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 .
ELECTION/RESTRICTION
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I comprising claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 12/12/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and/or examination of the entire application – including Inventions I and II – can be made without a serious burden, at least because the claims in Invention I would be relevant to the search and/or examination of the claims in Invention II. This is not found persuasive because there would be a serious search and/or examination burden to consider both Inventions I and II as searching between the two Groups would require different text strings in different CPC groups, and prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to the other invention. Elaborating on the last point, Examiner respectfully submits that prior art applicable to invention I – generally directed to reducing a functionality of an autonomous vehicle in proximity to a construction work area – would not likely be applicable to invention II – generally directed to reporting geolocation data of an equipment to define a construction work area – and vice versa.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response to Election/Restriction filed on 12/12/2025. Applicant elected claims 1-16 and withdrew claims 17-20. Claims 1-16 are pending and are examined below.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims fail to pass the Alice/Mayo test for determining patent eligibility.
The patent eligibility test is performed below for independent claim 1.
Step 1—Does the claim fall within a statutory category?
Claim 1: Yes, the claim recites a machine or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One—Is a judicial exception recited?
Claims 1 and 9 are provided below with the abstract idea indicated in bold and additional elements without bold.
1. A system comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory storing instructions, which, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to:
receive geolocation data corresponding to a first geolocation and a second geolocation, wherein the first geolocation is associated with a starting location of a construction work area and the second geolocation is associated with an ending location of the construction work area;
identify an autonomous vehicle in proximity of the construction work area;
transmit the geolocation data corresponding to the construction work area to the autonomous vehicle; and
initiate a change, at the autonomous vehicle, in an operating mode of the autonomous vehicle to a reduced functionality mode.
The above shows: yes, a judicial exception is recited. But for the additional elements, the claim limitation pertaining to identifying that an autonomous vehicle is in proximity of the construction work is a process which can practically be performed in the human mind with or without the use of a physical aid. Specifically, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim encompasses performing a judgment over obtained data. The courts have held such forms of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion to represent the abstract idea of a mental process. As a result, the bolded limitations represent a mental process. Hence, the claim recites an abstract idea. (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(III).)
Step 2A, Prong Two—Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application?
No. The claims as a whole merely use generic computer components — i.e., a processor; a memory — that are recited at a high level of generality such that they cannot be considered more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B—Does the claim provide an inventive concept?
No. The additional elements of the claims amount to either:
Insignificant pre-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering:
receive geolocation data
Insignificant post-solution activity in the form of well-understood and conventional activity:
transmit geolocation data
initiate a change, at the autonomous vehicle, in an operating mode of the autonomous vehicle to a reduced functionality mode
Note well that the BRI of the foregoing limitation encompasses merely disabling autonomous driving. This follows Applicant’s description at para. [0045] of the PGPUB, stating: “The processor 505 … cause[s] the one or more autonomous vehicles to change an operating mode of the autonomous vehicle to a reduced functionality mode. In some embodiments, … the reduced functionality mode includes an AD [autonomous driving] function being disabled for the autonomous vehicle.” Accordingly, this claim limitation does not necessarily positively recite actuation of structure – which would be a form of patent-eligible material – but rather encompasses merely sending a signal to a control system to stop its processing. Such constitutes an insignificant extra-solution activity which is insufficient to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1 but do not render the claimed invention patent eligible because they are directed to additional mental steps:
apply a higher weight to sensor data over stored map data, and
disregard stored map data while performing a localization function;
or insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., gathering data):
transmit an updated route,
use sensor data for detecting a traffic lane marking,
use sensor data for detecting a width of a traffic lane, and
disable an automated driving (AD) function.
Claims 1-8 do not pass the patent eligibility test. Accordingly, claims 1-8 are rejected under § 101.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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, 8, 9 and 16 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal et al. (US20190196466A1; “Agarwal”) in view of Schwear (US20230282110A1; “Schwear”).
As to independent claim 1, Agarwal discloses a system comprising:
at least one processor (“The controller 28 may include a processor 30.” ¶ 9 and FIG. 1.); and
at least one memory storing instructions (“The controller 28 may include memory 32.” ¶ 9 and FIG. 1.), which, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to:
receive data corresponding to a location of a construction work area, wherein the data is associated with a starting location and an ending location of a construction work area (“The system 10 may include a digital-map 48 that designates the location and/or boundaries of the construction-zone.” ¶ 15. Note: The successful operation of Agarwal necessarily requires that the boundaries of work zones encompass the respective start and end locations of said work zones as otherwise Agarwal would be inoperable for successfully determining a proximity of a vehicle to a boundary (i.e., a start or an end) of a work site.); and
transmit the data corresponding to the construction work area to the autonomous vehicle (“Initially, location of a user device in which the computer implemented safety software application 102 is determined using GPS, radiolocation, and/or beacon technology (Step 202). The user device is preferably in a vehicle driving on a roadway. Simultaneously, location of the GPS transmitter devices on the roadway are received by the system (Step 204). Based on the received locations, real time distance between the user device and the transmitter device is measured using the server system (Step 206) and accordingly, a push notification is sent to the application 102 for slowing down the speed of the vehicle (Step 208).” ¶ 37 and FIG. 2. See also ¶ 45 and FIGS. 6-7 which illustrate that the exact distance from the vehicle to the work zone may be transmitted to the user device 104 (which may be part of the vehicle) – hence, the vehicle ultimately receives transmitted geolocation data corresponding to the construction work area to the autonomous vehicle ); and
initiate a change, at the autonomous vehicle, in an operating mode of the autonomous vehicle to a reduced functionality mode (“Step 150, CHANGE TO MANUAL-MODE, may include changing, in accordance with the determining that the host-vehicle 12 is proximate the construction-zone 20, control of the host-vehicle 12 from the automated-mode 14 to a manual-mode 16.” ¶ 27 and FIG. 3.).
Agarwal fails to explicitly disclose:
receive geolocation data corresponding to a first geolocation and a second geolocation, wherein the first geolocation is associated with a starting location of a construction work area and the second geolocation is associated with an ending location of the construction work area; and
transmit the geolocation data corresponding to the construction work area to the autonomous vehicle.
Nevertheless, Schwear teaches:
receive geolocation data corresponding to a first geolocation and a second geolocation, wherein the first geolocation is associated with a starting location of a construction work area and the second geolocation is associated with an ending location of the construction work area (“For detecting accurate location and position of work zones and other sensitive areas on a roadway, the system 100 uses GPS transmitters 112 positioned near the work zones. One or more GPS transmitters 112 can be removably or permanently positioned on the roadways and are configured to transmit their location using a positioning module as described in FIG. 4 . The location of the transmitter devices 112 are used for determining the distance of an approaching user device/vehicle to the work zone for which the GPS transmitter 112 is positioned.” ¶ 33. Note: The successful operation of Schwear necessarily requires that the location and position of work zones encompass the respective start and end locations of said work zones as otherwise Schwear would be inoperable for successfully determining a distance from a vehicle to a boundary (i.e., a start or an end) of a work site.); and
transmit the geolocation data corresponding to the construction work area to the autonomous vehicle (“Initially, location of a user device in which the computer implemented safety software application 102 is determined using GPS, radiolocation, and/or beacon technology (Step 202). The user device is preferably in a vehicle driving on a roadway. Simultaneously, location of the GPS transmitter devices on the roadway are received by the system (Step 204). Based on the received locations, real time distance between the user device and the transmitter device is measured using the server system (Step 206) and accordingly, a push notification is sent to the application 102 for slowing down the speed of the vehicle (Step 208).” ¶ 37 and FIG. 2. See also ¶ 45 and FIGS. 6-7 which illustrate that the exact distance from the vehicle to the work zone may be transmitted to the user device 104 (which may be part of the vehicle) – hence, the vehicle ultimately receives transmitted geolocation data corresponding to the construction work area to the autonomous vehicle ).
Agarwal discloses: a system which reduces a functionality of an autonomous vehicle when the autonomous vehicle is in proximity of a construction work area. Schwear teaches: defining a construction work area with geolocation data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Agarwal to include the feature of: receive geolocation data corresponding to a first geolocation and a second geolocation, wherein the first geolocation is associated with a starting location of a construction work area and the second geolocation is associated with an ending location of the construction work area; and transmit the geolocation data corresponding to the construction work area to the autonomous vehicle, as taught by Schwear, with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for “detecting accurate location and position of work zones.” (Schwear, ¶ 33.)
As to independent claim 9, Agarwal discloses an autonomous vehicle comprising:
at least one processor (“The controller 28 may include a processor 30.” ¶ 9 and FIG. 1.); and
at least one memory storing instructions (“The controller 28 may include memory 32.” ¶ 9 and FIG. 1.), which, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to:
receive data corresponding to a location of a construction work area, wherein the data is associated with a starting location and an ending location of a construction work area (“The system 10 may include a digital-map 48 that designates the location and/or boundaries of the construction-zone …. [T]he digital-map 48 may be stored in the cloud, and possibly accessed by the controller 28 in real-time.” ¶ 15. Note: The successful operation of Agarwal necessarily requires that the boundaries of work zones encompass the respective start and end locations of said work zones as otherwise Agarwal would be inoperable for successfully determining a proximity of a vehicle to a boundary (i.e., a start or an end) of a work site.);
based upon the received data associated with the construction work area, initiate a change in an operating mode of the autonomous vehicle to a reduced functionality mode as the autonomous vehicle approaches the starting location of the construction work area (“Step 150, CHANGE TO MANUAL-MODE, may include changing, in accordance with the determining that the host-vehicle 12 is proximate the construction-zone 20, control of the host-vehicle 12 from the automated-mode 14 to a manual-mode 16.” ¶ 27 and FIG. 3.).
Agarwal fails to explicitly disclose:
transmit, to an application server, current geolocation data of the autonomous vehicle;
receive, from the application server, geolocation data corresponding to a first geolocation and a second geolocation, wherein the first geolocation is associated with a starting location of a construction work area and the second geolocation is associated with an ending location of the construction work area.
Nevertheless, Schwear teaches:
transmit, to an application server, current geolocation data of the autonomous vehicle (“Initially, location of a user device in which the computer implemented safety software application 102 is determined using GPS, radiolocation, and/or beacon technology (Step 202). The user device is preferably in a vehicle driving on a roadway. Simultaneously, location of the GPS transmitter devices on the roadway are received by the system (Step 204). Based on the received locations, real time distance between the user device and the transmitter device is measured using the server system (Step 206) and accordingly, a push notification is sent to the application 102 for slowing down the speed of the vehicle (Step 208).” ¶ 37 and FIG. 2.); and
receive geolocation data corresponding to a first geolocation and a second geolocation, wherein the first geolocation is associated with a starting location of a construction work area and the second geolocation is associated with an ending location of the construction work area (“For detecting accurate location and position of work zones and other sensitive areas on a roadway, the system 100 uses GPS transmitters 112 positioned near the work zones. One or more GPS transmitters 112 can be removably or permanently positioned on the roadways and are configured to transmit their location using a positioning module as described in FIG. 4 . The location of the transmitter devices 112 are used for determining the distance of an approaching user device/vehicle to the work zone for which the GPS transmitter 112 is positioned.” ¶ 33. “Initially, location of a user device in which the computer implemented safety software application 102 is determined using GPS, radiolocation, and/or beacon technology (Step 202). The user device is preferably in a vehicle driving on a roadway. Simultaneously, location of the GPS transmitter devices on the roadway are received by the system (Step 204). Based on the received locations, real time distance between the user device and the transmitter device is measured using the server system (Step 206) and accordingly, a push notification is sent to the application 102 for slowing down the speed of the vehicle (Step 208).” ¶ 37 and FIG. 2. See also ¶ 45 and FIGS. 6-7 which illustrate that the exact distance from the vehicle to the work zone may be transmitted to the user device 104 (which may be part of the vehicle) – hence, the vehicle ultimately receives transmitted geolocation data corresponding to the construction work area to the autonomous vehicle. Note: The successful operation of Schwear necessarily requires that the location and position of work zones encompass the respective start and end locations of said work zones as otherwise Schwear would be inoperable for successfully determining a distance from a vehicle to a boundary (i.e., a start or an end) of a work site.); and
Agarwal discloses: a system which reduces a functionality of an autonomous vehicle when the autonomous vehicle is in proximity of a construction work area. Schwear teaches: defining a construction work area with geolocation data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Agarwal to include the features of: transmit, to an application server, current geolocation data of the autonomous vehicle; and receive geolocation data corresponding to a first geolocation and a second geolocation, wherein the first geolocation is associated with a starting location of a construction work area and the second geolocation is associated with an ending location of the construction work area, as taught by Schwear, with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for “detecting accurate location and position of work zones.” (Schwear, ¶ 33.)
As to claims 8 and 16, Agarwal discloses: wherein the reduced functionality mode includes an automated driving (AD) function being disabled (“Step 150, CHANGE TO MANUAL-MODE, may include changing, in accordance with the determining that the host-vehicle 12 is proximate the construction-zone 20, control of the host-vehicle 12 from the automated-mode 14 to a manual-mode 16.” ¶ 27 and FIG. 3.).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal in view of Schwear as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Cronin et al. (US20180203455A1; “Cronin”).
As to claims 2 and 10, the combination of Agarwal and Schwear fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the instructions further configure the at least one processor to transmit an updated route to the autonomous vehicle to avoid the autonomous vehicle driving through the construction work area.
Nevertheless, Cronin teaches: transmitting an updated route to an autonomous vehicle to avoid the autonomous vehicle driving through a construction work area (“The autonomous vehicle 100 may determine a travel path according to a type of an event occurring on the first path 2240. The autonomous vehicle 100 may monitor an event occurring on the first path 2240 and may determine a type of the detected event. The autonomous vehicle 100 may determine whether the event area 2210 is an area in which the autonomous vehicle 100 may travel. When the event area 2210 is a construction zone and thus is blocked, the autonomous vehicle 100 may determine the event area 2210 as an area in which the autonomous vehicle 100 may not travel …. When it is determined that the event area 2210 is an area (e.g., a construction zone) in which the autonomous vehicle 100 may not travel in any of an autonomous driving mode and a manual driving mode, the autonomous vehicle 100 may travel along the second path 2250 in an autonomous driving mode.” ¶ 282 and FIG. 23.).
Agarwal discloses: a system which reduces a functionality of an autonomous vehicle when the autonomous vehicle is in proximity of a construction work area. Schwear teaches: defining a construction work area with geolocation data. Cronin teaches: transmitting an updated route to an autonomous vehicle to avoid the autonomous vehicle driving through a construction work area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Agarwal and Schwear to include the feature of: transmitting an updated route to an autonomous vehicle to avoid the autonomous vehicle driving through a construction work area, as taught by Cronin, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for continuing autonomous operation of a vehicle by avoiding an area (e.g., construction work area) in which autonomous navigation may be difficult.
Claims 3, 5, 11 and 13 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal in view of Schwear as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Zhang et al. (US20200191602A1; “Zhang”).
As to claims 3 and 11, the combination of Agarwal and Schwear fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the instructions further configure the at least one processor to instruct the autonomous vehicle to use sensor data for detecting a traffic lane marking.
Nevertheless, Zhang teaches: instruct an autonomous vehicle to use sensor data for detecting a traffic lane marking (“The data collected by the sensor unit 207 may be used to gather information related to an environment of the vehicle, such as, the road work zone. In some embodiments, the vehicle may have sensors positioned on or within and the sensors may provide data indicating a location of the vehicle, heading data associated with lane markings along pathways approaching a road work zone, and any other kinds of lane markings indicating a road work zone that is approaching.” ¶ 38 and FIG. 2.).
Agarwal discloses: a system which reduces a functionality of an autonomous vehicle when the autonomous vehicle is in proximity of a construction work area. Schwear teaches: defining a construction work area with geolocation data. Zhang teaches: instruct an autonomous vehicle to use sensor data for detecting a traffic lane marking.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Agarwal and Schwear to include the feature of: instruct an autonomous vehicle to use sensor data for detecting a traffic lane marking, as taught by Zhang, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for identifying a work zone. (See Zhang, ¶ 38.)
As to claims 5 and 13, Agarwal discloses: wherein the sensor data includes data from one or more image sensors (“The detector 22 may include or be formed of, but is not limited to, one or more instances of a camera.” ¶ 7 and FIG. 1.).
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal in view of Schwear and in view of Zhang as applied to claim 3 — further in view of Yoshizawa (US20220219732A1; “Yoshizawa”).
As to claims 4 and 12, the combination of Agarwal and Schwear fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the instructions further configure the at least one processor to instruct the autonomous vehicle to use the sensor data for detecting a width of a traffic lane.
Nevertheless, Yoshizawa teaches: instruct an autonomous vehicle to use the sensor data for detecting a width of a traffic lane (“The area information management unit 92 sets a sensor category that provides an attribute that indicates that traveling is possible, and a sensor category that provides an attribute that indicates that traveling is impossible, for every area, on the basis of road information, such as road widths of existing roads.” ¶ 96.).
Agarwal discloses: a system which reduces a functionality of an autonomous vehicle when the autonomous vehicle is in proximity of a construction work area. Schwear teaches: defining a construction work area with geolocation data. Yoshizawa teaches: instruct an autonomous vehicle to use the sensor data for detecting a width of a traffic lane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Agarwal and Schwear to include the feature of: instruct an autonomous vehicle to use the sensor data for detecting a width of a traffic lane, as taught by Yoshizawa, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for determining whether a road area is traversable, including in the context of “road construction.” (See Yoshizawa, ¶ 96.)
Claims 6, 7, 14 and 15 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal in view of Schwear as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Ferguson et al. (US20150266471A1; “Ferguson”).
As to claims 6 and 14, the combination of Agarwal and Schwear fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the instructions further configure the at least one processor to instruct the autonomous vehicle to apply a higher weight to sensor data of one or more sensors installed within the autonomous vehicle over stored map data while performing a localization function.
Nevertheless, Ferguson teaches: applying a higher weight to sensor data of one or more sensors installed within an autonomous vehicle over stored map data while performing a localization function (“In FIG. 4, if the likelihood of the existence of the construction zone is high …, the computing device may be configured to utilize sensor information, received from on-board sensors on the vehicle 402 …, in making a navigation decision rather than preexisting map information that may not include information and changes relating to the construction zone.” ¶ 111 and FIG. 4.).
Agarwal discloses: a system which reduces a functionality of an autonomous vehicle when the autonomous vehicle is in proximity of a construction work area. Schwear teaches: defining a construction work area with geolocation data. Ferguson teaches: applying a higher weight to sensor data of one or more sensors installed within an autonomous vehicle over stored map data while performing a localization function.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Agarwal and Schwear to include the feature of: applying a higher weight to sensor data of one or more sensors installed within an autonomous vehicle over stored map data while performing a localization function, as taught by Ferguson, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for accounting for changes relating to a construction zone, thereby enhancing navigation of an autonomous vehicle in regards to a construction zone.
As to claims 7 and 15, the combination of Agarwal and Schwear fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the instructions further configure the at least one processor to instruct the autonomous vehicle to disregard stored map data while performing the localization function.
Nevertheless, Ferguson teaches: instruct an autonomous vehicle to disregard stored map data while performing a localization function (“In FIG. 4, if the likelihood of the existence of the construction zone is high …, the computing device may be configured to utilize sensor information, received from on-board sensors on the vehicle 402 …, in making a navigation decision rather than preexisting map information that may not include information and changes relating to the construction zone.” ¶ 111 and FIG. 4.).
Agarwal discloses: a system which reduces a functionality of an autonomous vehicle when the autonomous vehicle is in proximity of a construction work area. Schwear teaches: defining a construction work area with geolocation data. Ferguson teaches: applying a higher weight to sensor data of one or more sensors installed within an autonomous vehicle over stored map data while performing a localization function; and instruct an autonomous vehicle to disregard stored map data while performing a localization function .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Agarwal and Schwear to include the feature of: instruct an autonomous vehicle to disregard stored map data while performing a localization function, as taught by Ferguson, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for accounting for changes relating to a construction zone, thereby enhancing navigation of an autonomous vehicle in regards to a construction zone.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/M.C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668