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 .
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.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. (Emphasis by examiner)
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is presented in multiple paragraphs. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the control architecture and evaluation system of claims 1 and 10 and the sensor system of claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
PNG
media_image1.png
574
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although the specification identifies the control architecture by the reference numeral 2 and the evaluation system by the reference numeral 3 and both of these numerals are included in the sole figure of the disclosure (reproduced above for clarity), these numerals are included only with arrows pointing to vague sections of the figure rather than to specific structures. Further, the reference numeral 3 shares an arrow with the numeral 6, appearing to show that the “camera system” identified by the numeral 6 is the same structure as the “evaluation system 3”, even though the claims (e.g. claim 2) and specification (e.g. ¶ 19 as numbered in US Publication No. 2025/0001831 A1) indicate that “the evaluation system contains a camera system” rather than entirely being this camera system. Similarly, the reference numeral 2 points toward blocks labeled “Facial Recognition” and “Posture” with no indication as to how these features of user data constitute “a control architecture”. Further, the reference numeral 2 shares its arrow with a parenthetical numeral 1, appearing to indicate that the control architecture (a physical structure) is illustrated by the same elements as the method identified by the numeral 1.
No new matter should be entered.
Further, the drawing is objected to because of numerous minor informalities:
The schematic illustration of fig. 1 includes a number of boxes interchangeably representing elements of the system (the numbered boxes 7 and 8 representing a camera and an infrared camera, respectively) and data collected or evaluated by the system (e.g. boxes labeled “Clothing State” and “Facial recognition”) as well as an oval labeled (coordinates) with no key or explanation for distinguishing between boxes representing a structure and those representing data, or explaining the difference between data included in a box (e.g. “Clothing State” or “Skin temperature”) and data contained in an oval (i.e. “coordinates”). Further, capitalization is inconsistent between the shapes depicted in the figure, with some labeled only by a number (i.e., 7 and 8), some capitalizing only the first word (e.g. “Facial recognition” or “Skin temperature”), some capitalizing each word (e.g. “Clothing State”), and some lacking capitalization entirely (e.g. “coordinates”).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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 architecture” used in claim 1, line 2 and claim 10, line 1. Although this element is recited in ¶ 19 of the specification, no specific structure is given for the general task of “control” of the more specific steps of the method of claim 1 (i.e. “setting data… are acquired”, “an individualized comfort model… is trained”, and “individualized settings… are predicted”) taught to be performed “by means of a control architecture”. Although the control architecture is taught in line 11 of the claim to include or contain “an evaluation system”, this system is likewise interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (see below) and the even taking the camera system or sensor system as sufficient structure to perform the function of “evaluation”, there is no teaching of any further structure which performs the function of “control” within the “control architecture”. See the rejection of claims 1 and 10 set forth below under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b).
an ”evaluation system” in claim 1, line 11, taught to obtain physiological user data for a user. The specification recites the “evaluation system” in ¶ 19 and teaches that it “contains a camera system 6 with both a camera and an infrared camera”. Further, ¶¶ 32-33 teaches that the evaluation system contains a sensor system acquiring sensor data as the physiological user data. As such, the evaluation system of claim 1 has been interpreted as including such a camera system and/or sensor system or equivalents thereof for obtaining user physiological data.
Further, claims 2-5 (which recite the camera system of the evaluation system) and claims 6-7 (which recite the sensor system) have not been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) with regard to the evaluation system because the elements they recite for this system are sufficient to perform the recited tasks of “evaluation” and specifically of obtaining physiological user data.
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 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.
As discussed above, claim 1 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) based on the combination of the functional language “control” with the non-structural placeholder term “architecture”. This element is recited in ¶ 19 of the specification but no specific structure is recited or described for the general task of “control” of the more specific steps of the method of claim 1 (i.e. “setting data… are acquired”, “an individualized comfort model… is trained”, and “individualized settings… are predicted”) taught to be performed “by means of a control architecture” beyond a teaching of “an evaluation system in the control architecture. As discussed above, the “evaluation system” is only taught for obtaining data (and is interpreted as a camera system, sensor system, or equivalent) and thus is likewise not sufficient structure for the tasks of “control” or the specific method detailed in claim 1. For this reason, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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.
As discussed above, claim 1 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) based on the combination of the functional language “control” with the non-structural placeholder term “architecture” and neither the claim nor the specification identifies structure for this “architecture” for performing the recited function of “control” or the specific method of the claim. For this reason, the exact scope required by the claim with regard to the “control architecture” cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
In claim 4, the camera system is recited to include and to acquire data using “a camera and/or an infrared camera”. Because “an infrared camera” is a subset of “camera”, it is not clear what scope is intended or required by these elements being presented as alternatives or at least as separate structures, for example whether the “camera” is intended to represent exclusively a non-infrared camera such as when “and/or” is taken as “or”. For this reason, the scope required by the recitation of claim 4 regarding the camera system cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claim 4 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and “the camera system” has been interpreted as including at least one camera which may be but is not required to be an infrared camera.
In claim 5, it is taught that the “physiological user data” are “determined from the image data, e.g. skin temperature, and/or heart rate, and/or respiratory rate, and/or age, and/or gender, and/or size, and/or weight, and/or emotional state, and/or wakefulness”. The placement of the “e.g.” portion of the claim gives examples of “the physiological user data” or “the image data”. Further, as the claim presents these elements as examples (per the meaning of “e.g.”) rather than requirements, it is unclear whether any or all of “skin temperature, and/or heart rate, and/or respiratory rate, and/or age, and/or gender, and/or size, and/or weight, and/or emotional state, and/or wakefulness” are required by the claim or what other types of physiological and/or image data would fall within the scope required by the claim. Specifically, it is unclear whether other physiological data not included in this list of examples (such as height or skin coloration) would fall within the scope of the claim as it is not clear what commonality the listed examples share beyond merely being physiological data and thus it is not clear what other properties would or would not share this commonality. For this reason, the scope of claim 5 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(d) regarding the indefiniteness of exemplary language in claims.
For purposes of examination, claim 5 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the claim has been interpreted as requiring that the image data is used to derive physiological data, and that this physiological data includes at least one of “skin temperature, and/or heart rate, and/or respiratory rate, and/or age, and/or gender, and/or size, and/or weight, and/or emotional state, and/or wakefulness”.
Similar to claim 5, claim 7 teaches that the physiological user data “are obtained from the sensor data, e.g. skin temperature, and/or heart rate, and/or respiratory rate, and/or weight.” It cannot be determined from the claim as it is presented whether “skin temperature, and/or heart rate, and/or respiratory rate, and/or weight” are intended to represent examples of the physiological user data or the sensor data, or what scope is required by the examples presented beyond the examples themselves. For this reason, the scope of claim 7 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(d) regarding the indefiniteness of exemplary language in claims.
For purposes of examination, claim 7 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the claim has been interpreted as requiring that the sensor data is used to derive physiological data, and that this physiological data which includes at least one of “skin temperature, and/or heart rate, and/or respiratory rate, and/or weight”.
Claims 2, 3, 6, and 8-10 are rejected as depending upon base claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
PNG
media_image2.png
398
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2022/0176778 A1 to Migneco et al.
PNG
media_image3.png
524
712
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Migneco teaches limitations from claim 1, in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, a method for individualized setting of an air conditioner (HVAC system 21) in a vehicle (10) for a user (11), wherein, by means of a control architecture (a control system 20 shown in fig. 2, including a controller 22 and sensors 23 and 24):
setting data for the air conditioner are acquired (including physiological data taught in ¶¶ 23-30 and environmental data taught in ¶¶ 14-22),
an individualized comfort model for the air conditioner is trained in an AI unit with the acquired data (as taught in ¶¶ 36-38, a machine learning structure of the controller 22 may be used to identify patterns in the input data and predict thermal trends to generate settings optimize operation of the HVAC system based on individual data collected for the occupant 11),
individualized settings for the air conditioner are predicted on the basis of the trained comfort model (as taught in ¶ 38),
wherein the setting data contain physiological user data for the user (the data taught in ¶ 23-30 to be obtained by the occupant condition sensor 24), wherein the physiological user data are obtained using an evaluation system (the sensors 23 and 24, and particularly the occupant condition sensor 24) in the control architecture (control system 20) and sent to the AI unit (at the controller 22 as taught in ¶¶ 36-38).
Migneco teaches limitations from claim 2 in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, the method according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation system contains a camera system in the interior of the vehicle with which image data are acquired, and the physiological user data are determined from the image data (as taught in ¶¶ 23-31, “one or more of the occupant condition sensors 24 may be embodied as an infrared image-based sensor, such as a conventional infrared camera as shown in FIG. 1” for detecting both thermal comfort and identifying features which may identify a specific individual occupant 11).
Migneco teaches limitations from claim 3, the method according to claim 2, wherein the physiological user data are obtained from the image data using at least one AI-based method and/or an extraction process (as taught in ¶ 38, the predictive model embodied as the machine learning structure may use the thermal image data of the occupant).
Migneco teaches limitations from claim 4 in fig. 1, shown above, the method according to claim 2, wherein the camera system contains a camera and/or an infrared camera (an infrared camera as taught in ¶ 31), wherein the image data for acquiring the physiological user data are acquired with the camera and/or the infrared camera (as taught in ¶ 31).
Migneco teaches limitations from claim 6 in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, the method according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation system contains a sensor system (occupant condition sensors 24) in the interior of the vehicle (as shown), wherein sensor data are acquired with the sensor system, and the physiological user data for the user are determined from the sensor data (as taught in ¶¶ 23-30, “Each of the occupant condition sensors 24 may be embodied as any conventional sensing device that is adapted to generate a signal that is representative of the associated condition of the occupant 11 of the vehicle seat 12.”)
Migneco teaches limitations from claim 7 in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, the method according to claim 6, wherein the physiological user data for the user are obtained from the sensor data, e.g. skin temperature, and/or heart rate, and/or respiratory rate, and/or weight (with at least the weight of the occupant taught to be among the data in fig. 2 and ¶¶ 23-30).
Migneco teaches limitations from claim 8 in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, the method according to claim 1, wherein the setting data for the air conditioner contain context data for the vehicle (10, measured by vehicle condition sensors 23), wherein the context data are acquired with a sensor system (23) in the control architecture (20, as shown in fig. 2), and the context data include the interior temperature, and/or exterior temperature, and/or humidity, and/or position of the sun, and/or light intensity, and/or air pressure (with “temperature outside of the vehicle”, “humidity outside of the vehicle”, “temperature inside of the vehicle”, and “humidity inside of the vehicle” taught to be among the data measured by the sensor 23 as taught in ¶ 14-22.)
Migneco teaches limitations from claim 9 in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, the method according to claim 1, wherein the setting data for the air conditioner include user input data, wherein the user input data are entered by the user, and the user input data include temperature settings, and/or fan settings, and/or heated seat settings, and/or heated surface settings, and/or heating and/or cooling settings (as taught in ¶ 36, the controller 22 may operate the HVAC system 21 of the vehicle 10 in a standard mode “regulating the heating, cooling, and/or ventilating effects generated by the HVAC system 21 in response to the operation of one or more manually operable control devices, such as push buttons and rotatable knobs, by the occupant of the vehicle seat” teaching the temperature settings, fan settings, and heating and cooling settings taught in claim 9. Further, as taught in ¶¶ 37-38, such operation may be followed by adjustments to these effects based on data received by the sensors 23 and 24).
Migneco teaches limitations from claim 10 in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, a control architecture (control system 20, including the controller 22 and sensors 23 and 24) for executing the method according to claim 1 (as discussed above), wherein the control architecture is designed to:
acquire the setting data for the air conditioner (HVAC system 21, this setting data acquired for example as the user inputs of the standard mode described in ¶ 36),
train the individualized comfort model for the air conditioner with the acquired data in the AI unit (the machine learning structurer taught in ¶ 38, allowing the HVAC system to operate in a predictive mode based on trends of historic input),
predict the individualized settings for the air conditioner based on the trained comfort model (as the predictive mode discussed in ¶ 38), and
determine the physiological user data (as per ¶¶ 23-31, physiological data for the operation of the control system 22 is collected by the occupant condition sensor 24) for the setting data for the user using the evaluation system (via the occupant condition sensors 24) and send the physiological user data to the AI unit (taught in ¶ 38).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4 and 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Migneco as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2022/0009307 A1 to Neveu et al.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Migneco teaches a control system (20) for an HVAC system (21) in a vehicle (10), the control system including occupant condition sensors (24) providing data to a controller (22) to control operation of the HVAC system (21) and particularly teaches in ¶ 31 that an infrared camera may be used as one or more of the occupant condition sensors (24) may be embodied as an infrared camera which may both identify an individual user based on facial features and determine “thermal comfort zoning scores”. Migneco does not teach the camera system including both an infrared camera and a non-infrared camera as taught in claim 4, or this camera system determining other physiological user parameters such as skin temperature, age, gender, size, and weight as taught in claim 5. Neveu teaches a thermal management system for a motor-vehicle passenger compartment in which data for the control of the system is gathered using a driver monitoring system (DMS) camera operating near infrared as well as an infrared camera (¶¶ 16-22) as taught in claim 4, and teaches in ¶¶ 25-29 that it is possible, form the DMS camera, to measure “physical characteristics of the passenger and notably his sex, age, height and volume. It is possible to deduce weight therefrom.” (emphasis by examiner) and in ¶ 49 that a skin temperature may be measured by the infrared camera as taught in claim 5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Migneco with the plural cameras and the range of physiological data sensed thereby in order to allow the operations of the HVAC system of Migneco to be more particularly tailored to the comfort of the user based on more and more specific inputs, thus improving user comfort and efficiency of the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Publication No. 2026/0034852 A1 to Gerret (claiming priority to a provisional application filed 3 August 2022 and thus eligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)) teaches in ¶¶ 36-39, a microclimate control system for a vehicle in which a pre-trained model updated with new data during operation and employed to analyze images from an in-car camera to derive data such as torso height, shoulder span, sex, age, and clothing worn to control a number of “thermal effectors”. Gerret teaches in ¶ 32 that these effectors may include heating or cooling devices disposed in a seat, steering wheel, shifter, floor mat, and headliner of the vehicle for close contact with the driver.
US Publication No. 2019/0382026 A1 to Mochizuki et al. teaches in ¶¶ 39 and 41 a drowsiness prevention system for a vehicle which uses an estimation model based on machine learning to estimate a psychological state of an occupant of the vehicle to use in estimating changes in the drowsiness level of the occupant. Mochizuki further teaches in ¶¶ 27 and 32 that a warning may be output to the occupant based on a detected level of drowsiness via a tactile indicator which may include an in-vehicle air conditioner which adjusts the temperature and strength of cool air as a warning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. 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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763