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 the Applicants’ filing on January 20, 2026. Claims 10-28 were previously pending, of which claims 10 and 19 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and no claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 10-28 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 8-15 filed January 20, 2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. §112(f) Interpretations, applicant’s arguments and amendment to claim 19 have not addressed the condition using a control unit that is defined as a means plus function so the interpretation is hereby maintained by the examiner.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection, the arguments and amendments have been reviewed by the examiner, and they are persuasive. The additional limitation of modifying a behavior of the industrial truck by initiating the at least one predetermined measure for collision prevention recites positive control of the industrial truck and integrates the device into a practical application. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. §103 Rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., determining, with respect to the current steering angle determined via the steering angle sensor, a right steering angle difference and a left steering angle difference) are clearly defined in the prior art and maintained for the rejection below in view of the amended claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, the new limitations from the amended claims are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained, as presented in the Final Office Action below.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation discloses 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation discloses 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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 is:
“control unit” in claims 19, 22 and 23. A review of the specification shows that it is a major component of the device in [0019-0023] and examiner will assume it is an ECU.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 10-21 and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabbe et al., US 2019/0271990 Al (Hereinafter “Grabbe”) in view of Saiki et al., US 2018/0178783 Al (Hereinafter, “Saiki”), in further view of Akatsuka et al., US 20240152149 A1 (Hereinafter “Akatsuka”).
Regarding Claim 10 and 19, Grabbe discloses a method for dealing with obstacles in an industrial truck (20), See [Abstract].
the method comprising: detecting, via a speed sensor included in the industrial truck, a current speed of the industrial truck; and detecting, via a steering angle sensor included in the industrial truck, a current steering angle of the industrial truck, the current steering angle determined with respect to a right side or a left side of at least one steered wheel of the industrial truck; See [0042], “The orientation of the industrial truck 20 is determined by means of an onboard computer of the industrial truck 20 with the use of corresponding transmitting and receiving units (sensors) … Furthermore, the speed of the industrial truck 20 is also determined, A virtual industrial truck extension zone 30 is determined by means of an onboard computer of the industrial truck 20 as a function of the absolute position determined and the orientation (including steering angle) of the industrial truck 20.” Also, in [0043], “the extension zone 30 is modifiable as a function of parameters, such as speed, steering angle or other sizes.”
calculating a protection zone based on the current speed and the current steering angle; receiving, from at least one sensor unit included in and arranged in a main direction of travel of the industrial truck, data from within the protection zone; See [0026], “the distance sensing device of the industrial truck has a laser, a radar sensor or an ultrasound sensor.“ And [0043], “the area of the extension (protection) zones 30 can be changed by the direction of travel or the change of the direction of travel and by a steering angle and the change of speed.” Also [0044], “In FIG. 2a, the contour zone 30 is drawn for an industrial truck 20, with the industrial truck 20 being stopped. However, with this industrial truck 20 in FIG. 2a, the direction of travel in the goods logistics facility 10 is not known or determined. This results in a circular extension zone 30 around the industrial truck 20.”
Grabbe discloses an industrial truck with collision prevention measures, but does not explicitly disclose the object detection method. However, Saiki teaches:
determining, based on evaluation of the data received from the at least one sensor unit, that an obstacle is in the protection zone; See [0110], “support ECU 30 determines, based on the imaged data transmitted from the surroundings sensor 28, whether or not the vehicle 10 is highly likely to collide with the subject (obstacle), which is a target within the imaged data.” Also [0119], “support ECU 30 includes a lane recognition unit 31, a vehicle track calculation unit 32, a subject track calculation unit 33, an obstacle determination unit 34, a collision determination unit 35, a target deceleration calculation unit 36, an avoidance target track calculation unit 37, and a control unit 38.”
responsive to determining that the obstacle is in the protection zone: determining, with respect to the current steering angle , a right steering angle difference and a left steering angle difference;
In [0150], “The avoidance target track calculation unit 37 further calculates how much collision avoidance spaces exist on both left and right sides of the obstacle respectively based on target information. When, for example, white lines are drawn on both left and right side ends of the travel lane, the avoidance target track calculation unit 37 identifies (calculates) a collision avoidance distance Dsl which is a distance between the left side white line and the left end Lep of the obstacle as a width of the left side collision avoidance space, and the avoidance target track calculation unit 37 identifies (calculates) a collision avoidance distance Dsr which is a distance between the right side white line and the right end Rep of the obstacle as a width of the right side collision avoidance space.” See also [0162].
suppressing at least one predetermined measure for collision prevention if one of the following conditions is met: i) the current steering angle is with respect to the right side of the at least one steered wheel and is greater than or equal to the left steering angle difference, or ii) the current steering angle is with respect to the left side of the at least one steered wheel and is greater than or equal to the right steering angle difference; See [0153], “Accordingly, when the distance margin Dsx of a predicted path is larger than the stationary obstacle limit value Vis, the avoidance target track calculation unit 37 stops calculating predicted paths (suppressing collision avoidance measures).“
responsive to determining that neither of the conditions i) or ii) is met, modifying a behavior of the industrial truck by initiating the at least one predetermined measure for collision prevention. In [0161], “the collision determination unit 35 determines that “the vehicle 10 is highly likely to collide with the obstacle.” And [0162], “The control unit 38 then calculates a target steering angle at which the target yaw rate calculated by the avoidance target track calculation unit 37 can be obtained based on the target yaw rate and the vehicle speed of the vehicle 10. The control unit 38 then … executes the automatic steering control for causing the vehicle 10 to travel along the selected avoidance path.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Grabbe’s device with the object detection and collision avoidance limitations disclosed in Saiki with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve vehicle safety, see Saiki [0012].
Grabbe and Saiki disclose an industrial truck with collision prevention measures, but do not explicitly disclose a steering wheel sensor. However, Akatsuka teaches this in [0027].
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Grabbe’s device with the steering angle sensor disclosed in Akatsuka with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to recognize the steering angle of the rear wheel, see Akatsuka [0027].
Regarding Claim 11, Grabbe discloses an industrial truck with collision avoidance methods, but does not explicitly disclose collision prevention measures. However, Saiki teaches the following limitation dependent on Claims 10:
further comprising: determining, based on the current speed and a predetermined period of time, that there is a possible free travel path past the obstacle; See [0121], “The vehicle track calculation unit 32 is configured to calculate a turning radius of the vehicle 10 based on the yaw rate detected by the yaw rate sensor 26 and a vehicle speed, which is calculated through use of the wheel speeds detected by the wheel speed sensors 25. The vehicle track calculation unit 32 is further configured to calculate a track of the vehicle 10 based on the calculated turning radius. The track of the vehicle 10 is a change in position of the vehicle 10 during a period of time from a current time until a predetermined period of time passes, and has a predetermined width orthogonal in plain view to a traveling direction of the vehicle 10. The track of the vehicle 10 calculated in this manner is hereinafter referred to as "predicted vehicle track".
and suppressing the at least one predetermined measure for collision prevention only if one of the following additional conditions is met: i) the current steering angle is with respect to the right side of the at least one steered wheel and the possible free travel path is a left-hand travel path, or ii) the current steering angle is with respect to the left side of the at least one steered wheel and the possible free travel path is a right-hand travel path. See Fig.4 and at least [0149-0153]. In[0150], “The avoidance target track calculation unit 37 further calculates how much collision avoidance spaces exist on both left and right sides of the obstacle respectively based on target information.” Also [0153], “Accordingly, when the distance margin Dsx of a predicted path is larger than the stationary obstacle limit value Vis, the avoidance target track calculation unit 37 stop calculating predicted paths. Further, the avoidance target track calculation unit 37 identifies the predicted path whose the distance margin Dsx is larger than the stationary obstacle limit value Vis as the selected avoidance path. That is, when determining that the distance margin Dsx of a given predicted path is larger than the stationary obstacle limit value Vis, the avoidance target track calculation unit 37 will not calculate predicted paths anymore.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Grabbe’s device with the object detection and collision avoidance limitations disclosed in Saiki with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve vehicle safety, see Saiki [0012].
Regarding Claims 12 and 24, Grabbe does not explicitly disclose collision prevention. However, Saiki teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 10 and 19:
wherein the at least one predetermined measure for collision prevention comprises one or more of: reducing the current speed of the industrial truck, or reducing a maximum speed of the industrial truck. See at least Fig.8 with [0212-0217] and Fig.11 with [0244-0252].
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Grabbe’s device with the emergency braking limitations disclosed in Saiki with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve vehicle safety, see Saiki [0012].
Regarding Claims 13 and 25, Grabbe discloses the following limitation dependent on Claims 10 and 19:
wherein the at least one predetermined measure for collision prevention comprises issuing a message to an operator of the industrial truck. See [0029], “To display a possible collision … to the driver of the industrial truck, it is provided that the warning message be shown on a display of the industrial truck and/or the warning message is generated as an acoustic and/or mechanical warning signal, preferably at or on the industrial truck.”
Regarding Claims 14 and 26, Grabbe does not explicitly disclose collision prevention. However, Saiki teaches the following limitation dependent on Claims 10 and 19:
wherein the at least one predetermined measure for collision prevention comprises a steering intervention to avoid the obstacle. See [0162], “The control unit 38 then calculates a target steering
angle at which the target yaw rate calculated by the avoidance target track calculation unit 37 can be obtained based on the target yaw rate and the vehicle speed of the vehicle 10. The control unit 38 then transmits an operation signal indicating the target steering angle to the steering ECU 50. The steering ECU 50 then drives the electric motor 18 based on the target steering angle to steer the front wheels 16FW and the rear wheels 16RW. In other words, the control unit 38 executes the automatic steering control for causing the vehicle 10 to travel along the selected avoidance path.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Grabbe’s device with the steering intervention limitations disclosed in Saiki with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve vehicle safety, see Saiki [0012].
Regarding Claims 15 and 27, Grabbe discloses the following limitation dependent on Claims 10 and 19:
wherein determining the right steering angle difference or the left steering angle difference includes determining one or more of i) a geometric dimension of the industrial truck or ii) a load carried by the industrial truck. See at least [0050], “According to the invention, in determining the dynamically adaptable and/or modifiable industrial truck extension zone 30, multiple parameters, such as attached
apparatuses and the loading of the goods transported or to be transported or the weight and other parameters, are taken into account in embodiments.”
Regarding Claims 16 and 28, Grabbe discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 10:
further comprising: determining a possible free travel path past the obstacle, wherein determining the possible free travel path includes determining one or more of i) a geometric dimension of the industrial truck or ii) a load carried by the industrial truck. See at least [0014], “Moreover, according to a further aspect of the method, it is envisaged that the industrial truck extension zone is determined as a function of the direction of travel and/or of the movement path of the industrial truck. Thereby the industrial truck extension zone is adapted accordingly, for example when the industrial truck is cornering, with a future position of the industrial truck taken into consideration here in determining the industrial truck extension zone and, for example, the steering angle or possibly the engine speed of the industrial truck taken into consideration as a function of the speed of the industrial truck.” Further in [0047], “The industrial truck 20 shown in FIG. 3a corresponds to the industrial truck 20 in FIG. 2c. Here the industrial truck 20 is moved at a speed greater than O m/s, which expands and widens the extension zone 30 like a drumstick in the direction of travel of the industrial truck 20. In determining the extension zone 30, the geometry of apparatuses attached to an industrial truck 20 is also taken into account, for example.” Also [0048], “FIG. 3b shows an industrial truck 20, which has a bale grabber 25 instead of a fork ( cf. FIG. 3a ). The arrangement of the bale grabber 25 changes the vehicle contour, wherein the geometry of the bale grabber 25 is taken into account in determining the extension zone 30 and the extension zone 30 having a greater width in the direction of travel than for an industrial truck 20 with a fork (cf. FIG. 3a).”
Regarding Claims 17 and 20, Grabbe discloses the following limitation dependent on Claims 10 and 19:
wherein the at least one sensor unit comprises a laser imaging. See [0026], “For example, the distance sensing device of the industrial truck has a laser, a radar sensor or an ultrasound sensor. Moreover, it is provided in one embodiment that the spacing of two industrial trucks is determined using positioning information for the two industrial trucks which is preferably determined or can be determined.”
Regarding Claim 18 and 21, Grabbe discloses the following limitation dependent on Claims 10 and 19:
wherein the industrial truck is a manually driven industrial truck. See [0018], “According to another aspect of the method, it is provided that the industrial truck extension zone is preferably determined as a function of the driving qualification of a driver of the industrial truck. Here it is possible that the
industrial truck extension zone is modified or adapted based on persons, wherein it is possible, for example, to constitute the industrial truck extension zone smaller, for example, with an experienced driver of the industrial truck compared to a driver with less experience in handling the industrial truck, for whom the industrial truck extension zone is enlarged correspondingly.”
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabbe in view of Saiki as applied to Claims 10-21 and 23-28 above, and further in view of Elston et al., US 2010/0114405 Al, (Hereinafter “Elston”).
Regarding Claim 22, Grabbe in view of Saiki does not disclose additional obstacles. However, Elston teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 19:
wherein the control unit is further configured for, responsive to detection of an additional obstacle: suppressing an additional predetermined measure for collision prevention if one of the following conditions is met: i) an additional current steering angle is with respect to a right side of a steered wheel of the industrial truck and is greater than or equal to the left steering angle difference, or ii) the additional current steering angle is with respect to a left side of the steered wheel of the industrial truck and is greater than or equal to the right steering angle difference. See at least [0094], “After implementing the steer compensation maneuver at 158 or 162, the truck may return to a substantially straight heading, e.g., 0 degrees at 164 and the process loops back to the beginning to wait for the detection of another object in either of the steer bumper zones 132A, 132B.” Also [0095], “The algorithm can further be modified to follow various control logic implementations and/or state machines to facilitate various anticipated circumstances. For example, it is possible that a second object will move into either steer bumper zone 132A or 132B while in the process of implementing a steer compensation maneuver. In this regard, the truck 10 may iteratively attempt to steer correct around the second object. As another illustrative example, if object(s) are simultaneously detected in both the left and right steer bumper zones 132A, 132B, the controller 103 may be programmed to maintain the truck 10 at its current heading (e.g., zero degree steer angle), until either one or more steer bumper zones 132A, 132B are cleared or the associated detection zones cause the truck 10 to come to a stop.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Grabbe’s device with the additional obstacle limitations disclosed in Elston with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to define multiple contactless detection zones at least towards the front of the forward travel direction, see Elston [Abstract].
Regarding Claim 23, Grabbe in view of Saiki does not disclose additional obstacles. However, Elston teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 22:
wherein the control unit is further configured for: determining, based on a current speed and a predetermined period of time, that there is an additional possible free travel path past the additional obstacle; and suppressing the additional predetermined measure for collision prevention only if one of the following additional conditions is met: i) the additional current steering angle is with respect to the right side of the steered wheel of the industrial truck and the additional possible free travel path is a left-hand travel path, or ii) the additional current steering angle is with respect to the left side of the steered wheel of the industrial truck and the additional possible free travel path is a right-hand travel path. In [0095], “For example, it is possible that a second object will move into either steer bumper zone 132A or 132B while in the process of implementing a steer compensation maneuver. In this regard, the truck 10 may iteratively attempt to steer correct around the second object. As another illustrative example, if object(s) are simultaneously detected in both the left and right steer bumper zones 132A, 132B, the controller 103 may be programmed to maintain the truck 10 at its current heading (e.g., zero degree steer angle), until either one or more steer bumper zones 132A, 132B are cleared or the associated detection zones cause the truck 10 to come to a stop.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Grabbe’s device with the additional obstacle limitations disclosed in Elston with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to define multiple contactless detection zones at least towards the front of the forward travel direction, see Elston [Abstract].
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 BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669