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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Response dated March 10, 2026. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on March 10, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments dated March 10, 2026, Examiner withdraws the previous claim objections; withdraws the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101; and maintains the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ayoub fails to disclose a vehicle having a controller and image sensor that is configured to move assets within the yard (see Response at p. 9). While Examiner agrees with this statement, Examiner notes that at least [0043] and [0056] discloses a secondary vehicle performing the moving of an asset within the yard based on the image data and sensor data captured by the UAV. Examiner asserts that this is an indirect movement of the asset by the UAV, and that the “tool” may be considered, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, to be a transmitter or equivalent which is necessarily attached to the UAV—the use of which results in movement of assets within the yard/lot. Because Ayoub does disclose the contended limitation, Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding limitations.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those above and/or below and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a. ego vehicle configured to move assets within the yard in claims 1, 12, and 19. Structure for this limitation may be found at least at page 39, Ln. 21-27 of the instant specification: an additional tool attached to the ego vehicle. Examiner notes that the structure “vehicle” is insufficient structure for the claimed function of moving an asset within the yard in the context of the original disclosure resulting in this interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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 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 1-2, 4-8, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0168090 (hereinafter, “Ayoub”; previously of record).
Regarding claim 1, Ayoub discloses A method of associating at least one asset with a bounded region in a yard using an ego vehicle, the ego vehicle including a controller and an image sensor (see at least Fig. 2, [0029], [0052], and the publication generally), the method comprising:
determining by the controller a virtual map of the yard, the virtual map including virtual representations of one or more bounded regions, the one or more bounded regions being regions in the yard where the at least one asset may be placed (see at least [0048] and [0051]-[0052]; a parking space map (i.e., virtual map) may be generated by a processor (i.e., controller) and include bounded parking space regions where one or more vehicles/obstructions/etc. (i.e., assets) may be placed);
determining by the controller a correspondence between points on the virtual map and coordinates in the yard such that the coordinates in the yard are mapped by the controller to one or more points on the virtual map (see at least [0048]; a processor may compare a reference parking facility plan (i.e., virtual map positional information) to the observed image data of the parking facility (i.e., positional information of the lot). Examiner is equating a parking lot to a yard as both are utilized for parking/placement of assets);
moving the ego vehicle through the yard so that the ego vehicle passes by at least two bounded regions (see at least [0029]; the UAV navigates throughout the lot passing by the different parking spaces);
receiving by the controller a first two-dimensional image from an image sensor positioned in the yard, the first image including one or more assets (see at least [0029]; the system may include a mobile image capture device for capturing images of the parking area and be positioned within the parking area when capturing the images of the assets), wherein the controller and the image sensor are located on an ego vehicle configured to move assets within the yard (see at least [0029], [0043], and [0056]; the UAV is capable of indirectly moving an asset by transmitting information to sources that move the asset. Examiner asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation requires a “tool” or equivalent attached to the UAV, and Examiner asserts that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the tool may be the transmitter or equivalent which is necessarily found at the UAV to enable the disclosed transmissions);
based on a pose of the image sensor, the correspondence, and positions of the one or more bounded regions, determining, by the controller, the positions of the one or more bounded regions in the first image (see at least [0027]; the relative position of the sensors and parking spaces may be taken into account when determining occupancy of one or more bounded regions found in the sensor data), the pose of the image sensor depending on a placement of the image sensor on the ego vehicle and a position in the yard of the ego vehicle (see at least [0029] and [0052]; the pose of the image sensor is necessarily dependent on its relative placement on the UAV and relative position within the yard/lot);
for the at least one asset in the first image, determining by the controller whether a face of the at least one asset lies completely or partially between a first boundary of a first bounded region of the one or more bounded regions and a second boundary of the first bounded region (see at least [0027]; it is determined if a vehicle properly occupies a parking space (i.e., is completely within the boundaries of the bounded region). Examiner notes that being completely within a parking region requires lying completely between at least two boundaries); and
responsive to determining that the face of the at least one asset lies completely between the first boundary and the second boundary, updating the virtual map by the controller to indicate that the at least one asset is present within the first bounded region (see at least [0027] and [0052]; when an asset falls within the bounded region of a parking space, the map is updated to show that the bounded region is occupied).
Regarding claim 2, Ayoub discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Ayoub discloses wherein the controller is located on an ego vehicle operable within the yard (see at least [0038]; the drone may be considered the aerial vehicle).
Regarding claim 4, Ayoub discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Ayoub discloses wherein the image sensor is positioned at a known location on the ego vehicle (see at least [0055]; the image sensor being at a known location on the drone is implicit to the system as it would be impossible to adjust the capture absent the knowledge of the relative orientation between the drone carrying the sensor and the sensor capture view).
Regarding claim 5, Ayoub discloses all of the limitations of claim 4. Additionally, Ayoub discloses wherein a sequence of two-dimensional images is received by the controller from the image sensor, wherein a second image from the sequence of images is used to determine if the at least one asset is located between the first and second boundaries responsive to the determination based on the first image being inconclusive (see at least [0023] and [0055]; when initial image data is inconclusive/insufficient, the drone captures additional data).
Regarding claim 6, Ayoub discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Ayoub discloses wherein a representation of the first and second boundaries is superimposed on the first image (see at least [0048] and [0052]; a map display may include an overlay of parking space boundaries and in the images).
Regarding claim 7, Ayoub discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Ayoub discloses wherein the one or more bounded regions are parking spaces (see at least Fig. 2 and [0011]-[0012]; the bounded regions may be parking spaces).
Regarding claim 8, Ayoub discloses all of the limitations of claim 7. Additionally, Ayoub discloses wherein if the controller determines that the at least one asset spans more than one parking space, the virtual map is updated to show that the at least one asset is located in each parking space that the at least one asset spans (see at least Fig. 2, [0049], [0052], and [0059]; when a vehicle occupies multiple parking spaces, the relevant parking spaces are determined to be unavailable/occupied, and the map is updated as such).
Regarding claim 19, Ayoub discloses A system for associating an asset with one or more bounded regions in a yard (see at least Fig. 2, [0052], and the publication generally), the system comprising:
an ego vehicle including at least one location module, at least one image sensor, and at least one range finding system (see at least [0026] and [0055]; a drone (i.e., ego vehicle) may include navigational capability (i.e., at least one location module), an image sensor, and mapping capabilities including relative distances (i.e., range finding system)); and
a controller configured to receive at least one location from the at least one location module, at least one image of a portion of the yard from the image sensor (see a least [0024] and [0029]; the drone may include an image capture device, and the drone may be navigated via at least the one location module), and at least one range from the at least one range finding system (see at least [0048]; relative positions of vehicles and parking spaces may be determined and used), and
a virtual map of the yard (see at least [0052]),
wherein the virtual map comprises virtual representations of the one or more bounded regions in the yard, the one or more bounded regions being regions where the asset may be located (see at least [0052]; the vehicles/obstructions/etc. may be considered assets),
wherein the controller receives the at least one image from the image sensor, the at least one image including one or more assets (see at least [0052]; occupancy may be determined via the image data),
wherein the controller determines positions of a subset of the one or more bounded regions corresponding to the portion of the yard in the at least one image, based on a pose of the image sensor, the virtual map, and the at least one image (see at least [0052]; occupancy may be determined via the image data for parking spaces (i.e., bounded regions) based at least on relative positions of the sensor capturing the data and the parking spaces populated in the virtual map),
wherein the controller further determines, based on the one or more assets in the at least one image, whether a face of at least one asset of the one or more assets lies at least partially within a bounded region of the one or more bounded regions (see at least [0027]; it is determined if a vehicle properly occupies a parking space (i.e., is completely within the boundaries of the bounded region). Examiner notes that being completely within a parking region requires lying completely between at least two boundaries),
wherein the controller further determines whether at least one symbol on the at least one asset matches an identifier of the asset, and associates the asset with the bounded region when at least one symbol of the at least one asset matches the identifier of the asset (see at least [0055]; vehicle identifier information is collected via image data processed by the processor (i.e., controller)).
Regarding claim 20, Ayoub discloses all of the limitations of claim 19. Additionally, Ayoub discloses wherein the at least one image includes a view directed at a center of the bounded region, wherein the controller is configured to determine whether a view is directed at the center of the bounded region by comparing a first vector corresponding to the center of the bounded region to a second vector projected from a center of the image sensor (see at least [0038] and [0046]; the path of the drone is defined such that full coverage of the facility is acquired which necessarily includes centers of each bounded region to be captured and would necessarily result in the center of at least one image to be within an imaging range of the center of each region).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ayoub.
Regarding claim 3, Ayoub discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Ayoub discloses wherein the ego vehicle comprises a first localization module, wherein the first localization module is positioned at a known location on the ego vehicle (see at least [0046] and [0055]; the drone may be navigated through the facility/lot. The cited disclosure above implicitly requires some form of localization module for purposes of navigation and implicitly requires a known relative location between the drone and localization module for purposes of navigation).
Ayoub does not explicitly teach that the localization module is positioned on the ego vehicle. However, Examiner asserts that it would be an obvious design choice between two old and well-known solution for navigating a drone which include attaching the localization module to the ego vehicle and attaching it elsewhere in the vicinity thereof. Therefore, the attachment of a localization module to the ego vehicle is considered obvious over Ayoub which discloses navigating the drone (i.e., ego vehicle) and necessarily requires a localization module for such a purpose.
Regarding claim 9, Ayoub discloses all of the limitations of claim 8. Additionally, Ayoub discloses wherein the ego vehicle receives a move command to move the at least one asset located in more than one parking space to align it within a single parking space (see at least [0043] and [0056]; commands may be sent to the target vehicle and/or subject vehicle based on the boundary overlap).
Ayoub fails to teach that the drone is the vehicle that moves the asset. Instead, Ayoub discloses sending commands for assets to move themselves. Examiner asserts that it is an obvious variant for another vehicle to move an asset to the disclosure of Ayoub that the asset may move itself.
Regarding claim 10, Ayoub renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 9. Additionally, Ayoub discloses wherein the move command is issued to the ego vehicle only if a percentage occupancy of the one or more bounded regions within the yard is greater than a predetermined occupancy threshold percentage (see at least [0043]; greater than zero percent is considered greater than a threshold percentage).
Regarding claim 11, Ayoub renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 9. Additionally, Ayoub discloses wherein the move command is only acted upon by the ego vehicle when the ego vehicle would otherwise be idle (see at least [0043] and [0056]; commands may be sent to the target vehicle and/or subject vehicle based on the boundary overlap).
Regarding claim 12, Ayoub discloses A method of associating an asset with a location in a yard (see at least Fig. 2, [0052], and the publication generally), the method comprising:
determining a virtual map of the yard (see at least [0048] and [0051]-[0052]; a parking space map (i.e., virtual map) may be generated by a processor (i.e., controller) and include bounded parking space regions where one or more vehicles/obstructions/etc. (i.e., assets) may be placed),
determining a correspondence between points on the virtual map and GPS coordinates of locations in the yard, such that the GPS coordinates of the locations in the yard are mapped to the points on the virtual map (see at least [0048]; a processor may compare a reference parking facility plan (i.e., virtual map positional information) to the observed image data of the parking facility (i.e., positional information of the lot). Examiner is equating a parking lot to a yard as both are utilized for parking/placement of assets),
receiving by a controller a first two-dimensional image from an image sensor positioned in the yard, the first image including one or more assets (see at least [0029]; the system may include a mobile image capture device for capturing images of the parking area and be positioned within the parking area when capturing the images of the assets),
determining by the controller an identity of at least one asset of the one or more assets, wherein the determination is based at least in part on recognizing symbols located on the at least one asset that are detectable in the first two-dimensional image by the controller (see at least [0055]; vehicle identifier information is collected via image data processed by the processor (i.e., controller)),
determining a pose of the image sensor (see at least [0027]; the relative position of the sensors and parking spaces may be taken into account when determining occupancy of one or more bounded regions found in the sensor data),
determining, by the controller, a pose of the one or more assets, based on a pose of the image sensor, the correspondence, and the locations in the yard, associating the identity and pose of the at least one asset with a point on the virtual map (see at least [0027], [0048], [0081]-[0052], and [0055]; the pose of the assets are determined via the relative position of the image sensor, drone, parking spaces, and blueprint locations).
However, Ayoub fails to explicitly teach that a GPS is used. Examiner asserts that the use of a GPS is at least an obvious variant to the localizing feature required to navigate the drone in the way disclosed by Ayoub as it is old and well-known known in the art and serves the same purpose as a standard GPS.
Regarding claim 13, Ayoub renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 12. Additionally, Ayoub discloses wherein based on the pose of the image sensor, the correspondence, and the locations in the yard, determining the positions of one or more bounded regions associated with an area captured in the first image (see at least [0027]; it is determined if a vehicle properly occupies a parking space (i.e., is completely within the boundaries of the bounded region);
for the at least one asset in the first image, determining whether a face of the at least one asset is or is not located between a first boundary of a first bounded region of the one or more bounded regions and a second boundary of the first bounded region (see at least [0027] and [0052]; when an asset falls within the bounded region of a parking space, the map is updated to show that the bounded region is occupied); and
responsive to determining that the face of the at least one asset is between the first boundary and the second boundary, updating the virtual map to indicate that the at least one asset is present within the first bounded region (see at least [0027] and [0052]; when an asset falls within the bounded region of a parking space, the map is updated to show that the bounded region is occupied).
Regarding claim 14, Ayoub renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Ayoub discloses wherein the one or more bounded regions are parking spaces (see at least Fig. 2 and [0011]-[0012]; the bounded regions may be parking spaces).
Regarding claim 15, Ayoub renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Ayoub discloses wherein responsive to determining that the face of the at least one asset lies only partially between the first boundary and the second boundary, the virtual map is updated to indicate that the at least one asset is present within at least two bounded regions of the one or more bounded regions (see at least [0027], [0036], and [0052]; when an asset falls within the bounded region of a parking space, the map is updated to show that the bounded region is occupied, and if it is split between two spaces, both may be determined to be occupied).
Regarding claim 16, Ayoub renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 15. Additionally, Ayoub discloses wherein an ego vehicle receives a move command to move the at least one asset determined to be located in the at least two bounded regions, to align it within a single bounded region of the one or more bounded regions (see at least [0043] and [0056]; commands may be sent to the target vehicle and/or subject vehicle based on the boundary overlap).
Ayoub fails to teach that the drone is the vehicle that moves the asset. Instead, Ayoub discloses sending commands for assets to move themselves. Examiner asserts that it is an obvious variant for another vehicle to move an asset to the disclosure of Ayoub that the asset may move itself.
Regarding claim 17, Ayoub renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Ayoub discloses wherein responsive to determining that the face of the at least one asset lies partially between the first boundary and the second boundary, the virtual map is updated to indicate that the at least one asset is present within each bounded region in which the at least one asset is located (see at least [0027], [0036], and [0052]; when an asset falls within the bounded region of a parking space, the map is updated to show that the bounded region is occupied, and if it is split between two spaces, both may be determined to be occupied).
Regarding claim 18, Ayoub renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 12. Additionally, Ayoub discloses wherein an ego vehicle receives a move command to move the at least one asset determined to be located in more than one bounded region, to align it within a single bounded region (see at least [0043] and [0056]; commands may be sent to the target vehicle and/or subject vehicle based on the boundary overlap).
Ayoub fails to teach that the drone is the vehicle that moves the asset. Instead, Ayoub discloses sending commands for assets to move themselves. Examiner asserts that it is an obvious variant for another vehicle to move an asset to the disclosure of Ayoub that the asset may move itself.
Additional Relevant Art (previously of record)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0246529 which relates to parking-spot identification based on radar-centric occupancy grid maps linking data collection of passing vehicle to occupancy of parking spaces;
U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0115501 which relates to linking geographic locations and image coordinates for generating updated map information; and
U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0077600 which relates to yard management at distribution centers including locations of assets and mapping of the yard.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 PM.
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 Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights