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 action is in reply to the application filed on 3/05/2024.
Claims 1-9 have been amended.
No claims have been added.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 03/05/2024 has been received and considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: “detect[s] a landing position” makes sense in the use of the verb “detect” in the context of finding a landing position at the target dwelling unit in Claim 6, but in the further elements of Claim 7 and 8 of “detects a different landing position depending on” either a person being within the dwelling unit or shape information, the verb “detect” does not make sense in context of collecting external information, whereas the action described is making a determination based on the collected information. ¶ 0055, 0063, and 0064 of the specification use the term “extract” a landing position for this function, which would be an appropriate term. Appropriate correction is required, and for examination purposes claims 7 and 8 will be interpreted as “extracting” (making a determination) of landing position based on the collected information.
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:
“Acquisition unit that acquires shape information […] and location information” in Claim 1
(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, here using the term “unit”;
(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”, here the functional language being “acquisition” linked to “that acquires”; 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, here the language describes that information is acquired but the claim is silent as to what mechanism makes the acquisition.
Therefore, the “acquisition unit” will be interpreted according to 112(f) by relying on the specification. The specification ¶ 0006 describes the acquisition unit in similar functional terms to the claim as “an acquisition unit that acquires shape information” and further describes types of data acquired in ¶ 0040 but is otherwise silent on the mechanism of acquisition. ¶ 0035 and ¶ 0041 describes storing data groups acquired by the acquisition unit “as well as programs and data groups to execute the various kinds of processing described below,” which is the closest the specification comes to describing the mechanism of the described “units.” Therefore, for examination purposes the “acquisition unit” will be interpreted as a program that executes the claimed functions.
“Determination unit that determines” in Claim 1
(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, here using the term “unit”;
(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”, here the functional language being “determination” linking to “that determines”; 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, here the language describes that a determination is made but the claim is silent as to what mechanism makes the determination.
Therefore, the “determination unit” will be interpreted according to 112(f) by relying on the specification. The specification ¶ 0006 describes the determination unit in similar terms to the claim as “a determination unit that determines,” but is otherwise silent on the mechanism of determination. ¶ 0035 describes storing “programs and data groups to execute the various kinds of processing described below,” which is the closest the specification comes to describing the mechanism of the described “units.” Therefore, for examination purposes the “determination unit” will be interpreted as a program that executes the claimed functions.
“Specifying unit that specifies” in Claim 1
(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, here using the term “unit”;
(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”, here the functional language being “Specifying” linking to “that specifies”; 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, here the language describes that a specification is made but the claim is silent as to what mechanism makes the specification.
Therefore, the “specifying unit” will be interpreted according to 112(f) by relying on the specification. The specification ¶ 0046 describes the specifying unit in similar terms to the claim as “Specifying unit 14 specifies the position,” but is otherwise silent on the mechanism of specifying. ¶ 0035 describes storing “programs and data groups to execute the various kinds of processing described below,” and ¶ 0059 further notes “in parallel with the specifying processing performed by specifying unit 14,” indicating that processing is performed by the specifying unit. Therefore, for examination purposes it is unclear if the “specifying unit” is a program or a physical processing unit, but for continuity it will be assumed to function as a program similarly to the other “units.”
“Extraction unit that detects a landing position” in Claim 6
(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, here using the term “unit”;
(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”, here the functional language being “Extracting” linking to “that detects”; 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, here the language describes that a detection is made but the claim is silent as to what mechanism makes the extraction.
Therefore, the “extraction unit” will be interpreted according to 112(f) by relying on the specification. The specification ¶ 0055 describes the extraction unit in similar terms to the claim as “extraction unit 15 extracts the landing position,” but is otherwise silent on the mechanism of specifying. ¶ 0035 describes storing “programs and data groups to execute the various kinds of processing described below,” and ¶ 0060 further notes “extraction processing is performed by extraction unit 15,” indicating that processing is performed by the extraction unit. Therefore, for examination purposes it is unclear if the “specifying unit” is a program or a physical processing unit, but for continuity it will be assumed to function as a program similarly to the other “units.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) 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 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 1-9 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 limitations “Acquisition unit that acquires shape information […] and location information,” “Determination unit that determines,” and “Specifying unit that specifies” in Claim 1 as well as “extraction unit that detects a landing position” in Claim 6 invoke 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. As discussed previously, it is unclear whether the claimed units are software as hinted at by ¶ 0035 of the specification or a physical processing unit as hinted at by ¶ 0059-0060 for the specifying and extraction units. 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.
The term “an amount or load of processing performed […] is reduced” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reduced” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As the reduction is not explained, there is no standard for determining an appropriate amount or load of processing performed.
Claims 2-4 and 7-9 are dependent upon the above claims and do not correct the deficiencies and are therefore similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework considers whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention – method/process, machine/apparatus, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus. Accordingly, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A
Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework considers whether claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea (Prong 1) and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Prong 2).
Step 2A Prong 1
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Specifically, independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract idea emphasized. (Additional elements (Prong 2, to be discussed in the subsequent section) are italicized):
An information processing apparatus comprising: an acquisition unit that acquires shape information on a shape of a housing complex including a target dwelling unit that is a destination of a flight vehicle, and location information on a location of the target dwelling unit in the housing complex;
a determination unit that determines, by comparing a result of detecting a shape of a housing complex reached by the flight vehicle based on positioning with the shape information acquired by the acquisition unit, whether the housing complex is the housing complex including the target dwelling unit; and
a specifying unit that specifies, upon determining that the housing complex is the housing complex including the target dwelling unit, the location of the target dwelling unit in the housing complex based on the location information acquired by the acquisition unit.
The above limitations constitute “a mental process” because they comprise observation/evaluation/judgment/analysis that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). For instance, a person could compare a shape of a housing complex with shape information to determine whether the housing complex is the target dwelling unit mentally, and a person could further specify the location of the target dwelling unit based on location information mentally. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
For the following reasons, the above-identified additional limitations, which are indicated in italics when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the following additional elements, these additional elements are all recited at a high level of generality:
An information processing apparatus comprising: an acquisition unit
a determination unit
a specifying unit
The following additional limitations amount to merely extra solution activity (i.e. sending and receiving data):
acquires shape information on a shape of a housing complex including a target dwelling unit that is a destination of a flight vehicle, and location information on a location of the target dwelling unit in the housing complex;
shape information acquired by the acquisition unit,
location information acquired by the acquisition unit.
MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) states (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. In this case, the determination and specification are claimed reciting only the idea of the outcome (determining and specifying) without any details on how the solution is accomplished.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims, individually or in combination, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim of “acquiring shape information […] and location information” are all recited at a high level of generality amounting to sending and receiving data, which are well understood routine and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)). Thus, claims [x] do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims 2-9 do not provide additional elements or a practical application to become eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2: The information processing apparatus according to wherein the specifying unit specifies the location of the target dwelling unit by counting dwelling units included in the housing complex in a horizontal direction and in a vertical direction based on the location information acquired by the acquisition unit.
Claim 3: The information processing apparatus according to wherein the specifying unit specifies the location of the target dwelling unit by using distances detected in the housing complex in a horizontal direction and in a vertical direction based on the location information acquired by the acquisition unit.
Claim 4: The information processing apparatus according to wherein the specifying unit specifies the location of the target dwelling unit with reference to a location at an end of consecutive dwelling units in the housing complex.
Claim 5: The information processing apparatus according to wherein the specifying unit specifies the location of the target dwelling unit with reference to the location such that an amount or load of processing performed to specify the target dwelling unit is reduced.
Claim 6: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising an extraction unit that detects a landing position at the target dwelling unit.
Claim 7: The information processing apparatus according to wherein the extraction unit detects a different landing position depending on whether a person is present in the target dwelling unit.
Claim 8: The information processing apparatus according to wherein the extraction unit detects a different landing position depending on the shape information or the location information.
Claim 9: The information processing apparatus according to wherein the determination unit: determines whether the housing complex is the housing complex including the target dwelling unit by comparing a result of detecting from above the shape of the housing complex with the shape information acquired by the acquisition unit; and determines whether the housing complex is the housing complex including the target dwelling unit by comparing a result of detecting from a side the shape of the housing complex with the shape information acquired by the acquisition unit.
These additional claim limitations recite mental processes and further narrow the abstract idea. They do not constitute a practical application of the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The determining, specifying, and sending and receiving of data are all recited at a high level of generality. Thus, the claims generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims, individually or in combination, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim(s) 1-9 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to a computer readable medium. As explained in U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer-Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010):
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zietz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi¬ cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
As explained above in the 112(f) interpretation and 112(b) rejections of Claims 1 and 6, it is unclear if the claimed “units” may be software per se. Accordingly, claim(s) 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 2-5 and 7-9 are dependent upon the above claims and do not correct the deficiency and are therefore similarly rejected.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaya et al (WO 2018078859, hereinafter “Nakaya,” all citations and excerpts taken from the attached machine translation) in view of Ohashi (JP 2020057225, hereinafter “Ohashi,” all citations and excerpts taken from the attached machine translation)
Regarding Claim 1, Nakaya teaches:
An information processing apparatus comprising: an acquisition unit that acquires shape information on a shape of a housing complex including a target dwelling unit that is a destination of a flight vehicle, (Nakaya ¶ 0015 lines 1-2 “Here, as an automatic delivery service using a drone, […] autonomously fly to a delivery destination apartment,” and ¶ 0066 lines 5-6 “the outer circumferential shape of the delivery destination building is specified from, for example, map data,”)
and location information on a location of the target dwelling unit in the housing complex; […] (Nakaya ¶ 0019 lines 1-4 “Therefore, in the first embodiment, the delivery or collection destination in the building is determined based on the address information of the delivery or collection destination and the received signal strength of the wireless signal transmitted from the beacon device 102 of the delivery or collection destination,”)
[…] a specifying unit that specifies, upon determining that the housing complex is the housing complex including the target dwelling unit, the location of the target dwelling unit in the housing complex based on the location information acquired by the acquisition unit. (Nakaya ¶ 0094 lines 4-6 “Then, the information processing apparatus 101 specifies the position indicated by the specified position information as the delivery destination position in the delivery destination building (step S902),” and ¶ 0071 lines 3-4 “The location of the delivery destination in the building corresponds to, for example, the location of the delivery destination's balcony.”)
Nakaya does not teach:
[…] a determination unit that determines, by comparing a result of detecting a shape of a housing complex reached by the flight vehicle based on positioning
with the shape information acquired by the acquisition unit, whether the housing complex is the housing complex including the target dwelling unit; and […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Nakaya, Ohashi teaches:
[…] a determination unit that determines, by comparing a result of detecting a shape of a housing complex reached by the flight vehicle based on positioning (Ohashi Pg 10 ¶ 2 lines 1-2 “First, when the flying object 20 arrives above the destination, the imaging unit 240 captures an image below the flying object 20 (step S242),”)
with the shape information acquired by the acquisition unit, whether the housing complex is the housing complex including the target dwelling unit; and […] (Ohashi Pg 10 ¶ 3 “The analysis unit 250 acquires an image captured by the imaging unit 240. The imaging unit 240 specifies the shape and the position of the building by analyzing the acquired image (Step S244). This specification is performed by, for example, feature amount matching processing. The shape of the building is, for example, at least one of the plan shape of the building and the plan shape of the structure on the external premises. Exterior structures include, for example, entrance approaches, sidewalks to entrances, gates, parking lots, gardens, sheds, and fences,” and Pg 10 ¶ 5 lines 1-5 “Then, the analysis unit 250 determines whether or not the shape and the position of the building specified using the image match the map information stored in the information storage unit 270 (step S246). For example, when the map information includes house shape data, the analysis unit 250 determines whether or not the degree of matching between the house shape data and the shape of the building is equal to or higher than a reference,” teaching determining whether a building is a target building based on matching of shape data, as applies to the destination building and circumferential shape of Nakaya)
Nakaya and Ohashi are considered analogous because they both relate to drone deliveries to residences. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic delivery system drone specifying circumferential map data and determining a delivery destination within a residential building using the address information and a beacon device of Nakaya with the simple substitution of the imaging of a destination building from above to perform shape matching with map information of the building and its external premises of Ohashi for the beacon device of Nakaya. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by removing the need for the recipient to have the separate beacon device of Nakaya and preventing local interference issues with a beacon device by using imaging within the delivery system, as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Nakaya and Ohashi teaches the elements of claim 1 as described above. Nakaya further teaches:
an extraction unit that detects a landing position at the target dwelling unit. (Nakaya ¶ 0080 “Further, when the flight control unit 602 determines that the delivery destination has been reached, the flight control unit 602 may cause the drone D to land. Thereby, for example, the drone D can be landed at a luggage storage area provided on the balcony of the delivery destination,”)
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Nakaya and Ohashi teaches the elements of claim 6 as described above. Nakaya does not teach:
wherein the extraction unit detects a different landing position depending on the shape information or the location information.
Within the same field of endeavor as Nakaya, Ohashi teaches:
wherein the extraction unit detects a different landing position depending on the shape information or the location information. (Ohashi Pg 10 ¶ 7-8 “For example, the analysis unit 250 estimates the boundary 300 of the site of the destination using the position of the fence or the fence. Then, the analysis unit 250 generates landing position information using the boundary line. Specifically, the analysis unit 250 selects a landing candidate position from an area inside the boundary line. In the present embodiment, when selecting a landing position, a structure on the external premises where the flying object 20 should land is set in advance. This setting may be set by, for example, a person who has requested the flight of the flying object 20 (or a transfer requester when the flying object 20 transports luggage), or may be set in advance by default. The information storage unit 270 stores information for specifying the structure. For example, as shown in FIG. 14, the information storage unit 270 stores at least one of the entrance 312, the garden 320, and the parking lot 330 of the building 310 as a position where the flying object 20 should land. Then, the analysis unit 250 specifies the position of the structure by analyzing the image, and sets the specified position as a new landing candidate position. In addition, when selecting the parking lot 330 as the landing position 302, the analysis unit 250 preferably makes a necessary condition that no car is parked,” teaching determination of different landing positions based on presence and boundary line (shape) of a fence, and location of a fence, garden, entrance, or parking lot)
Nakaya and Ohashi are considered analogous because they both relate to drone deliveries to residences. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic delivery system drone specifying circumferential map data and determining a delivery destination within a residential building using the address information and landing location determination of Nakaya with the simple addition Ohashi’s determination of a different landing location based on observed shape and location elements. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by removing the need for the recipient to have the separate beacon device of Nakaya and preventing local interference issues with a beacon device by using imaging within the delivery system, as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Nakaya and Ohashi teaches the elements of claim 1 as described above. Nakaya does not teach:
wherein the determination unit: determines whether the housing complex is the housing complex including the target dwelling unit by comparing a result of detecting from above the shape of the housing complex with the shape information acquired by the acquisition unit;
and determines whether the housing complex is the housing complex including the target dwelling unit by comparing a result of detecting from a side the shape of the housing complex with the shape information acquired by the acquisition unit.
Within the same field of endeavor as Nakaya, Ohashi teaches:
wherein the determination unit: determines whether the housing complex is the housing complex including the target dwelling unit by comparing a result of detecting from above the shape of the housing complex with the shape information acquired by the acquisition unit; and determines whether the housing complex is the housing complex including the target dwelling unit by comparing a result of detecting from a side the shape of the housing complex with the shape information acquired by the acquisition unit. (Ohashi Pg 10 ¶ 3 “The analysis unit 250 acquires an image captured by the imaging unit 240. The imaging unit 240 specifies the shape and the position of the building by analyzing the acquired image (Step S244). This specification is performed by, for example, feature amount matching processing. The shape of the building is, for example, at least one of the plan shape of the building and the plan shape of the structure on the external premises. Exterior structures include, for example, entrance approaches, sidewalks to entrances, gates, parking lots, gardens, sheds, and fences,” and Pg 10 ¶ 5 lines 1-5 “Then, the analysis unit 250 determines whether or not the shape and the position of the building specified using the image match the map information stored in the information storage unit 270 (step S246). For example, when the map information includes house shape data, the analysis unit 250 determines whether or not the degree of matching between the house shape data and the shape of the building is equal to or higher than a reference,” teaching determining whether a building is a target building based on matching (comparing) of shape data, as applies to the destination building and circumferential shape of Nakaya)
Nakaya and Ohashi are considered analogous because they both relate to drone deliveries to residences. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic delivery system drone specifying circumferential map data and determining a delivery destination within a residential building using the address information and a beacon device of Nakaya with the simple substitution of the imaging of a destination building from above to perform shape matching with map information of the building and its external premises of Ohashi for the beacon device of Nakaya. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by removing the need for the recipient to have the separate beacon device of Nakaya and preventing local interference issues with a beacon device by using imaging within the delivery system, as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaya in view of Ohashi and further in view of Sweeny et al (WO 2019055690, hereinafter “Sweeny”)
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Nakaya and Ohashi teaches the elements of claim 1 as described above. Nakaya further teaches:
wherein the specifying unit specifies the location of the target dwelling unit by counting dwelling units included in the housing complex […] in a vertical direction based on the location information acquired by the acquisition unit. (Nakaya ¶ 0056 “The estimation unit 603 estimates the altitude of the delivery destination from the address information of the delivery destination, Specifically, for example, the estimating unit 603 refers to the floor information "No. 701" included in the address information 500 (see FIG. 5) to identify the floor "7'' of the delivery destination. The estimation unit 603 then specifies the height of the delivery destination in the building by multiplying the specified floor "T' by a constant C,” teaching using the address to determine floor information, and multiplying floor number by a constant to determine altitude is functionally identical to “counting up” by floors)
Nakaya does not teach:
[…] in a horizontal direction and […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Nakaya, Sweeny teaches:
[…] in a horizontal direction […] (Sweeny ¶ 0130 “As a further alternative, the database to which the UAV has access in order to recognize objects that are captured by the computer- vision system may include three dimensional plans of buildings, together with the geographical coordinates of one or more recognizable features, such as corners, of the building. In addition to detailing height, width and depth, these plans may include floor plans that indicate the locations of individual balconies for each floor of the building. A combination of the geographic location of at least one recognizable feature of the building and the floor plans enables the UAV to identify exactly where any given balcony is located. As will be appreciated, this technique is particularly appropriate in the absence of any bespoke balcony delivery structure and/or a beacon or machine-readable code that enables the computer-vision system to identify a particular balcony,” teaching a horizontal identification of the individual target balcony using a floorplan, allowing for horizontal balcony identification in combination with the vertical counting of Nakaya)
Nakaya, Ohashi, and Sweeny are considered analogous because they both relate to drone deliveries to residences. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic delivery system determining a delivery destination within a residential building using the address information and balcony height determination of Nakaya and the imaging of a destination building from above to perform shape matching with map information of the building and its external premises of Ohashi with the addition of Sweeny’s use of imaging similar to Ohashi’s with floorplan information to determine where any given balcony is in the building. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by enabling the computer-vision system to identify a balcony in the absence of a beacon (Sweeny ¶ 0130).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Nakaya and Ohashi teaches the elements of claim 1 as described above. Nakaya further teaches:
wherein the specifying unit specifies the location of the target dwelling unit […] based on the location information acquired by the acquisition unit. (Nakaya ¶ 0056 “The estimation unit 603 estimates the altitude of the delivery destination from the address information of the delivery destination, Specifically, for example, the estimating unit 603 refers to the floor information "No. 701" included in the address information 500 (see FIG. 5) to identify the floor "7'' of the delivery destination. The estimation unit 603 then specifies the height of the delivery destination in the building by multiplying the specified floor "T' by a constant C,” teaching using the address to determine floor information of the target unit)
Nakaya does not teach:
[…] by using distances detected in the housing complex in a horizontal direction and in a vertical direction […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Nakaya, Sweeny teaches:
wherein the specifying unit specifies the location of the target dwelling unit by using distances detected in the housing complex in a horizontal direction and in a vertical direction based on the location information acquired by the acquisition unit. (Sweeny ¶ 0129 “In such embodiments, the UAV 100 may be equipped with a computer- vision system which is configured to identify the delivery structure at the delivery structure by imaging the optical machine -readable code and confirming that the identifier encoded therein matches that received by the UAV 100. In some embodiments, the information received by the UAV 100 may include positional information that specifies a vertical position or a vertical height of the UAV 100, thereby enabling the UAV 100 to discriminate between different delivery structures located in respect of the same building, and thus sharing the same geographical location. In some embodiments, the UAV 100 may receive the information directly from the delivery structure 1030b upon arrival at the delivery location,” teaches using visual data to identify the building and determine vertical delivery height and ¶ 0130 “As a further alternative, the database to which the UAV has access in order to recognize objects that are captured by the computer- vision system may include three dimensional plans of buildings, together with the geographical coordinates of one or more recognizable features, such as corners, of the building. In addition to detailing height, width and depth, these plans may include floor plans that indicate the locations of individual balconies for each floor of the building. A combination of the geographic location of at least one recognizable feature of the building and the floor plans enables the UAV to identify exactly where any given balcony is located. As will be appreciated, this technique is particularly appropriate in the absence of any bespoke balcony delivery structure and/or a beacon or machine-readable code that enables the computer-vision system to identify a particular balcony,” teaching a horizontal identification of the individual target balcony using a visual data and a floorplan)
Nakaya, Ohashi, and Sweeny are considered analogous because they both relate to drone deliveries to residences. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic delivery system determining a delivery destination within a residential building using the address information of Nakaya and the imaging of a destination building from above to perform shape matching with map information of the building and its external premises of Ohashi with the addition of Sweeny’s use of imaging similar to Ohashi’s with building height and floorplan information to determine where any given balcony is in the building. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by enabling the computer-vision system to identify a balcony in the absence of a beacon (Sweeny ¶ 0130).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Nakaya and Ohashi teaches the elements of claim 1 as described above. Nakaya does not teach:
wherein the specifying unit specifies the location of the target dwelling unit with reference to a location at an end of consecutive dwelling units in the housing complex.
Within the same field of endeavor as Nakaya, Sweeny teaches:
wherein the specifying unit specifies the location of the target dwelling unit with reference to a location at an end of consecutive dwelling units in the housing complex. (Sweeny ¶ 0130 “As a further alternative, the database to which the UAV has access in order to recognize objects that are captured by the computer- vision system may include three dimensional plans of buildings, together with the geographical coordinates of one or more recognizable features, such as corners, of the building. In addition to detailing height, width and depth, these plans may include floor plans that indicate the locations of individual balconies for each floor of the building. A combination of the geographic location of at least one recognizable feature of the building and the floor plans enables the UAV to identify exactly where any given balcony is located. As will be appreciated, this technique is particularly appropriate in the absence of any bespoke balcony delivery structure and/or a beacon or machine-readable code that enables the computer-vision system to identify a particular balcony,” teaching identification of the individual target balcony using a floorplan and reference to a corner of the building, which is functionally analogous to an end of consecutive dwelling units)
Nakaya, Ohashi, and Sweeny are considered analogous because they both relate to drone deliveries to residences. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic delivery system determining a delivery destination within a residential building using the address information and balcony height determination of Nakaya and the imaging of a destination building from above to perform shape matching with map information of the building and its external premises of Ohashi with the addition of Sweeny’s use of imaging similar to Ohashi’s with floorplan information to determine where any given balcony is in the building with reference to a corner of the building. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by enabling the computer-vision system to identify a balcony in the absence of a beacon (Sweeny ¶ 0130).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaya in view of Ohashi and Sweeny and further in view of Abeywardena et al (US 20210174301, hereinafter “Abeywardena”)
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Nakaya and Ohashi teaches the elements of claim 4 as described above. Nakaya does not teach:
wherein the specifying unit specifies the location of the target dwelling unit with reference to the location such that an amount or load of processing performed to specify the target dwelling unit is reduced.
Within the same field of endeavor as Nakaya, Abeywardena teaches:
wherein the specifying unit specifies the location of the target dwelling unit with reference to the location such that an amount or load of processing performed to specify the target dwelling unit is reduced. (Abeywardena ¶ 0033 lines 1-14 “When UAV 105 arrives on scene for the flyby validation, UAV 105 may initially go to building 115 identified by the physical address provided in process block 305, and further the side of building 115 identified by the end-user in process block 325. Additionally, UAV 105 may hover at an initial altitude or height determined from the end-user's unit number or floor level (process block 365). […] From this initial altitude, UAV 105 may use visual based navigation techniques to search for balcony 110. These visual based techniques may reference the images provided by the end-user in process block 330 while also optically scanning for the fiducial marker,” and ¶ 0024 lines 15-18 “The customer is then solicited to precisely identify the location of their balcony 110 on aerial map image 400 by end-user interaction with aerial map 400 (process block 325).” teaching identification of the target balcony with starting with a reference to a predetermined precise location of the balcony, which will minimize the processing necessary to locate the individual balcony)
Nakaya, Sweeny, and Abeywardena are all considered analogous because they all relate to drone deliveries to residences. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic delivery system drone specifying map data and determining a delivery destination within a residential building using the address information and landing location determination of Nakaya and Sweeny’s use of imaging with floorplan information to determine where any given balcony is in the building with reference to a corner of the building with the simple addition Abeywardena’s determination of landing location starting from a side of the building pre-identified to contain the target balcony. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by improving search and delivery efficiency, and furthermore by the use of a known technique (Abeywardena’s search from a side identified by the recipient to contain the balcony) to improve similar devices (Abeywardena and Sweeny both describing delivery drones identifying a delivery location with visual imaging techniques) in the same way (identification of a target delivery location with reference to a building feature) [MPEP 2143(I)(C)].
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaya in view of Ohashi and further in view of Yamada et al (WO 2019146576, hereinafter “Yamada,” all citations and excerpts taken from the attached machine translation)
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Nakaya and Ohashi teaches the elements of claim 6 as described above. Nakaya does not teach:
wherein the extraction unit detects a different landing position depending on whether a person is present in the target dwelling unit.
Within the same field of endeavor as Nakaya, Ohashi teaches:
herein the extraction unit detects a different landing position depending on […] (Ohashi Pg 10 ¶ 7-8 “For example, the analysis unit 250 estimates the boundary 300 of the site of the destination using the position of the fence or the fence. Then, the analysis unit 250 generates landing position information using the boundary line. Specifically, the analysis unit 250 selects a landing candidate position from an area inside the boundary line. In the present embodiment, when selecting a landing position, a structure on the external premises where the flying object 20 should land is set in advance. This setting may be set by, for example, a person who has requested the flight of the flying object 20 (or a transfer requester when the flying object 20 transports luggage), or may be set in advance by default. The information storage unit 270 stores information for specifying the structure. For example, as shown in FIG. 14, the information storage unit 270 stores at least one of the entrance 312, the garden 320, and the parking lot 330 of the building 310 as a position where the flying object 20 should land. Then, the analysis unit 250 specifies the position of the structure by analyzing the image, and sets the specified position as a new landing candidate position. In addition, when selecting the parking lot 330 as the landing position 302, the analysis unit 250 preferably makes a necessary condition that no car is parked,” teaching determination of different landing positions based on the presence of various detected objects including a fence, garden, entrance, or parking lot)
Nakaya and Ohashi are considered analogous because they both relate to drone deliveries to residences. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic delivery system drone specifying circumferential map data and determining a delivery destination within a residential building using the address information and landing location determination of Nakaya with the simple addition Ohashi’s determination of a different landing location based on observed shape and location elements. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by removing the need for the recipient to have the separate beacon device of Nakaya and preventing local interference issues with a beacon device by using imaging within the delivery system, as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The combination of Nakaya and Ohashi does not teach:
[…] whether a person is present in the target dwelling unit.
Within the same field of endeavor as Nakaya and Ohashi, Yamada teaches:
[…] depending on whether a person is present in the target dwelling unit. (Yamada Pg 16 ¶ 2 “If the return data indicates the intention to wait for receipt, the receipt / non-delivery determination unit 104 determines that the receipt and the charge will be performed if the drone 20a is made to stand by. If the determination is made, the standby time determination unit 109 determines that the recipient has indicated intention to receive while on standby, and determines the standby time based on charging. As described above, the standby time is determined based on the charge at the transfer destination, so that the standby time can be longer than when the charge is not taken into consideration, and the return of the conveyed product can be reduced,” teaching changing a drone delivery strategy based on a recipient’s presence and intention to receive, as can be applied to the changing of delivery location of Ohashi)
Nakaya, Ohashi, and Yamada are all considered analogous because they all relate to drone deliveries to residences. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic delivery system determining a delivery destination within a residential building using the address information and balcony height determination of Nakaya and the imaging of a destination building from above to change delivery location based on detected features of Ohashi with the addition of Yamada’s condition of changing delivery details based on a recipient’s presence and intention. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by enabling the delivery to better serve the needs and intentions of the recipient, as would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY E GLADE whose telephone number is (703)756-1502. The examiner can normally be reached 4-5-9 7:30-16:30.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/ZACHARY E. F. GLADE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664