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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/20/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e., a mental process) without significantly more.
Claim 9. A method comprising:
obtaining sensor data, the sensor data captured using at least one sensor of a target device [insignificant extra-solution activity i.e. data collection];
identifying a structure of an environment external to the target device using the sensor data, the target device disposed in a position within the environment [mental process];
determining a spatial relationship between the structure and the position of the target device within the environment, the spatial relationship including an orientation of the target device relative to the structure [mental process]; and
generating a representation of the spatial relationship between the structure and the position of the target device [mental process], the representation output for display using a display associated with the target device [insignificant extra-solution activity i.e. displaying information].
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
Claim 9 is directed to a method. Therefore, claim 9 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The examiner submits the limitations
identifying a structure of an environment external to the target device using the sensor data, the target device disposed in a position within the environment;
determining a spatial relationship between the structure and the position of the target device within the environment, the spatial relationship including an orientation of the target device relative to the structure; and
generating a representation of the spatial relationship between the structure and the position of the target device
constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. For example,
A person can visually identify a parking line when looking at an image captured by the vehicle.
The person can then mentally determine that parking line is in front of the vehicle.
The person can then draw the parking line relative to the vehicle on a piece of paper.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “obtaining sensor data, the sensor data captured using at least one sensor of a target” the examiner submits that this limitation is merely data collection which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding the additional limitations of “the representation output for display using a display associated with the target device” the examiner submits that this limitation is merely displaying data which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, the claim 9 is ineligible.
Independent medium and apparatus claims 1 and 17 recite similar limitations performed by the method of claim 9. Therefore, claims 1 and 17 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim 9 as outlined above.
Dependent claims 2-5, 10-16, and 18-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-5, 10-16, and 18-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 9. Therefore, claims 1-5 and 9-20 are ineligible under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller (US 20200207333 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses One or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions for performing a computer process on a computing system, the computer process comprising [Miller ¶ 0022 "stored on non-transitory computer-readable medium) executable by one or more processors"]:
identifying a structure of an environment external to a target device, the target device disposed in a position within the environment [Miller ¶ 0034 "At step 625, the first electronic processor 305 receives a first image from the first camera 405 and at step 630 the first electronic processor 305 determines plurality of features in the first image. The first electronic processor 305 analyzes the first image to determine one or more regions in the image that include a “strong” feature. The strong feature may be, for example, a corner or a line, such as a line marking a parking space, a curb edge, a tree branch, and the like. " and Figure 8];
determining a spatial relationship between the structure and the position of the target device within the environment, the spatial relationship including an orientation of the target device relative to the structure [Miller ¶ 0038 "At step 640 the first electronic processor 305 uses the location of the desired parking location relative to the location of the vehicle 105, to determine a route to the desired parking location from a current location of the vehicle 105."]; and
generating a representation of the spatial relationship between the structure and the position of the target device, the representation of the spatial relationship output for presentation using a user device [Miller ¶ 0040-0041 "the first display device 135 of the vehicle 105 may display an image from the first camera 405 as the vehicle 105 moves to the desired parking location. In some embodiments, the image displayed on the first display device 135 of the vehicle 105 may have the desired parking location overlaid on it, the path of the vehicle 105 to the desired location overlaid on it, or both."].
Regarding claim 2, Miller discloses The one or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 1, wherein the representation of the spatial relationship is output for presentation in response to a query for the position of the target device from the user device [Miller ¶ 0038 "The second electronic processor 200 displays the received first image via the second display device 220 and prompts a user to select a desired parking location in the first image via the input device 225. When the second electronic processor 200 receives a selection of a desired parking location in the first image, the second electronic processor 200 sends the first image with the desired parking location to the first electronic processor 305. The first electronic processor 305 utilizes the vehicle control system 120 and the environment detection system 130 to autonomously maneuver the vehicle 105 to the desired parking location based on the plurality of features determined in the first image." The query for the position is the user selecting a desired parking location and the output is the route to the desired parking location.].
Regarding claim 3, Miller discloses The one or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 1, wherein the representation of the spatial relationship includes an outer shape of the target device and at least one surface shape of the structure [Miller ¶ 0041 and Figure 9 The outer shape is element 905 and the surface shape are the parking lines.].
Regarding claim 4, Miller discloses The one or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 1, wherein the orientation includes at least one of heading, tilt, or proximity [Miller, Figure 9].
Regarding claim 6, Miller discloses The one or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a movement command from the user device to adjust the position of the target device [Miller ¶ 0043"The plurality of vehicular motion parameters may include, for example, a distance, a speed, and a direction. In one example, a user may select an area of the image to indicate the direction they want the vehicle to move in and a speed from a list of available speeds. At step 1015 the first electronic processor 305 receives the plurality of vehicular motion parameters from the remote device 110."]; and
causing the target device to adjust the position of the target device based on the movement command [Miller ¶ 0043 "At step 1020 the first electronic processor 305 the uses the vehicle control system 120 to control the movement of the vehicle 105 based on the plurality of vehicular motion parameters."].
Regarding claim 7, Miller discloses The one or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 6, wherein causing the target device to adjust the position of the target device comprises:
generating a motion plan for adjusting the position of the target device, the motion plan being generated based on one or more objects present in the environment and the movement command, the one or more objects including the structure [Miller ¶ 0043 "It should be understood that, in some embodiments, a user may select an area of the image as a desired parking space rather than a plurality of vehicular motion parameters and the first electronic processor 305 uses the vehicle control system 120 to move the vehicle 105 based on the selected area in the image (the desired parking space). Additionally, in some embodiments, when the first electronic processor 305 is executing steps 1015 and 1020 of the method 1000 and receives a signal from the environment detection system 130 that an obstruction or obstacle has been detected in the path of the vehicle 105, the first electronic processor 305 uses the vehicle control system 120 to avoid the detected obstruction, sends a notification to the remote device 110, or both."].
Regarding claim 8, Miller discloses The one or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 1, further comprising:
causing the target device to move into the position in response to a storage command [Miller ¶ 0038 "At step 645 the first electronic processor 305 sends instructions to the vehicle control system 120 to autonomously maneuver the vehicle 105 to the desired parking location."].
Regarding claim 9, Miller discloses A method comprising:
obtaining sensor data, the sensor data captured using at least one sensor of a target device [Miller ¶ 0029 "the environment detection system 130 of the vehicle 105 … In other embodiments, the environment detection system 130 uses multiple sensors, such as the lidar sensor 400, radar sensor 410, or ultrasonic sensor 415, in combination with the first camera 405."];
identifying a structure of an environment external to the target device using the sensor data, the target device disposed in a position within the environment [Miller ¶ 0034 "At step 625, the first electronic processor 305 receives a first image from the first camera 405 and at step 630 the first electronic processor 305 determines plurality of features in the first image. The first electronic processor 305 analyzes the first image to determine one or more regions in the image that include a “strong” feature. The strong feature may be, for example, a corner or a line, such as a line marking a parking space, a curb edge, a tree branch, and the like. " and Figure 8];
determining a spatial relationship between the structure and the position of the target device within the environment, the spatial relationship including an orientation of the target device relative to the structure [Miller ¶ 0038 "At step 640 the first electronic processor 305 uses the location of the desired parking location relative to the location of the vehicle 105, to determine a route to the desired parking location from a current location of the vehicle 105."]; and
generating a representation of the spatial relationship between the structure and the position of the target device, the representation output for display using a display associated with the target device [Miller ¶ 0040-0041 "the first display device 135 of the vehicle 105 may display an image from the first camera 405 as the vehicle 105 moves to the desired parking location. In some embodiments, the image displayed on the first display device 135 of the vehicle 105 may have the desired parking location overlaid on it, the path of the vehicle 105 to the desired location overlaid on it, or both."].
Regarding claim 17, Miller discloses A system comprising: a controller rendering a representation of a spatial relationship between a structure of an environment external to a target device and a position of the target device within the environment [Miller ¶ 0038 "At step 640 the first electronic processor 305 uses the location of the desired parking location relative to the location of the vehicle 105, to determine a route to the desired parking location from a current location of the vehicle 105."], the spatial relationship including an orientation of the target device relative to the structure [Miller ¶ 0038 "At step 640 the first electronic processor 305 uses the location of the desired parking location relative to the location of the vehicle 105, to determine a route to the desired parking location from a current location of the vehicle 105."]; and a display displaying the spatial relationship between the structure of the environment external to the target device and the position of the target device within the environment [Miller ¶ 0040-0041 "the first display device 135 of the vehicle 105 may display an image from the first camera 405 as the vehicle 105 moves to the desired parking location. In some embodiments, the image displayed on the first display device 135 of the vehicle 105 may have the desired parking location overlaid on it, the path of the vehicle 105 to the desired location overlaid on it, or both."].
Regarding claim 18, Miller discloses The system of claim 17, further comprising: an input system receiving a movement command, the movement command specifying an action for movement by the target device based on the representation of the spatial relationship [Miller ¶ 0043"The plurality of vehicular motion parameters may include, for example, a distance, a speed, and a direction. In one example, a user may select an area of the image to indicate the direction they want the vehicle to move in and a speed from a list of available speeds. At step 1015 the first electronic processor 305 receives the plurality of vehicular motion parameters from the remote device 110."].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Rodriguez Romero (US 20240140476 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Miller teaches claim 1. Miller does not teach wherein the target device includes a moveable component, the spatial relationship including a component relationship between the structure and the moveable component, the component relationship including a component orientation relative to the target device.
However, in a related field of invention, Rodriguez Romero does teach wherein the target device includes a moveable component, the spatial relationship including a component relationship between the structure and the moveable component, the component relationship including a component orientation relative to the target device [Rodriguez Romero ¶ 0037 "In addition, to assist a user with determining the best location to position the visualized vehicle 55, the display 53 displays the percent that each door may be opened, and the distance between the furthest point of the visualized door and the visualized vehicle 55. More specifically, the ECM 17 calculates the position of the visualized driver side doors 32 and visualized passenger side doors 34 as a ratio of a stored maximum operating position of the doors, and displays the ratio as a percentage on the display 53 for each door." and Figure 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the automatic parking system as taught by Miller with showing the opening angle of the doors as taught by Rodriguez Romero in order to create a more effective and usable system for parking.
Regarding claim 19, Miller teaches claim 18. Miller does not teach wherein the target device includes a movable component, the action for movement by the target device including moving the movable component from a first orientation to a second orientation.
However, in a related field of invention, Rodriguez Romero does teach wherein the target device includes a movable component, the action for movement by the target device including moving the movable component from a first orientation to a second orientation [Rodriguez Romero ¶ 0037 "In addition, to assist a user with determining the best location to position the visualized vehicle 55, the display 53 displays the percent that each door may be opened, and the distance between the furthest point of the visualized door and the visualized vehicle 55. More specifically, the ECM 17 calculates the position of the visualized driver side doors 32 and visualized passenger side doors 34 as a ratio of a stored maximum operating position of the doors, and displays the ratio as a percentage on the display 53 for each door." and Figure 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the automatic parking system as taught by Miller with showing the opening angle of the doors as taught by Rodriguez Romero in order to create a more effective and usable system for parking.
Regarding claim 20, Miller teaches claim 20. Miller does not teach wherein the target device includes a movable component, the spatial relationship including a component relationship between the structure and the moveable component, the component relationship including a component movement path.
However, in a related field of invention, Rodriguez Romero does teach wherein the target device includes a movable component, the spatial relationship including a component relationship between the structure and the moveable component, the component relationship including a component movement path [Rodriguez Romero ¶ 0037 "In addition, to assist a user with determining the best location to position the visualized vehicle 55, the display 53 displays the percent that each door may be opened, and the distance between the furthest point of the visualized door and the visualized vehicle 55. More specifically, the ECM 17 calculates the position of the visualized driver side doors 32 and visualized passenger side doors 34 as a ratio of a stored maximum operating position of the doors and displays the ratio as a percentage on the display 53 for each door." and Figure 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the automatic parking system as taught by Miller with showing the opening angle of the doors as taught by Rodriguez Romero in order to create a more effective and usable system for parking.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Ballard (US 20220266867 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Miller teaches claim 9. Miller does not teach wherein identifying the structure includes defining a structure frame of reference having a structure axis extending from a structure origin point, the orientation of the target device relative to the structure determined based on a comparison of the structure frame of reference to a target device frame of reference having a target device axis, the target device frame of reference defined by a target device origin point of the target device.
However, in a related field of invention, Ballard does teach wherein identifying the structure includes defining a structure frame of reference having a structure axis extending from a structure origin point, the orientation of the target device relative to the structure determined based on a comparison of the structure frame of reference to a target device frame of reference having a target device axis, the target device frame of reference defined by a target device origin point of the target device [Ballard ¶ 0047 -0049 "In addition, a coordinate system 150 is shown for rotation and translation around the three axes X, Y, and Z. The coordinate system 150 may provide the pitch, roll, and yaw in order to determine the translation and orientation of an object. Other coordinate systems that are consistent with the coordinate system 150 may be associated with various objects within floor 401." and Figure 4].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the automatic parking system as taught by Miller with using a coordinate system for both the target device and structure as taught by Ballard in order to more accurately determine the orientation of the target device to the structure.
Regarding claim 11, Miller and Ballard teach claim 10. Miller further teaches wherein the target device is configured to move along a movement path, the movement path corresponding to the target device axis [Miller ¶ 0041 "Upon receiving the confirmation signal from the remote device 110, the first electronic processor 305 uses the vehicle control system 120 to autonomously maneuver the vehicle 105 to the desired parking location via the determined route."].
Regarding claim 12, Miller and Ballard teach claim 11. Ballard further teaches wherein the orientation of the target device relative to the structure includes a heading of the target device relative to the structure, the heading determined based on an angle of the target device axis relative to the structure axis [Ballard ¶ 0047 -0049 "In addition, a coordinate system 150 is shown for rotation and translation around the three axes X, Y, and Z. The coordinate system 150 may provide the pitch, roll, and yaw in order to determine the translation and orientation of an object. Other coordinate systems that are consistent with the coordinate system 150 may be associated with various objects within floor 401." and Figure 4].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the automatic parking system as taught by Miller with using a coordinate system for both the target device and structure as taught by Ballard in order to more accurately determine the orientation of the target device to the structure.
Regarding claim 13, Miller and Ballard teach claim 11. Ballard further teaches wherein the orientation of the target device relative to the structure includes a tilt of the target device relative to the structure, the tilt determined based on an angle of a second target device axis relative to the structure axis, the second target device axis extending orthogonally to the target device axis [Ballard ¶ 0047 -0049 "In addition, a coordinate system 150 is shown for rotation and translation around the three axes X, Y, and Z. The coordinate system 150 may provide the pitch, roll, and yaw in order to determine the translation and orientation of an object. Other coordinate systems that are consistent with the coordinate system 150 may be associated with various objects within floor 401." and Figure 4].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the automatic parking system as taught by Miller with using a coordinate system for both the target device and structure as taught by Ballard in order to more accurately determine the orientation of the target device to the structure.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Ballard and in further view of Rodriguez Romero.
Regarding claim 14, Miller and Ballard teach claim 10. Miller and Ballard do not teach wherein the orientation of the target device relative to the structure includes a proximity of the target device relative to the structure, the proximity determined based on a separation of the target device origin relative to the structure origin.
However, in a related field of invention, Rodriguez Romero does teach wherein the orientation of the target device relative to the structure includes a proximity of the target device relative to the structure, the proximity determined based on a separation of the target device origin relative to the structure origin [Rodriguez Romero ¶ 0028 "Thus, the ECM 17 determines the distance between the outermost point of the body of the vehicle 11 (other than the doors) and a side of the parking slot 37 by subtracting one half of the width of the vehicle 11 from the known distance between a vehicle center 25 and a first side 39 of the parking slot 37."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the automatic parking system using a coordinate system as taught by Miller and Ballard with determining an proximity as taught by Rodriguez Romero in order to more accurately determine the orientation of the target device to the structure.
Regarding claim 15, Miller, Ballard, and Rodriguez Romero teach claim 14. Rodriguez Romero further teaches wherein the proximity is further determined based on a known distance between the target device origin and one or more points on the target device [Rodriguez Romero ¶ 0028 "Thus, the ECM 17 determines the distance between the outermost point of the body of the vehicle 11 (other than the doors) and a side of the parking slot 37 by subtracting one half of the width of the vehicle 11 from the known distance between a vehicle center 25 and a first side 39 of the parking slot 37." The know distance is the width of the vehicle.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the automatic parking system using a coordinate system as taught by Miller and Ballard with determining an proximity as taught by Rodriguez Romero in order to more accurately determine the orientation of the target device to the structure.
Regarding claim 16, Miller and Ballard teach claim 11. Miller and Ballard do not teach wherein the target device includes a moveable component mounted at a component origin, the moveable component configured to move relative to the target device axis, the orientation of the target device relative to the structure including an angle of a component axis relative to the target device axis, the component axis extending from the component origin.
However, in a related field of invention, Rodriguez Romero does teach wherein the target device includes a moveable component mounted at a component origin, the moveable component configured to move relative to the target device axis, the orientation of the target device relative to the structure including an angle of a component axis relative to the target device axis, the component axis extending from the component origin [Rodriguez Romero ¶ 0028 "Based upon the determined opening distance and a location of a connection point of the door to the vehicle 11, the ECM 17 performs one or more trigonometric calculations, such as a sine, cosine, tangent, or similar function and/or the Pythagorean theorem, to determine the operating angle, the opening percentage (e.g., 25% open, 50% open, etc.), and the position of the driver side doors 31. Similar calculations may be performed by the ECM 17 to determine the operating angle and position of the passenger side doors 33."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the automatic parking system using a coordinate system as taught by Miller and Ballard with including an angle of a component axis as taught by Rodriguez Romero in order to more accurately determine the orientation of the target device to the structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPHINE RICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights