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 .
This office action is in response to applicant amendment/remarks filed 06/16/2026. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17 and 19 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled and no claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 filed 06/16/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 15-20 has been withdrawn, because Para. 0022 of the specifications discloses that “A computer readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals communicated through a wire, and/or other transmission media“ and “this does not render the storage device as transitory because the data is not transitory while it is stored.” The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 15-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12 filed 06/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Previously, the solenoid knocker was operated to strike the surface at least once, which was disclosed by the prior art on record. The newly amended claims narrows the limitation such that the solenoid knocker is operated within the impact device to strike the surface which overcomes the prior art on record. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Pyznar US20200151867A1, Gupta et al. US20210123888A1, and Ban Susumu et al. JP2002303610A. See the new 35 U.S.C 103 rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyznar US20200151867A1 and Gupta et al. US20210123888A1 (henceforth Gupta) further in view of Ban Susumu et al. JP2002303610A (henceforth Susumu). The Examiner has provided an English translation of Susumu.
Regarding claim 1,
Pyznar discloses:
A computer-implemented method for performing a close-range inspection on a façade, (See at least Figs. 1-2)the method comprising:
Conducting, using a drone, the close-range inspection of one or more inspection sites comprising the façade (See Fig. 2), wherein the close-range inspection comprises a close visual inspection (See at least Fig. 1 and Para. 0029, wherein a camera is used on a drone to inspect a building.)
Determining, by a visual AI engine, (Para. 0036) visual building quality of the façade at the one or more inspection sites based on one or more images from the close visual inspection of the one or more inspection sites; (See at least Para. 0029, “the drone may include cameras that may be used to detect apparent bulging of the cladding.” A visual building quality of the façade is determined based on the image.)
Determining, via an acoustic AI engine, (Para. 0036) an acoustic building quality of the façade at the one or more inspection site (See at least Para. 0027-0028, wherein an acoustic building quality of the façade is determined.)
Generating a digital representation of the façade based on the visual building quality and the acoustic building quality. (See at least Fig. 7 and Para. 0050, “, the inspection system of FIG. 7 may generate visual photogrammetry of a structure, such as a building, with each data point (e.g., geotagged acoustic, lidar or radar, and or IR) layered with a graphic representation of each deviation and corresponding numerical information such as planar distortions, calibrated sonar values, thermographic values, etc.”, wherein a digital representation of the face is generated based on the visual building quality and the acoustic building quality.)
Gupta does not specifically state wherein the close-range inspection comprises a close tactile assessment, the tactile assessment comprising: operating a tactile assessment device comprising an extension arm from the drone to place an impact device against a surface of the one or more inspection sites; and operating a solenoid knocker to strike the surface at least once to produce one or more impact sounds; and where determining an acoustic building quality of the façade at the one or more inspection sites based on one or more impact sounds.
However, Gupta teaches:
the tactile assessment comprising: operating a tactile assessment device comprising an extension arm from the drone to place an impact device against a surface of the one or more inspection sites; (See at least Fig. 11, and Para. 0042, “The actuator 1120 can be secured to the UAV 1102 with an extension 1121 such as a post or other object so that the acoustic detector 1120 is sufficiently distant from the rotors 1104”.)
and operating a solenoid knocker to strike the surface at least once to produce one or more impact sounds. (See at least Para. 0042, “An electromagnetic actuator such as a push or pull type actuator which is operable to tap the contact surface 1124 against a selected surface can be used, or any other type of actuator such as a piezoelectric actuator”. The solenoid (i.e. piezoelectric actuator) knocker is operated to strike the surface at least once.)
wherein the close-range inspection comprises a close tactile assessment, where determining an acoustic building quality of the façade at the one or more inspection sites based on one or more impact sounds (See at least Fig. 2, Para. 0010, and Para. 0034, wherein the close range inspection comprises a close tactile assessment via repetitive contacts with the contact surface 221, such that acoustic are produced by the acoustic detectors to determine a location of a structure defect (i.e. building quality) in the building.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pyznar to incorporate the teachings of Gupta to include the limitations as recited above such that a portion of a structure can be identified as having a structural anomaly based on the acoustic signal, which would create a more robust system for a close-ranged inspection of a building. This would create a more robust drone system for inspecting a building. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Pyznar and Gupta. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Pyznar and Gupta do not specifically disclose “extend the extension arm” and “operating a knocker within the placed impact device”.
However, Susumu teaches:
extend the extension arm. (See at least Fig. 3 and Para. 0043, wherein the lifting jack (i.e. an extension arm) is extended to place the impact device onto the wall.)
operating a knocker within the placed impact device (See at least Figs. 3-5 and hammer 110 in Fig. 5. The impact device as shown in Fig. 3 is placed again the concrete wall via the cushion rubber 43 and Para. 0063, “cushion rubber 43 is pressed against the concrete surface and temporarily fix it.” Furthermore, as shown in Fig. 5, cushion rubbers 126 are also placed against the surface (Para. 0079), and the hammer 110 (i.e. the knocker) is operated. See Para. 0018, “determining the soundness of concrete by hammering the concrete surface with a hammer and analyzing the hammering sound by an analysis unit.” A knocker is operated to strike the concrete surface within the placed impact device to determine the integrity of the concrete.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pyznar and Gupta to incorporate the teachings of Susumu to include the limitations as recited above such that “soundness of concrete can be easily and accurately obtained” (Para. 0009, Susumu) and would create a more robust inspection system for an “an automated non-destructive inspection of tunnel lining concrete” (Para. 0011, Susumu). Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Pyznar, Gupta, and Susumu. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 4,
Pyznar discloses:
automatically identifying the one or more inspection sites based on at least one image of the façade and one or more received building condition assessment parameters. (See at least Para. 0036, “Upon review or processing of the distance data points in the drone-to-structure distance map, and optionally a review or processing of photogrammetry and/or thermography data associated with the distance data points and captured by cameras mounted on the drone, a report of faults in the structure may be generated.” The inspection sites are identified upon processing (i.e. automatically) of photogrammetry and thermography data.)
Regarding claim 8,
Pyznar, Gupta, and Susumu discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Pyznar further discloses:
a drone comprising a camera (See Fig. 3, Cameras and laser 317))
Regarding claim 11,
Pyznar discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection rational.
Regarding claim 15,
Pyznar, Gupta, and Susumu discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 18,
Pyznar discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection rational.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyznar, Gupta, and Susumu further in view of Cantrell et al. US20190235489A1 (henceforth Cantrell)
Regarding claim 2,
Pyznar, Gupta, and Susumu discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above.
Pyznar and Gupta does not specifically state “proximity data from a proximity sensor”. However, Cantrell teaches:
proximity data from a proximity sensor
(See at least Para. 0044, “proximity sensors may be placed on one or more surfaces of the drones”.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pyznar and Gupta to incorporate the teachings of Cantrell to include “proximity data from a proximity sensor” such that the drone can more efficiently determine positioning information and conduct specific functions or data analysis (Para. 0044, Cantrell). Adding a proximity sensor for acquiring proximity data would create a more robust drone for positioning purposes, and increase the reliability of the positioning of the robot with respect to a wall. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Pyznar, Gupta, and Cantrell. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 9,
Pyznar, Gupta, Susumu, and Cantrell discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 16,
Pyznar, Gupta, Susumu, and Cantrell discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyznar, Gupta, Susumu and Cantrell further in view of Townsend et al. US20200154201A1 (henceforth Townsend).
Regarding claim 3,
Pyznar, Gupta, Susumu and Cantrell discloses the limitations recited in claims 1 and 2 above. Gupta further teaches:
Wherein the tactile assessment device comprises an edge device, a microcontroller, and the extension arm (See Fig. 11 and Para. 0042, wherein the tactile assessment device 1100 comprises an edge device (i.e. actuator 1120), a microcontroller (i.e. processor 1112), with the extension arm (i.e. hammer 1122 is connected to actuator for extension).)
The extension arm affixed at a first end to a mounting point on a drone, and affixed at a second end to the impact device by means of a flexible mounting. (See at least Para. 0031 and Para. 0033.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pyznar to incorporate the teachings of Gupta to include “wherein the tactile assessment device comprises an edge device, a microcontroller, and the extension arm and the extension arm affixed at a first end to a mounting point on a drone, and affixed at a second end to the impact device by means of a flexible mounting” such that a portion of a structure can further be identified as having a structural anomaly based on the acoustic signal using the hardware of the tactile assessment device to make it possible, which would create a more robust system for a close-ranged inspection of a building. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Pyznar and Gupta. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Gupta further teaches:
a box opposing the extension arm, within which are disposed at least the solenoid knocker, the microphone. (See at least Para. 0034, The contact assembly 210 is shown secured to a side of the UAV 202 opposite the rotors 240, 242 but can be placed on the same side in the box as shown in the box defined with dotted lines”, which includes the solenoid knocker and the microphone.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pyznar to incorporate the teachings of Gupta to include “a box opposing the extension arm, within which are disposed at least the solenoid knocker, the microphone” such that UAV noise produced by the rotor can further be reduced (Para. 0034, Gupta), which would create a more robust system for a close-ranged acoustic inspection of a building. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Pyznar and Gupta. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Gupta does not specifically state a proximity sensor.
However, Cantrell teaches:
a proximity sensor (See at least Para. 0044, “proximity sensors may be placed on one or more surfaces of the drones”.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pyznar and Gupta to incorporate the teachings of Cantrell to include “a proximity sensor” inside of the box of Gupta, such that the drone can more efficiently determine positioning information and conduct specific functions or data analysis (Para. 0044, Cantrell). Adding a proximity sensor for acquiring proximity data into a box would create a more robust drone for positioning purposes, and increase the reliability of the positioning of the robot with respect to a wall. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Pyznar, Gupta, and Cantrell. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Pyznar, Gupta, and Cantrell does not specifically state “a sound-insulated container open on a side.” However, Townsend teaches:
a sound-insulated container open on a side. (See at least Fig. 10, Para. 0064, and Para. 0079, wherein at least a microphone is located inside the sound-insulated container that is open on one side.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pyznar, Gupta, and Cantrell to incorporate the teachings of Townsend to include “a sound-insulated container open on a side” since a combination of environmental noise and non-ideal acoustics creates challenges for recording sound (Para. 0003, Townsend), and therefore an insulating container that is open on one side would create a more robust system for recording purposes, such as recording an impact noise of a drone to a façade. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Pyznar, Gupta, Cantrell, and Townsend. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 10,
Pyznar, Gupta, Susumu, Cantrell, and Townsend discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 17,
Pyznar, Gupta, Susumu, Cantrell, and Townsend discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyznar, Gupta, and Susumu further in view of Mattar et al. US20190369057A1 (henceforth Mattar).
Regarding claim 5,
Pyznar, Gupta, and Susumu discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above.
Pyznar does not specifically state autonomously navigating the drone to the one or more inspection sites.
However, Mattar teaches:
autonomously navigating the drone to the one or more inspection sites (See at least Para. 0007, “A drone for measuring structural parameters may be operated remotely to move to position and measure structural parameters, may be automated to move to position and measure structural parameters”. The camera equipped drone autonomously navigates to the one or more inspection sites.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pyznar to incorporate the teachings of Mattar to include autonomously navigating the drone to the one or more inspection sites since “piping used in large-scale chemical plants may degrade over time, and thus may require testing to detect potential failures that may lead to unsafe conditions and/or inoperability of equipment and facilities. Such structures may be located in hard to reach or areas that may expose testers to safety risks. Furthermore, such testing can often be time-consuming and expensive, requiring hours of specialized training, facility downtime, enhanced insurance requirements, and/or expensive safety equipment” (Para. 0003, Mattar). This would further create a more robust close-ranged inspection system for a building, by allowing the drone to travel autonomously. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Pyznar and Mattar The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 12,
Pyznar, Gupta, Susumu and Mattar discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 19,
Pyznar, Gupta, Susumu and Mattar discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyznar, Gupta, and Susumu further in view of Henry et al. US20210263515A1 (henceforth Henry).
Regarding claim 6,
Pyznar, Gupta, and Susumu discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above.
Pyznar does not specifically state wherein the digital representation of the façade is updated in real-time as the tactile assessment or the close visual inspection is completed.
However, Henry teaches:
wherein the digital representation of the façade is updated in real-time as the tactile assessment or the close visual inspection is completed
(See at least Para. 0037, “e.g., as the processing capacity becomes available while the UAV is still in flight following capture of one or more images and/or while the UAV is performing the scan, traveling between poses, or the like… For example, the UAVs herein may perform any of a plurality of different processing operations in real time, such as updating a 3D model, updating a scan plan, building a higher-resolution 3D model, such as a point cloud model and/or a 3D mesh model and so forth.” A digital representation of the façade is updated in real time as the inspection is completed.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pyznar to incorporate the teachings of Henry to include wherein the digital representation of the façade is updated in real-time as the tactile assessment or the close visual inspection is completed in order to “dynamically adapt a scan plan to obstructions encountered during execution of the scan plan” (Para. 0142, Henry). This would further create a more efficient robust inspection drone, by allowing a user to determine faults in the building as it is being scanned. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Pyznar and Henry. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 13,
Pyznar, Gupta, Susumu and Henry discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 20,
Pyznar, Gupta, Susumu and Henry discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyznar, Gupta, and Susumu further in view of Poole et al. US9,613,538B1 (henceforth Poole) and Mupende et al. US20240167914A1 (henceforth Mupende).
Regarding claim 7,
Pyznar, Gupta, and Susumu discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above.
Pyznar does not specifically state training the visual AI engine on a visual material properties corpus. However, Poole teaches:
training the visual AI engine on a visual material properties corpus
(See at least Column 31, lines 39-60, wherein visual material properties are trained in a visual AI engine.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pyznar to incorporate the teachings of Poole to include training a visual EI engine on a visual material properties corpus since “Inspecting properties (e.g., apartment buildings, office buildings, single family homes) for damage (e.g., weather damage), or other reasons, can include significant time investments by personnel trained to perform the inspection. Additionally, typical inspection procedures involve physically climbing onto roofs and ledges, incurring significant risks of both inspection personnel injury and damage to the property itself” (See Column 1 lines 6-13, Poole). This would further create a more robust method for an drone inspection system, such that they can better recognize structural damage. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Pyznar and Poole. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Pyznar does not specifically state training the acoustic AI engine on an acoustic material properties corpus. However, Mupende teaches:
training the acoustic AI engine on an acoustic material properties corpus.
(See at least Para. 0019, wherein an AI acoustic engine is trained on acoustic material properties.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pyznar to incorporate the teachings of Mupende to include training an acoustic AI engine on an acoustic material properties corpus since “it can be very difficult to differentiate between critical damage and non-critical damage” (Para. 0005, Mupende), and therefore this would create a more robust system for differentiating between critical and non-critical damage in a structural component. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Pyznar and Mupende. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 14,
Pyznar, Gupta, Susumu, Poole, and Mupende discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 7 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4334. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am- 6:00 pm MDT.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/G.J.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights