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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a controller that controls movement of a carrier: wherein the controller comprises:
a facility status updating unit that updates a status of the plurality of inspection facilities;
a node recursive search unit that searches for nodes composed of connections between the plurality of coils, and updates information obtained from a search start point to a reachable inspection facility; and
a weight determination unit that selects an inspection facility to which the carrier will move based on a facility status updated by the facility status update unit and information updated by the node recursive search unit. in claim 1.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “a facility status updating unit that updates a status of the plurality of inspection facilities” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of updating a status of the plurality of inspection facilities is performed by “a process of securing data”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the updating. The use of the phrase “a process of securing data” is not adequate structure for performing the updating the status because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the phrase “a process of securing data” refers to accessing data and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which display structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, this claim limitation fails the written description requirement under 112(a) because the examiner has been unable to find the structural support in Applicant’s originally-filed Specification in accordance with the 112(f) claim interpretation. In other words, the specific structure for the “facility status updating unit”, as claimed, is not provided in Applicant’s Specification and this is a lack of written description under 112(a). Furthermore, the claim is rejected under 112(b) because the structural support is lacking in Applicant’s Specification, so the scope of the claim is unascertainable as it is unclear to the examiner what the structure for facility status updating unit is. This renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim limitation “a node recursive search unit that searches for nodes …, and updates information” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of searching for nodes and updating information is performed by “checking” and “obtaining”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the searching for nodes and updating information obtained from a search. The use of the terms “checking” and “obtaining” are not adequate structure for performing the searching for nodes and updating information obtained from a search because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term “checking” refers to look into the condition and the term “obtaining” refers to collecting a status, and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which display structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, this claim limitation fails the written description requirement under 112(a) because the examiner has been unable to find the structural support in Applicant’s originally-filed Specification in accordance with the 112(f) claim interpretation. In other words, the specific structure for the “node recursive search unit”, as claimed, is not provided in Applicant’s Specification and this is a lack of written description under 112(a). Furthermore, the claim is rejected under 112(b) because the structural support is lacking in Applicant’s Specification, so the scope of the claim is unascertainable as it is unclear to the examiner what the structure for node recursive search unit is. This renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim limitation “a weight determination unit that selects an inspection facility” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of selecting an inspection facility is performed by “selecting”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the selection of an inspection facility. The use of the term “selecting” is not adequate structure for performing the selection of an inspection facility because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term “selecting” refers to choosing an inspection facility, and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which display structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, this claim limitation fails the written description requirement under 112(a) because the examiner has been unable to find the structural support in Applicant’s originally-filed Specification in accordance with the 112(f) claim interpretation. In other words, the specific structure for the “weight determination unit”, as claimed, is not provided in Applicant’s Specification and this is a lack of written description under 112(a). Furthermore, the claim is rejected under 112(b) because the structural support is lacking in Applicant’s Specification, so the scope of the claim is unascertainable as it is unclear to the examiner what the structure for weight determination unit is. This renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.(Claims 11-20 are processes). Accordingly, step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 11 recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea.” Any additional elements will be analyzed under Step 2A-Prong 2 and Step 2B:
updating a status of a plurality of inspection facilities (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) Mental Processes - a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
searching for nodes composed of connections between a plurality of coils that move an inspection object placed on a carrier to the plurality of inspection facilities and updating information obtained between a search start point and a reachable inspection facility (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) Mental Processes - a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); and
selecting an inspection facility to which the carrier will move based on an updated facility status and updated information (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) Mental Processes - a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Claim 11 is directed to a series of steps for selecting an inspection facility to which a carrier will move, which are mental processes. The mere nominal recitation of inspection facilities, a plurality of coils, inspection objects, and carriers, does not take the claim out of the mental processes. Thus, Claim 11 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
The identified abstract idea of exemplary Claim 11 is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are: inspection facilities, a plurality of coils, inspection objects, and carriers, that implements the underlying abstract idea. These additional elements are broadly recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination, steps a) updating a status of a plurality of inspection facilities, b) searching for nodes and updating information obtained, and c) selecting an inspection facility to which the carrier will move based on a facility status and information, do not add significantly more to the exception because they amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 11 is ineligible.
Claim 12 recites the abstract idea of Mental Processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 13 recites the abstract idea of Mental Processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 14 recites the abstract idea of Mental Processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 15 recites the abstract idea of Mental Processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 16 recites the abstract idea of Mental Processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 17 recites the abstract idea of Mental Processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 18 recites the abstract idea of Mental Processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 19 recites the abstract idea of Mental Processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 20 recites the abstract idea of Mental Processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub 2022/0138214 “Hattabaugh”, in view of US Pat Pub 2018/0075402 “Stadie”.
As per Claims 1 and 11, Hattabaugh discloses an inspection logistics system and an inspection logistics optimization scheduling method, comprising:
a plurality of inspection facilities (Hattabaugh: [0033] The analytics system includes a data collection system for receiving real time data regarding processing at each of the plurality of object processing systems, each of the plurality of object processing systems including a programmable motion device that is programmed to process objects independent of other of the plurality of processing systems);
a linear motion system including a plurality of coils that move an inspection object disposed on a carrier to the plurality of inspection facilities (Hattabaugh: [0042] The analytics processing system 122 is also in communication with an in-feed conveyor controller 150 (that separately controls each of the in-feed conveyor speeds) as well as a destination conveyor controller 151 (that separately controls each of the destination conveyor speeds), as well as the a plurality of object processing systems 132, 134, 136, 138, each of which includes a data collection unit 142, 144, 146, 148 as well as a programmable motion device 152, 154, 156, 158.); and
a controller that controls movement of the carrier (Hattabaugh: [0042] The analytics processing system 122 is also in communication with an in-feed conveyor controller 150 (that separately controls each of the in-feed conveyor speeds) as well as a destination conveyor controller 151 (that separately controls each of the destination conveyor speeds), as well as the a plurality of object processing systems 132, 134, 136, 138, each of which includes a data collection unit 142, 144, 146, 148 as well as a programmable motion device 152, 154, 156, 158.), wherein the controller comprises:
a facility status updating unit that updates a status of the plurality of inspection facilities (Hattabaugh: [0045] At each processing station (step 1006) the system may then monitor any issues with regard to picking (step 1008), and may use motion rate detection as discussed above to monitor an down-time (starvation) at each processing station step 1010), as well as any backlogs (step 1012) at each processing station. The system may also monitor an instances of items being damaged (step 1014) as well as any issued with regard to identifying items (step 1016).);
updates information obtained from a search start point to a reachable inspection facility (Hattabaugh: [0021] a data collection system for receiving real time data regarding processing at each of the plurality of object processing systems); and
a weight determination unit that selects an inspection facility to which the carrier will move based on a facility status updated by the facility status update unit and information updated by the node recursive search unit (Hattabaugh: [0052] the reporting may involve non-metric image/video data, including for example, queryable images of products handled by the central system (returns), and queryable video of products handled by central system (returns). The reporting may also involve real-time anomaly detection, such as SKU changes involving packaging changes: graphics changes, dimensional changes, weight changes, and ganging (attaching other products together). In accordance with further aspects, the systems may provide facility insights (possibly from the WMS system or central system), and product velocity and destinations.).
Hattabaugh fails to disclose Hattabaugh discloses an inspection logistics system and an inspection logistics optimization scheduling method, comprising:
a node recursive search unit that searches for nodes composed of connections between the plurality of coils.
Stadie teaches an inspection logistics system and an inspection logistics optimization scheduling method, comprising:
a node recursive search unit that searches for nodes composed of connections between the plurality of coils (Stadie: [0208] A number of different algorithms and techniques may be used in determining a preferential path for a robot to take, including, but not limited to: branch and bound algorithms, constraint programming, local search, heuristics, graph-traversal, dynamic path learning advisor techniques, pruning techniques and Bayesian graph searching techniques, Dijikstra's algorithm, Bellman-Ford algorithm, Floyd-Warshall algorithm, Johnson's algorithm, breadth-first recursive searches and depth-first recursive searches, weighted paths, A* search algorithm, variants on A* search algorithm).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hattabaugh to include a recursive search unit as taught by Stadie, with the inspection logistics optimization as taught by Hattabaugh with the motivation of to provide deliberate container placement that may be optimized in the horizontal and the vertical domains based on different criteria such as traffic flows, frequency of access (historic, current and forecast), specific container groupings, access time, fire-resistance and or other environmental partitions (Stadie: [0011]).
As per Claims 2 and 12, Hattabaugh discloses a system and method, wherein the facility status update unit updates an operation status of the plurality of inspection facilities, and a remaining inspection process time when an inspection object is disposed in the plurality of inspection facilities (Hattabaugh: [0041]).
As per Claims 3 and 13, Hattabaugh discloses a system and method, wherein
the node recursive search unit determines status and quantity of all carriers disposed between the search start point and the reachable inspection facility (Hattabaugh: [0027]), and
calculates a movement weight between the nodes (Hattabaugh: [0027]).
As per Claims 4 and 14, Hattabaugh discloses a system and method, wherein the node recursive search unit configures a relationship between the plurality of coils as the nodes, configures a relationship between the nodes as a node list, and searches an entire section through a recursive search (Hattabaugh: [0046]).
As per Claims 5 and 15, Hattabaugh discloses a system and method, wherein the node recursive search unit checks a carrier status of a starting node in the node list, obtains a child node list of the starting node, checks a carrier status of a selected node selected in the child node list, and obtains a child node list of the selected node (Hattabaugh: [0044]).
As per Claims 6 and 16, Hattabaugh discloses a system and method, wherein the node recursive search unit skips searching for the nodes when there is no inspection object disposed on the carrier or when an inspection process of the inspection object is completed (Hattabaugh: [0043]).
As per Claims 7 and 17, Hattabaugh discloses a system and method, wherein the facility status update unit causes the carrier to stand by in a stopped state without selecting an inspection facility from the plurality of inspection facilities when the plurality of inspection facilities are unavailable (Hattabaugh: [0044]).
As per Claims 8 and 18, Hattabaugh discloses a system and method, wherein the weight determination unit imposes a weight based on a number of carriers existing between the search start point and the reachable inspection facility (Hattabaugh: [0027]).
As per Claims 9 and 19, Hattabaugh discloses a system and method, wherein the weight determination unit imposes a weight based on a remaining inspection time of the inspection object when there is an inspection object being inspected in the plurality of inspection facilities (Hattabaugh: [0027]).
As per Claims 10 and 20, Hattabaugh discloses a system and method, wherein the weight determination unit terminates a weight calculation when a carrier has stopped between the search staring point and the reachable inspection facility, when a number of carriers moving from the search starting point to the reachable inspection facility and the number of carriers present in the reachable inspection facilities exceeds a specified range, or when the reachable inspection facility is inoperable (Hattabaugh: [0027] and [044])).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REVA R MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-7942. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9:00-6:00.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/REVA R MOORE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627