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 the Claims
This 1st non-final action is in response to applicant's filing on May 31, 2024. Claims 1-10 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Claim Objection
Claims 1 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In page 1 lines 2-3, “the in-vehicle control unit being” should be “the in-vehicle control unit having”.
In page 1 line 22, “the control module is configured to transmit” should be “the control module is further configured to transmit”.
In page 2 line 2, “the the” should be “the”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 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 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) 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(s) is/are: “a control module...configured to obtain a signal”, “the diagnostic module is configured to obtain” and “vehicle control unit” in claim 1, “the remote control is configured” in claim 4, “a blind spot detection module” in claim 6 and “the adapter is configured” in claim 10.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them 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 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, “a control module...configured to obtain a signal”, “the diagnostic module is configured to obtain” and “vehicle control unit” in claim 1, “the remote control is configured” in claim 4, “a blind spot detection module” in claim 6 and “the adapter is configured” in claim 10 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (see claim interpretation above). However, the specification does not disclose the corresponding structure, material or acts for the claimed functions. The examiner is unable to find the corresponding structure or hardware in the specification for the claimed “a control module” and “a blind spot detection module”, “a diagnostic module”, “a vehicle control unit”, “a remote control”, “a blind spot detection module”, “an adapter”.
Applicant’s specification appears to describe “a control module” and “a blind spot detection module”, “a diagnostic module”, “a vehicle control unit”, “a remote control”, “a blind spot detection module”, “an adapter” in terms of the functions performed and merely repeats the language throughout.
Therefore, claims 1, 4, 6, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Claims 2-3, 5, and 7-9 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim limitation “a control module” and “a blind spot detection module”, “a diagnostic module”, “a vehicle control unit”, “a remote control”, “a blind spot detection module”, “an adapter” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The examiner is unable to find the corresponding structure or hardware in the specification for the claimed “a control module” and “a blind spot detection module”, “a diagnostic module”, “a vehicle control unit”, “a remote control”, “a blind spot detection module”, “an adapter”. Applicant’s specification appears to describe the “a control module” and “a blind spot detection module”, “a diagnostic module”, “a vehicle control unit”, “a remote control”, “a blind spot detection module”, “an adapter” in terms of the functions performed and merely repeats the language throughout (See rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(a) above). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Furthermore, the preamble of claim 1 recites a FlexRay communication system or a Keyword Protocol 2000 (KWP2000) module, and claims 5 and 9 recite Bluetooth. Such limitation are trademarks. The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to describe any particular material or product. In fact, the value of a trademark would be lost to the extent that it became the generic name of a product, rather than used as an identification of a source or origin of a product. The use of a trademark or trade name in a claim to describe a material or product would not only render a claim indefinite.
Finally, claim 1 is rejected under 112(b) because the claim language “the diagnostic module can be designed” is indefinite. Specifically, the claim language of “can be designed to ” is optional.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Pugh(US2024366442A1) in view of Koch (US 20240096146 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Pugh teaches a vehicle intelligent lifting system, configured to be mounted to a vehicle body, the vehicle body including an in-vehicle control unit (abstract), the vehicle intelligent lifting system including:
a control module, in communication with the in-vehicle control unit, configured to obtain a signal from the in-vehicle control unit (Fig. 5, [0032] Accessibility system 200 includes communication module 202 that is communicatively coupled to ingress/egress perception module 204, and vehicle control module 206 [0033] Communication module 202 can be responsible for receiving commands related to the operation of accessibility controls, such as to facilitate ingress/egress of a wheelchair ramp and/or enlist operations of an accompanying restraint system. By way of example, communications module 202 can be configured for communication with a mobile device and associated applications that can receive requests from a user/rider, and provide notifications to the rider. As such, communications module 202 can facilitate accessibility operations between wheelchair accessible AV, and various users/riders);
a lifting device, in communication with the control module (ramp (or, more broadly, a wheelchair access device) 210); and
a cloud processing center, in communication with the control module via an internet ( [0023][0042]-[0047][0051] the remote computing system sends the command to the internal computing system of the WAV, which receives the egress command through a communication service, such as communication service 116. [0121], [0136] ride sharing app 170);
wherein the lifting device includes a diagnostic module, the diagnostic module is configured to obtain status diagnostic data of the lifting device, the diagnostic module is in communication with the control module and capable of transmitting the status diagnostic data of the lifting device to the control module ([0054]that a fault state has been detected because the sensors have detected an object passing by, such that the wheelchair ramp cannot be unloaded safely),
the control module is configured to transmit the status diagnostic data of the lifting device to the in-vehicle control unit of the vehicle so that the diagnostic module can be designed to generate the status diagnostic data which is capable of being integrated to the in-vehicle control unit of the vehicle ([0014], [0081], [0103], [0014] Internal computing system 110 can include a control service 112 that is configured to control operation of vehicle. In response to receiving the command, the internal computing system can then control the doors 208 to open and/or send a command to a system controlling the doors 208 to open the doors 208. please note limitation of “so that the diagnostic module can be designed to generate the status diagnostic data which is capable of being integrated to the in-vehicle control unit of the vehicle” describes the intended purpose or application of an invention and is not considered limiting by the Examiner), and
the control module is configured to transmit the vehicle information and the status diagnostic data of the lifting device to the cloud processing center so that it allows the monitoring on the vehicle and the lifting device on the basis of the [[the]] vehicle information and the status diagnostic data of the lifting device from the cloud processing center ([0023], [0042]-[0047], [0051] feedback to a remote computer, please note limitation of “so that it allows the monitoring on the vehicle and the lifting device on the basis of the [[the]] vehicle information and the status diagnostic data of the lifting device from the cloud processing center” describes the intended purpose or application of an invention and is not considered limiting by the Examiner);
wherein the control module determines whether to control the lifting device to operate according to the vehicle information and the status diagnostic data of the lifting device ([0081] monitoring at least one of a vehicle status, a door status, a wheelchair access device status, a wheelchair securement system status, and a wheelchair status, wherein the wheelchair status comprises at least one of a location, a speed, and a direction of the wheelchair; and, initiating at least one interlock function that locks or unlocks at least one of the wheelchair accessible vehicle, one of the at least one doors, the wheelchair access device, and the wheelchair securement system based at least in part upon at least one of (a) the wheelchair status, (b) the door status, (c) the wheelchair access device status, (d) the wheelchair securement system status, and (e) the vehicle status. [0027] The wheelchair ramp 210 can, in response to receiving commands from the internal computing system and/or remote computing system, automatically load and/or unload to allow wheelchairs to be cross thereon).
Pugh does not expressly teach but Koch teaches the limitation of the in-vehicle control unit being a Controller Area Network (CAN) bus, a Local Interconnect Network (LIN), a FlexRay communication system or a Keyword Protocol 2000 (KWP2000) module ( Koch, [0072] The ECU 110A, the ECU 110B, and the ECU 110C are shown to be interconnected via an asset communications bus, such as a Controller Area Network (CAN) bus 150, a Local Interconnect Network (LIN) bus, a Media Oriented Systems Transport (MOST) bus, or a FlexRay bus. ECUs 110 interconnected using the CAN bus 150 send and receive information to one another in CAN data frames by placing the information on the CAN bus 150. [0140] Specific diagnostic protocols exist for querying the ECUs 110 requesting specific data or for configuring an ECU in a particular mode. Examples of diagnostic protocols include OnBoard Diagnostic (OBD), Unified Diagnostic Services (UDS) and the keyword protocol (KWP) ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a vehicle lifting device, as taught by Pugh, the in-vehicle control unit being a Controller Area Network (CAN) bus, a Local Interconnect Network (LIN), a FlexRay communication system or a Keyword Protocol 2000 (KWP2000) module, as taught by Koch, as Pugh and Koch are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of communications bus and operation of diagnostic tools to improve interconnection between different vehicle systems to allow a wide range of safety, economy and convenience features.
Regarding claim 2, Pugh teaches wherein the vehicle information from the in-vehicle control unit includes at least one of speed status, gear status and handbrake status( [0112] interlock may be initiated preventing the vehicle 102 from moving).
Regarding claim 4, Pugh teaches further including a remote control, wherein the remote control is in communication with the control module, and the remote control is configured to input a control signal to the control module for controlling the lifting device.([0023], [0042]-[0047], [0051] the remote computing system sends the command to the internal computing system of the WAV, which receives the egress command through a communication service, such as communication service 116 .[0121], [0136] ride sharing app 170).
Regarding claim 5, Pugh teaches wherein the remote control is in communication with the control module by Bluetooth ([0015] Communication service 116 is configured to transmit information wirelessly over a network,[0066]).
Regarding claim 7, Pugh teaches wherein the status diagnostic data represents malfunction or/and disorder of any part of the lifting device, or/and represents any obstacles or/and damages to any part of the lifting device ([0103], determine the status of the ingress/egress door(s) and non-ingress/egress door(s) 208 , 209 (e.g., fully open, between open and closed, moving, stationary, fully closed, obstructed, fault), determine the status of the wheelchair access device (e.g., deployed, stowed, between deployed and stowed, moving, stationary, obstructed, fault), determine the status of the wheelchair securement system 220 (e.g., wheelchair secured, wheelchair released, between secured and released, moving, stationary, obstructed, fault, passenger secured, passenger unsecured, between passenger secured and unsecured)).
Regarding claim 8, Pugh does not explicitly teach but Koch teaches wherein the control module is connected with an on-board diagnostic (OBD-II) interface connected with the in-vehicle control unit ([0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a vehicle lifting device, as taught by Pugh, the in-vehicle control unit being a Controller Area Network (CAN) bus, a Local Interconnect Network (LIN), a FlexRay communication system or a Keyword Protocol 2000 (KWP2000) module, as taught by Koch, as Pugh and Koch are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of communications bus and operation of diagnostic tools to improve interconnection between different vehicle systems to allow a wide range of safety, economy and convenience features
Regarding claim 9, Pugh teaches wherein the control module is in communication with the in-vehicle control unit by Bluetooth ([0015] Communication service 116 is configured to transmit information wirelessly over a network,[0066]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Pugh +(US2024366442A1) in view of Koch (US 20240096146 A1) in view of Ablabutyan (US20090000876 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Pugh as modified by Koch does not explicitly teach but Ablabutyan teaches wherein the control module does not turn on the power of the lifting device until the speed status is 0 km/h, the gear status is under a parking mode and the handbrake is applied ([0031] Logic module 200 is capable of sending an interlock signal to the vehicle which is capable of interacting with the vehicle to prevent forward and rearward movement of the vehicle when wheelchair lift 100 is not in the stowed position. Logic module 200 is also capable of preventing unstowing and/or operation of wheelchair lift 100 unless an interlock signal is received from the vehicle, indicating, for example, that the vehicle transmission is in the park position and the vehicle parking brake has been set)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a vehicle lifting system, as taught by Pugh as modified by Koch, control module not turning on the power of the lifting device until the speed status is 0 km/h, the gear status is under a parking mode and the handbrake is applied, as taught by Ablabutyan, as Pugh, Koch and Ablabutyan are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using turning off the power of the lifting device to improve the safety of a vehicle.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Pugh(US2024366442A1) in view of Koch (US 20240096146 A1) in view of Wang (US 20200086884 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Pugh as modified by Koch does not explicitly teach but Wang teaches wherein the in-vehicle control unit is in communication with a blind spot detection module, and when the blind spot detection module detects a vehicle near the vehicle body, the in-vehicle control unit transmits an associated signal to the control module, and the control module turns off the power of the lifting device ( [0041] the surrounding checking process 365 may ensure other vehicles, objects and/or persons in the vicinity of the vehicle are accounted for prior to restarting. [0054]-[0055] the emergency situation may include a failure or faulty operation of one or more of the subcomponents shown in the context of FIG. 4. In yet other embodiments, the emergency situation may be an event external to the vehicle (e.g. environmental or traffic-related)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a vehicle lifting system, as taught by Pugh as modified by Koch, turning off the power of the lifting device, as taught by Wang, as Pugh, Koch, Wang are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using turning off the power of the lifting device to save energy assumption.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Pugh (US2024366442 A1) in view of Koch (US 20240096146 A1) in view of Jones (US 20110270485 A1)
Regarding claim 10, Pugh as modified by Koch does not explicitly teach but Jones teaches further including an adapter, wherein the adapter is connected with an on-board diagnostic (OBD-II) interface connected with the in-vehicle control unit, the control module is connected with the adapter, and the adapter is configured to be connected with a vehicle-mounted computer mounted to the vehicle body( Fig. 2, [0005] allow on-board and remotely coupled computers to help diagnose problems associated with automobiles [0034] he adapter 300 may have the functionality of a standard connector such as a Data Link Connector (DLC). A DLC may provide a standard way of communicating with the vehicle's computer, also known as an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a vehicle lifting system, as taught by Pugh as modified by Koch, using an adapter to connect to a control module and a computer, as taught by Jones, as Pugh, Koch and Jones are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using an adapter to provide a standard connector for allowing the flow of the standard diagnostic signals and an interface that may be customized for an application (Jones, [0010]).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. For example, Gallingani (US20200054506) teaches a wheelchair lift with low energy consumption.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINGLI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8040. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 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 Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313)446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-100.
/J.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666