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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/10/2026 has been entered.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, and 7 have been amended. Claim(s) 3-4 have been cancelled. Claim(s) 8-9 have been added. Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-9 are pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
Applicant asserts that the 35 USC 103 rejection of the claims is improper. Applicant asserts that the limitations of independent claim 1 are not taught by the prior art. Accordingly claim 1 and its dependents are allowable.
Applicant asserts that newly added independent claims 8 and 9 are allowable. Applicant asserts that the claims recite elements of previously presented claims that are not taught by the prior art. Accordingly, independent claims 8 and 9 are allowable. Similar subject matter is also challenged in dependent claim 2.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner does not agree. 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., "restriction of automated driving function") 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).
Applicant’s allegation that because Irion operates at SAE level 5, it would never have to restrict autonomous functioning does not convince the examiner, as a restriction of the automatic driving level is not claimed. Rather the claim recites, “the system control unit generates a control instruction to reduce a moving speed of the moving object, to limit a steering angle of the moving object, or both.” An SAE level 5 system would be more than capable of slowing down a vehicle. As Irion teaches in [0037], [0073], and Claim 17. There it is taught that in relation to a determination of a deviation the system can send a stop signal to the vehicle. Despite the system as fully autonomous it can still restrict the driving ability of the vehicle. In light of this argument claim 1 would remain rejected under Irion in view of Sekine.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2, 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.
Regarding applicant’s argument B, the examiner finds it moot. After further search and consideration the examiner would rely on newly cited art, Avery (US PG Pub 2019/0258242). Avery broadly teaches a system to determine that an anomaly has occurred in a vehicle based on data received by a transceiver. The anomaly can be related to vehicle positioning and/or identification. Looking at [0104]-[0111] Avery spells out a method for determining that an anomaly has occurred and the system mitigates this and determines the malfunctioning element. Further detailed mapping and explanation can be found below in the section titled, “Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irion (US PG Pub 2017/0308095) in view of Sekine (US PG Pub 2019/0047586) .
Regarding claim 1, Irion teaches a remote control system that remotely controls a moving object to move automatically, the remote control system comprising:
a processor ([0049] teaches the system having a processor) including a plurality of functional units configured to send and receive information to and from each other, (Fig. 2 and [0049] teach a system with a processor, communication interface and monitoring system, i.e. functional units, that are in communication with each other. [0051] teaches this system as an offboard device to provide remote control of the vehicle) the plurality of functional units including
a system control unit configured to send control instructions and a([0049] teaches the processor has a communication unit that is configured to send control instructions to the vehicle/other units to control the vehicle) and
at least one other functional unit of the plurality of functional units configured to determine whether an abnormality is present in the system control unit by using information received from the system control unit, ([0028]-[0029], [0046], [0049], and [0069] teach the system determining that the vehicle has deviated from the path, i.e. an abnormality has been detected, these abnormalities are taught to be the result of sensors errors, algorithm errors, or actuator errors, which would be understood to be abnormalities within the functional units)
each of the at least one other functional unit that has determined the abnormality is present in the system control unit generates a control instruction to reduce a moving speed of the moving object, to limit a steering angle of the moving object, or both. ([0037], [0073], and Claim 17; teach the system sending a stop signal to the vehicle in the event of a deviation detected from the route. Stopping would be analogous to reducing the speed of the moving object and the deviation is analogous to the abnormality detected)
Irion does not teach an authentication code for authenticating contents of the control instructions and wherein the at least one other functional unit determines that the abnormality is present in the system control unit when content of the control instruction received by the at least one other functional unit is different from content of the control instructions indicated by the authentication code.
However, Sekine teaches “an authentication code for authenticating contents of the control instructions” ([0055] teaches the vehicle ECU receiving an approval code to determine if an action is genuine) and “wherein the at least one other functional unit determines that the abnormality is present in the system control unit when content of the control instruction received by the at least one other functional unit is different from content of the control instructions indicated by the authentication code.” ([0055]-[0056] teaches the system determining whether or not a command is approved based on the received approval code. In the event the code is not legitimate the system will not allow for controls to occur, [0057].)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Irion with Sekine; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to vehicle control systems. While the elements of Sekine are embedded in a vehicle it would be obvious to incorporate them into a remote system. This would be seen as making separable as discussed in MPEP 2144.04(V)(C.) Applicant has removed features of an autonomous vehicle and implemented them into a remote control system. The combination of a remote control system with an autonomous vehicle would therefore be an obvious modification. Additionally, as Sekine teaches in [0006]-[0008] by using an authentication code a user can ensure that the vehicle is only operating as best it can. The authentication codes ensure that the vehicle does not try to perform an action that it should not, and only approved actions can be executed by the vehicle.
Claim(s) 2 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irion (US PG Pub 2017/0308095) in view of Sekine (US PG Pub 2019/0047586), Thomas (US PG Pub 2023/0236022), and Avery (US PG Pub 2019/0258242).
Regarding claim 2, Irion teaches the remote control system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one other functional unit further includes ([0028]-[0029], [0046], [0049], and [0069] teach the system determining that the vehicle has deviated from the path, i.e. an abnormality has been detected, these abnormalities are taught to be the result of sensors errors, algorithm errors, or actuator errors, which would be understood to be abnormalities within the functional units)
a route planning unit configured to plan a route along which the moving object is to be moved and provide an estimated position of the moving object along the route; (Fig. 2, item 203; and [0049] teaches a processor that functionally determines the route a vehicle should move through an area, [0071] teaches the system monitoring the vehicle along the estimate path) and
a moving object identifying unit configured to acquire either or both of a measured position and a measured orientation of the moving object and provide either or both of the measured position and the measured orientation of the moving object, (Fig. 2, item 207; and [0049] teaches a monitoring system configured to monitor the vehicle’s travel and determine its location) wherein
the route planning unit acquires either or both of the measured position and the measured orientation of the moving object from the moving object identifying unit, ([0064], [0066], and [0070]-[0071] teaches the system monitoring the position of the vehicle)
the moving object identifying unit acquires the estimated position of the moving object along the route from the route planning unit, ([0064], [0066], and [0070]-[0071] teaches the system monitoring the position of the vehicle from the estimated route)
the moving object identifying unit determines that an abnormality is present in the route planning unit when the difference between a current estimated position of the moving object acquired from the route planning unit at a current time and a previous estimated position of the moving object acquired from the route planning unit at a previous time exceeds a threshold estimated position value. ([0064], [0066], and [0069]-[0071] teaches the system monitoring the position of the vehicle and determining that an abnormality is present when the vehicle has deviated from the planned path. The system has determined that an abnormality has occurred in the processor, which would encompass the functional units.)
Irion does not teach the route planning unit determines that an abnormality is present in the moving object identifying unit when the difference between a current measured position acquired from the moving object identifying unit at a current time and a respective previous measured position acquired at a previous time exceeds a threshold measured position value; or the difference between a current measured orientation acquired from the moving object identifying unit at a current time, and a previous measured orientation acquired at a previous time exceeds a threshold measured orientation value.
However, Thomas teaches “the difference between a current measured orientation acquired from the moving object identifying unit at a current time, and a previous measured orientation acquired at a previous time exceeds a threshold measured orientation value.” (0104] teaches the system monitoring a vehicle over a time period and determine that a deviation from a route has occurred when the vehicle current location/pose does not match an expected location/pose from a previous time period. In particular Thomas recites, “a second threshold provides that the rotational distance between poses shall not exceed the distance that is a function of a second predetermined value, such as the angular velocity with a calibration buffer according to a checker sample time.” The system is clearly determining that there is a change in pose over time. This allows for the system to determine that an abnormality has occurred.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Irion and Sekine with Thomas; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of autonomous vehicles and monitoring the controls. While the elements of Thomas are embedded in a vehicle it would be obvious to incorporate them into a remote system. This would be seen as making separable as discussed in MPEP 2144.04(V)(C.) Applicant has removed features of an autonomous vehicle and implemented them into a remote control system. The combination of a remote control system with an autonomous vehicle would therefore be an obvious modification. Additionally, as Thomas teaches in [0019]-[0020] the validation of vehicle location from a monitoring system ensures that the vehicle is operating within acceptable bounds. If the vehicle deviates too much this can lead to collisions or other issues. Validating data from previous time periods and expiring time periods ensures that the data used is not too old or problematic. This allows for precise vehicle controls.
The combination of Irion, Sekine, and Thomas does not teach the route planning unit determines that an abnormality is present in the moving object identifying unit when the difference between a current measured position acquired from the moving object identifying unit at a current time and a respective previous measured position acquired at a previous time exceeds a threshold measured position value.
However, Avery teaches “the route planning unit determines that an abnormality is present in the moving object identifying unit when the difference between a current measured position acquired from the moving object identifying unit at a current time and a respective previous measured position acquired at a previous time exceeds a threshold measured position value.” (Fig. 5 and [0104]-[0111] teach the system determining that there is an abnormality in the system. This is achieved by the system monitoring the vehicle data gathered at a given time and comparing it to a previous time. This allows the system to determine that an abnormality is present in the event that the vehicle data does not match the expected data. The abnormality in the system is determined to be in a part of the processing system, which encompasses the functional units.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Irion, Sekine, and Thomas with Avery; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of autonomous vehicles and monitoring the controls. As Avery teaches in [0037]-[0039] when anomalies are not properly detected by a system, the system will act irrationally. The data collected is tainted and will cause it to take adverse actions. By determining which system is not functioning properly the system can determine that the data is not to be trusted and can cause the vehicle to take a preventative action. This prevents crashes and/or other adverse events.
Regarding claim 6, Irion teaches remote control system according to claim 2, wherein the system control unit acquires ([0028]-[0029], [0046], [0049], and [0069] teach the system determining acquiring data from various elements)
either or both of a measured position and a measured orientation of the moving object from the moving object identifying unit; (Fig. 2, item 207; and [0049] teaches a monitoring system configured to monitor the vehicle’s travel and determine its location) and
the estimated position of the moving object along the route from the route planning unit, ([0064], [0066], and [0070]-[0071] teaches the system monitoring the position of the vehicle from the estimated route)
the system control unit determines an abnormality is present in the moving object identifying unit when ([0064], [0066], and [0069]-[0071] teaches the system monitoring the position of the vehicle and determining that an abnormality is present)
, and
the system control unit determines an abnormality is present in the route planning unit when the difference between a current estimated position of the moving object acquired from the route planning unit at a current time and a previous estimated position of the moving object acquired from the route planning unit at a previous time exceeds a threshold estimated position value. ([0064], [0066], and [0069]-[0071] teaches the system monitoring the position of the vehicle and determining that an abnormality is present when the vehicle has deviated from the planned path)
Irion does not teach the difference between a current measured position acquired from the moving object identifying unit at a current time and a respective previous measured position acquired at a previous time exceeds a threshold measured position value; or the difference between a current measured orientation acquired from the moving object identifying unit at a current time, and a previous measured orientation acquired at a previous time exceeds a threshold measured orientation value.
However, Thomas teaches “the difference between a current measured orientation acquired from the moving object identifying unit at a current time, and a previous measured orientation acquired at a previous time exceeds a threshold measured orientation value.” (0104] teaches the system monitoring a vehicle over a time period and determine that a deviation from a route has occurred when the vehicle current location/pose does not match an expected location/pose from a previous time period)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Irion and Sekine with Thomas; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of autonomous vehicles and monitoring the controls. While the elements of Thomas are embedded in a vehicle it would be obvious to incorporate them into a remote system. This would be seen as making separable as discussed in MPEP 2144.04(V)(C.) Applicant has removed features of an autonomous vehicle and implemented them into a remote control system. The combination of a remote control system with an autonomous vehicle would therefore be an obvious modification. Additionally, as Thomas teaches in [0019]-[0020] the validation of vehicle location from a monitoring system ensures that the vehicle is operating within acceptable bounds. If the vehicle deviates too much this can lead to collisions or other issues. Validating data from previous time periods and expiring time periods ensures that the data used is not too old or problematic. This allows for precise vehicle controls.
The combination of Irion, Sekine, and Thomas does not teach the difference between a current measured position acquired from the moving object identifying unit at a current time and a respective previous measured position acquired at a previous time exceeds a threshold measured position value.
However, Avery teaches “the difference between a current measured position acquired from the moving object identifying unit at a current time and a respective previous measured position acquired at a previous time exceeds a threshold measured position value”(Fig. 5 and [0104]-[0111] teach the system determining that there is an abnormality in the system. This is achieved by the system monitoring the vehicle data gathered at a given time and comparing it to a previous time. This allows the system to determine that an abnormality is present in the event that the vehicle data does not match the expected data. The abnormality in the system is determined to be in a part of the processing system, which encompasses the functional units.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Irion, Sekine, and Thomas with Avery; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of autonomous vehicles and monitoring the controls. As Avery teaches in [0037]-[0039] when anomalies are not properly detected by a system, the system will act irrationally. The data collected is tainted and will cause it to take adverse actions. By determining which system is not functioning properly the system can determine that the data is not to be trusted and can cause the vehicle to take a preventative action. This prevents crashes and/or other adverse events.
Regarding claim 7, Irion teaches the remote control system according to claim 2, wherein at least one of the system control unit, the route planning unit, or the moving object identifying unit generates a control instruction to stop the moving object. ([0037], [0073], and Claim 17; teach the system sending a stop signal to the vehicle in the event of a deviation detected from the route. Stopping would be analogous to reducing the speed of the moving object and the deviation is analogous to the abnormality detected)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irion (US PG Pub 2017/0308095) in view of Sekine (US PG Pub 2019/0047586) and Thomas (US PG Pub 2023/0236022).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Irion and Sekine teaches the remote control system according to claim 1.
The combination of Irion and Sekine does not teach wherein the at least one other functional unit of the plurality of functional units is further configured to determine that the abnormality is present in the system control unit when new information is not received from the system control unit for a predetermined time from a previous time when the information was received from the system control unit.
However, Thomas teaches “wherein the at least one other functional unit of the plurality of functional units is further configured to determine that the abnormality is present in the system control unit when new information is not received from the system control unit for a predetermined time from a previous time when the information was received from the system control unit.” ([0079] teaches the system determining an abnormal event in the case where a timer has expired before relevant data is received)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Irion and Sekine with Thomas; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of autonomous vehicles and monitoring the controls. While the elements of Thomas are embedded in a vehicle it would be obvious to incorporate them into a remote system. This would be seen as making separable as discussed in MPEP 2144.04(V)(C.) Applicant has removed features of an autonomous vehicle and implemented them into a remote control system. The combination of a remote control system with an autonomous vehicle would therefore be an obvious modification. Additionally, as Thomas teaches in [0019]-[0020] the validation of vehicle location from a monitoring system ensures that the vehicle is operating within acceptable bounds. If the vehicle deviates too much this can lead to collisions or other issues. Validating data from previous time periods and expiring time periods ensures that the data used is not too old or problematic. This allows for precise vehicle controls.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irion (US PG Pub 2017/0308095) in view of Sekine (US PG Pub 2019/0047586), Thomas (US PG Pub 2023/0236022), and Avery (US PG Pub 2019/0258242).
Regarding claim 8, Irion teaches a remote control system that remotely controls a moving object to move automatically, the remote control system comprising: a processor ([0049] teaches the system having a processor) including a plurality of functional units configured to send and receive information to and from each other, (Fig. 2 and [0049] teach a system with a processor, communication interface and monitoring system, i.e. functional units, that are in communication with each other. [0051] teaches this system as an offboard device to provide remote control of the vehicle) the plurality of functional units including:
a moving object identifying unit configured to acquire a first measured position of the moving object; (Fig. 2, item 207; and [0049] teaches a monitoring system configured to monitor the vehicle’s travel and determine its location) and
a route planning unit configured to plan a first route along which the moving object is to be moved based on the first measured position (Fig. 2, item 203; and [0049] teaches a processor that functionally determines the route a vehicle should move through an area, [0071] teaches the system monitoring the vehicle along the estimate path) and provide a first estimated position of the moving object along the first route, ([0064], [0066], and [0070]-[0071] teaches the system monitoring the position of the vehicle from the estimated route) wherein:
the moving object identifying unit is configured to acquire a second measured position of the moving object; (Fig. 2, item 207; and [0049] teaches a monitoring system configured to monitor the vehicle’s travel and determine its location)
the route planning unit is configured to plan a second route along which the moving object is to be moved based on the second measured position of the moving object and provide a second estimated position of the moving object along the second route; (Fig. 2, item 203; and [0049] teaches a processor that functionally determines the route a vehicle should move through an area, [0071] teaches the system monitoring the vehicle along the estimate path)
upon determining the route planning abnormality, the processor is configured to generate a control instruction to reduce a moving speed of the moving object, to limit a steering angle of the moving object, or both. ([0037], [0073], and Claim 17; teach the system sending a stop signal to the vehicle in the event of a deviation detected from the route. Stopping would be analogous to reducing the speed of the moving object and the deviation is analogous to the abnormality detected)
Irion does not teach the moving object identifying unit is configured to determine a route planning abnormality when a difference between the first estimated position and the second estimated position meets or exceeds a threshold.
However, Avery teaches “the moving object identifying unit is configured to determine a route planning abnormality when a difference between the first estimated position and the second estimated position meets or exceeds a threshold” (Fig. 5 and [0104]-[0111] teach the system determining that there is an abnormality in the system. This is achieved by the system monitoring the vehicle data gathered at a given time and comparing it to a previous time. This allows the system to determine that an abnormality is present in the event that the vehicle data does not match the expected data. The abnormality in the system is determined to be in a part of the processing system, which encompasses the functional units.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Irion with Avery; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control of autonomous vehicles and monitoring the controls. As Avery teaches in [0037]-[0039] when anomalies are not properly detected by a system, the system will act irrationally. The data collected is tainted and will cause it to take adverse actions. By determining which system is not functioning properly the system can determine that the data is not to be trusted and can cause the vehicle to take a preventative action. This prevents crashes and/or other adverse events.
Regarding claim 9, Irion teaches a remote control system that remotely controls a moving object to move automatically, the remote control system comprising: a processor ([0049] teaches the system having a processor) including a plurality of functional units configured to send and receive information to and from each other, (Fig. 2 and [0049] teach a system with a processor, communication interface and monitoring system, i.e. functional units, that are in communication with each other. [0051] teaches this system as an offboard device to provide remote control of the vehicle) the plurality of functional units including:
a moving object identifying unit configured to acquire a first measured position of the moving object; (Fig. 2, item 207; and [0049] teaches a monitoring system configured to monitor the vehicle’s travel and determine its location) and
a route planning unit configured to plan a first route along which the moving object is to be moved based on the first measured position (Fig. 2, item 203; and [0049] teaches a processor that functionally determines the route a vehicle should move through an area, [0071] teaches the system monitoring the vehicle along the estimate path) and provide a first estimated position of the moving object along the first route, ([0064], [0066], and [0070]-[0071] teaches the system monitoring the position of the vehicle from the estimated route) wherein:
the moving object identifying unit is configured to acquire a second measured position of the moving object; (Fig. 2, item 207; and [0049] teaches a monitoring system configured to monitor the vehicle’s travel and determine its location)
the route planning unit is configured to plan a second route along which the moving object is to be moved based on the second measured position of the moving object and provide a second estimated position of the moving object along the second route; (Fig. 2, item 203; and [0049] teaches a processor that functionally determines the route a vehicle should move through an area, [0071] teaches the system monitoring the vehicle along the estimate path)
; and
upon determining the route planning abnormality, the processor is configured to generate a control instruction to reduce a moving speed of the moving object, to limit a steering angle of the moving object, or both. ([0037], [0073], and Claim 17; teach the system sending a stop signal to the vehicle in the event of a deviation detected from the route. Stopping would be analogous to reducing the speed of the moving object and the deviation is analogous to the abnormality detected)
Irion does not teach the route planning unit is configured to determine a moving object identifying abnormality when a difference between the first measured position and the second measured position meets or exceeds a threshold.
However, Avery teaches “the route planning unit is configured to determine a moving object identifying abnormality when a difference between the first measured position and the second measured position meets or exceeds a threshold.” (Fig. 5 and [0104]-[0111] teach the system determining that there is an abnormality in the system. This is achieved by the system monitoring the vehicle data gathered at a given time and comparing it to a previous time. This allows the system to determine that an abnormality is present in the event that the vehicle data does not match the expected data. The abnormality in the system is determined to be in a part of the processing system, which encompasses the functional units.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Irion with Avery; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control of autonomous vehicles and monitoring the controls. As Avery teaches in [0037]-[0039] when anomalies are not properly detected by a system, the system will act irrationally. The data collected is tainted and will cause it to take adverse actions. By determining which system is not functioning properly the system can determine that the data is not to be trusted and can cause the vehicle to take a preventative action. This prevents crashes and/or other adverse events.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights