a single-view alternative. This technique for improving the method of Tao was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Tschernezki.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tao and Tschernezki to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao.
Regarding claim 12, Tao teaches the method of claim 1.
While Tao’s disclosure certainly implies the use of a computer program to implement its image processing method, Tao does not explicitly teach a computer program product, comprising code instructions for implementing the method according to claim 1, when executed by a computing unit.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well-known in the art of image analysis to implement an image processing method as a computer program product, comprising code instructions for implementing the method when executed by a computing unit, such as a processor. Such computer program implementation advantageously allows the image processing method to be performed quickly and efficiently.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the image processing method of Tao as a computer program product, comprising code instructions for implementing the method when executed by a computing unit, such as a processor, in order to improve the method with the reasonable expectation that this would result in a method that could be performed quickly and efficiently.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tao to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Tao teaches a device (1) for determining the sex of a chick (e.g., Fig. 1) comprising at least:
a camera (20) adapted to acquire at least one image of a chick (e.g., Fig. 1, CCD).
Tao further teaches performing the method according to claim 1 on the image acquired by the camera (e.g., Figs. 1 and 4).
While Tao certainly implies the use of a computing unit, such as a processor (see Claim Interpretation and par. [0091] of the published specification), Tao does not explicitly teach a computing unit included within the device of claim 1.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well-known within the art of image analysis to implement an image processing method using a computing unit, such as a processor. Such implementation advantageously allows an image processing method to be performed quickly and efficiently.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the image processing method of Tao using a computing unit, such as a processor, in order to improve the method with the reasonable expectation that this would result in a method that could be performed quickly and efficiently.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tao to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, the device according to claim 13 is obvious over Tao, and Tao further teaches a conveyor (30) adapted to bring a chick into the field of view of the camera (20) (e.g., Fig. 1), wherein the conveyor is adapted to unbalance the chicks so that the chick has its wings unfurled when it is in front of the camera (e.g., Fig. 1 and Sec. 2, 1st par., chick has its wings unfurled in front of CCD camera such that they can be imaged; e.g., page 338, below Fig. 1, “living chick’s instinctive movements on the moving conveyor”).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao in view of ‘Tao-938’ (US 6,396,938 B1).
Regarding claim 15, the device according to claim 13 is obvious over Tao (see above).
Tao further teaches a conveyor (30) (e.g., Fig. 1, conveyor), a first station (e.g., Fig. 1, illustrated station illuminated by UV lighting) for detecting chicks of a first sex, male or female (As a non-limiting example, female sex is taken to be the “first” sex), comprising said camera (20) (e.g., Fig. 1, CCD), wherein the computing unit (10) is configured to implement on the image acquired by the camera a first classification model optimized to detect the first sex (e.g., Sec. 5, 2nd par., and Fig. 12k, chicks with feature
m
(
∆
y
)
greater than threshold
15.4
are detected as first/female sex; also see rejection of claim 13), and the computing unit (10) is further configured to implement a second classification model optimized to detect the second sex (e.g., Sec. 5, 2nd par., and Fig. 12k, chicks with feature
m
(
∆
y
)
less than threshold
15.4
are detected as second/male sex; also see rejection of claim 13), on images acquired on chicks not having been determined of the first sex (As the classification is binary, an image in which a chick is classified as second/male sex is an image acquired on chicks not having been determined of the first/female sex).
The purpose of Tao’s chick classification is to separate male and female chicks (e.g., Fig. 1, last step; Sec. 6), but Tao does not explicitly teach an actuator adapted to pick or eject from the conveyor the chicks detected as belonging to the first sex.
However, Tao-938 does teach a similar device (e.g., Fig. 1) that includes an actuator (e.g., Fig. 1, selective demount 27) adapted to pick or eject from the conveyor the chicks detected as belonging to the first sex (e.g., Col. 6, ln. 1-9).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Tao with the actuator of Tao-938 in order to improve the device with the reasonable expectation that this would result in a device that could not only automatically identify chick sex, but could also automatically separate chicks by sex, thereby further reducing manual labor required for chick sex separation. This technique for improving the device of Tao was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Tao-938.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tao and Tao-938 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 7, and 9 are 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 and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
‘Evans’ (“Feather Sexing of Broiler Chicks by Machine Vision,” 1989)
Early investigation into feasibility of image-based chick sexing
‘Jones’ (“Edge Extraction Algorithm for Feather Sexing Poultry Chicks,” 1991)
Describes image processing to extract feather length features and analyzes their ability to discriminate different chick sexes
‘Karimpour’ (US 2018/0353081 A1)
Describes a conveyor system for image-based chick sexing
‘Ro’ (JP 2008-136439 A)
Describes image processing to extract chick feather features and perform sex classification using them
‘Yavnai’ (US 2001/0030146 A1)
Describes configurations for conveying and imaging chicks for image-based sexing
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY E SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-9915. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM ET.
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, Chan Park can be reached at (571) 272-7409. 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.
/GEOFFREY E SUMMERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2669