DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendments filed on February 24, 2026. Claims 1-16 are currently pending, with Claims 11-13 being amended.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments, filed February 24, 2026, the Examiner withdraws the previous objections to the drawings, withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections, and maintains the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 24, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the multi-directional sensor having a plurality of radial zones (see pages 12-13 of instant arguments), the Examiner is unpersuaded. Bushman teaches that the sensors located on the robot may receive signals from a distance to the sides and rear of the robot, which indicate radial coverage and distance values in zones around the robot, and the robot uses the receivers and omnidirectional sensors such that the fields of view of the receivers overlap for full perimeter detection, to sense obstacles at the outer zone in all directions around the robot (see at least Paragraphs [0046], [0094], [0096], Figure 7 of Bushman). In other words, Bushman teaches that the robot can utilize the zones around the robot to detect obstacles at certain distances. As such, the Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addresses above and/or below and are unpersuasive for essentially the same reasons. Therefore, the corresponding rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0001311 A1, to Bushman, et al (hereinafter referred to as Bushman; previously of record).
As per Claim 1, Bushman discloses the features of a robot configured for cleaning (e.g. Paragraph [0031]; where the wheel modules can propel the robot across the floor during a cleaning routine), the robot comprising:
a body (e.g. Paragraph [0031]; Figure 1A; where the robot (1000 has a robot body (100)) comprising
a chassis (e.g. Paragraph [0031]; Figure 1A; where the robot (100) has a chassis as part of the robot body (110) which supports the drive structure) and
an outer perimeter (e.g. Paragraph [0046]; Figure 1A; where the robot (100) has edges to define the robot body (see reference numbers 101, 103, 112, 114 which define the body of the robot));
a motor configured to move the robot within an environment (e.g. Paragraph [0033]; where the wheels have drive motors for driving the wheels (124a, 124b) to drive the robot in the forward or reverse directions);
a multi-directional sensor comprising a plurality of radial zones, wherein each radial zone defines direction relative to the robot (e.g. Paragraphs [0046], [0094]; where the robot (100) comprises an omnidirectional sensor to detect 360 degrees around the robot (i.e. multidirectional));
a processor communicatively coupled to the multi-directional sensor; a computer memory communicatively coupled to the processor; and computing instructions stored on the computer memory (e.g. Paragraphs [0080], [0094]; Figures 4B; 7; where the plurality of receivers are disposed around the robot to provide full perimeter detection, and where each receiver has a detection zone, which overlaps other detection zones to provide perimeter detection) and configured, when executed by the processor, to cause the processor to:
receive sensor data from the multi-directional sensor when at least a portion of the outer perimeter of the body of the robot contacts an object in the environment (e.g. Paragraphs [0038], [0089]; Figure 6; where the sensor system (500) includes obstacle detection and contact sensors, and the robot determines if an object is detected, and if contact with the object has been sensed by the bumper), and,
actuate the motor based on the sensor data to cause the robot to alter its course (e.g. Paragraph [0089]; Figure 6; where when contact is detected, the robot executes a maneuvering behavior to avoid the obstacle).
As per Claim 7, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 1, and Bushman further discloses the features of wherein the plurality of radial zones are configurable to have a specified number of radial zones (e.g. Paragraphs [0080], [0094]; Figures 4B; 7; where the plurality of receivers are disposed around the robot to provide full perimeter detection, and where each receiver has a detection zone, which overlaps other detection zones to provide perimeter detection).
As per Claim 8, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 1, and Bushman further discloses the features of wherein the plurality of radial zones comprises at least two radial zones (e.g. Paragraphs [0080], [0094]; Figures 4B; 7; where the plurality of receivers are disposed around the robot to provide full perimeter detection, and where each receiver has a detection zone, which overlaps other detection zones to provide perimeter detection).
As per Claim 9, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 1, and Bushman further discloses the features of further comprising:
a second multi-directional sensor (e.g. Paragraphs [0044], [0046], [0094]; where the robot (100) comprises an omnidirectional sensor to detect 360 degrees around the robot (i.e. multidirectional); and where the robot includes an array of sensors), wherein
each of the second multi-directional sensor and the multi-directional sensor are coupled to at least a portion of the outer perimeter via a multi-axis sensor actuator (e.g. Paragraphs [0031], [0081], [0089]; where the forward portion (112) of the robot body (110) carries a bumper (130), which detects (e.g., via one or more sensors) obstacles in a drive path of the robot (100)), and wherein the computing instructions are further configured, when executed by the processor, to cause the processor to:
receive second sensor data from the second multi-directional sensor when at least a portion of the outer perimeter of the body of the robot contacts the object in the environment (e.g. Paragraphs [0038], [0089]; Figure 6; where the sensor system (500) includes obstacle detection and contact sensors, and the robot determines if an object is detected, and if contact with the object has been sensed by the bumper), and
actuate the motor further based on the second sensor data to cause the robot to alter its course (e.g. Paragraph [0089]; Figure 6; where when contact is detected, the robot executes a maneuvering behavior to avoid the obstacle).
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.
Claims 2-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0001311 A1, to Bushman, et al (hereinafter referred to as Bushman; previously of record), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0299503 A1, to Wolfe, et al (hereinafter referred to as Wolfe; previously of record).
As per Claim 2, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 1, but Bushman fails to disclose every feature of wherein the multi-directional sensor comprises: an analog sensor; a joystick sensor; a magnetic field sensor; or a potentiometer.
However, Wolfe, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a wall following robot, where the robot includes magnetic field sensors (e.g. Paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, with the feature of using various sensors in the system of Wolfe, in order to increase the sensitivity of the robot’s bumpers, and more closely follow into corners to clean (see at least Paragraph [0101] of Wolfe).
As per Claim 3, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 1, but Bushman fails to disclose every feature of the multi-directional sensor is a magnetic field sensor, and wherein one or more magnets are positioned on the outer perimeter of the robot to provide magnetic signals, and wherein the magnetic field sensor generates the sensor data based on the magnetic signals.
However, Wolfe, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a wall following robot, where the robot includes magnetic field sensors, where magnets are mounted on the edges of the vehicle; and where the sensor can return an analog voltage signal in response to the magnetic field, and determine a relative position of the magnet (i.e. generates sensor data) (e.g. Paragraphs [0059]-[0060], [0063]; Figure 1F;).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, with the feature of using magnetic sensors in the system of Wolfe, in order to increase the sensitivity of the robot’s bumpers, and more closely follow into corners to clean (see at least Paragraph [0101] of Wolfe).
As per Claim 4, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 1, but Bushman fails to disclose every feature of the multi-directional sensor is a magnetic field sensor, and wherein one or more magnets are positioned on a surface of the robot to provide magnetic signals, and wherein the magnetic field sensor generates the sensor data based on the magnetic signals.
However, Wolfe, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a wall following robot, where the robot includes magnetic field sensors, where magnets are mounted on a surface of the robot; and where the sensor can return an analog voltage signal in response to the magnetic field, and determine a relative position of the magnet (i.e. generates sensor data) (e.g. Paragraphs [0059]-[0060], [0063]; Figure 1F).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, with the feature of using magnetic sensors in the system of Wolfe, in order to increase the sensitivity of the robot’s bumpers, and more closely follow into corners to clean (see at least Paragraph [0101] of Wolfe).
As per Claim 11, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 9, and Bushman further discloses the features of wherein the multi-axis sensor actuator is a dampening structure (e.g. Paragraphs [0031], [0081], [0089]; where the forward portion (112) of the robot body (110) carries a bumper (130), which detects (e.g., via one or more sensors) obstacles in a drive path of the robot (100)).
Bushman fails to disclose every feature of wherein the dampening structure is coupled to the multi-directional sensor and the second multi-directional sensor and moves the multi-directional sensor and/or the second multi-directional sensor when a force is applied to the multi-axis sensor actuator.
However, Wolfe, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a wall following robot, where the bumper sensor assemblies (112L, 112R) provide an analog signal that is linear with respect to a force on the bumper (110), and where forces are exerted on the bumper (110) to cause the bumper to move (e.g., be depressed) relative to the robot body (110) (e.g. Paragraphs [0049], [0059], [0067]; Figure 1F).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, with the feature of using various sensors in the system of Wolfe, in order to increase the sensitivity of the robot’s bumpers when detecting an applied force (see at least Paragraph [0101] of Wolfe).
As per Claim 12, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 9, but Bushman fails to disclose every feature of wherein the multi-axis sensor actuator applies a first actuation force to the multi-directional sensor and/or a second actuation force to the second multi-directional sensor.
However, Wolfe, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a wall following robot, where the bumper sensor assemblies (112L, 112R) provide an analog signal that is linear with respect to a force on the bumper (110), and where forces are exerted on the bumper (110) to cause the bumper to move (e.g., be depressed) relative to the robot body (110) (e.g. Paragraphs [0049], [0059], [0067]; Figure 1F).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, with the feature of using various sensors in the system of Wolfe, in order to increase the sensitivity of the robot’s bumpers when detecting an applied force (see at least Paragraph [0101] of Wolfe).
As per Claim 13, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 9, but Bushman fails to disclose every feature of wherein the multi-axis sensor actuator is limited to one or more directions and/or one or more distances of travel within or with respect to the body of the robot to prevent actuating at least one of the multi-directional sensor or the second multi- directional sensor to a fully actuated position.
However, Wolfe, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a wall following robot, where the linear sensor provides a signal that varies with the extent of bumper compression, based on if the bumper is fully compressed, not compressed, or half-way compressed (i.e. the bumper has limited range of motion and direction) (e.g. Paragraphs [0050], [0111]-[0112]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, with the feature of limiting the direction of the actuator in the system of Wolfe, in order to maintain the position of the bumper while in contact with the wall (see at least Paragraph [0011] of Wolfe).
As per Claim 14, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 9, but Bushman fails to disclose every feature of wherein the multi-axis sensor actuator is configured to be deformed in a shape, wherein deformation of the shape creates a change in sensor data output by at least one of the multi-directional sensor or the second multi-directional sensor.
However, Wolfe, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a wall following robot, where forces are exerted on the bumper (110) to cause the bumper to move (e.g., be depressed) relative to the robot body (110) ; where the linear sensor provides a signal that varies with the extent of bumper compression, based on if the bumper is fully compressed, not compressed, or half-way compressed (e.g. Paragraphs [0050], [0111]-[0112]; Figure 1F).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, with the feature of deforming the actuator in the system of Wolfe, in order to better control the robot and improve navigation (see at least Paragraph [0021] of Wolfe).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0001311 A1, to Bushman, et al (hereinafter referred to as Bushman; previously of record), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0225580 A1, to Jang (hereinafter referred to as Jang; previously of record).
As per Claim 5, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 1, but Bushman fails to disclose every feature of wherein the multi-directional sensor is a time-of-flight sensor.
However, Jang, in a similar field of endeavor, a robot cleaner and robot control method, where the sensor (120) may include a Lidar, for detecting an obstacle based on time-of-flight (TOF) of a transmission signal and reception signal or a phase difference between the two (e.g. Paragraphs [0053], [0100]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, with the feature of using a time-of-flight sensor in the system of Jang, in order to increase efficiency of the robot when operating in real-time and increase accuracy of the detection (see at least Paragraphs [0007], [0100] of Jang).
As per Claim 6, Bushman, in view of Jang, teaches the features of Claim 5, and Jang further teaches the features of wherein the sensor data comprises three-dimensional sensor data of one or more interior surfaces of the body of the robot, and wherein the 3D sensor data defines a distance of the one or more interior surfaces of the body of the robot with respect to the ToF sensor.
However, Jang, in a similar field of endeavor, a robot cleaner and robot control method, where the sensor may be a three-dimensional camera sensor for generating three-dimensional coordinate information relating to the surrounding of the main body, and where the sensor (120) may include a Lidar, for detecting an obstacle based on time-of-flight (TOF) of a transmission signal and reception signal or a phase difference between the two and Lidar sensor may detect a distance between the sensor on the robot and an object (e.g. Paragraphs [0054], [0084], [0099]-[0100]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, with the feature of using a time-of-flight sensor in the system of Jang, in order to increase efficiency of the robot when operating in real-time and increase accuracy of the detection (see at least Paragraphs [0007], [0100] of Jang).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0001311 A1, to Bushman, et al (hereinafter referred to as Bushman; previously of record), in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,505,140, to Fay, et al (hereinafter referred to as Fay; previously of record).
As per Claim 10, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 9, but Bushman fails to disclose every feature of wherein the multi-axis sensor actuator is configured actuate the sensor and the second sensor independently.
However, Fay, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches contact sensors for a mobile robot, where the bumper includes a bumper sensor associated with the corner of the robot, and the bumper comprises multiple segments, which can move somewhat independently from each other in response to applied force (e.g. Col. 10 lines 27-29; Col. 18 lines 28-43; Figures 2, 8A).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, with the feature of actuating the sensors separately in the system of Fay, in order to more accurately detect forces on each of the bumper segments (see at least Col. 19 lines 13-17 of Fay).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0001311 A1, to Bushman, et al (hereinafter referred to as Bushman; previously of record), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0234492 A1, to Svendsen, et al (hereinafter referred to as Svendsen; previously of record).
As per Claim 15, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 9, but Bushman fails to disclose every feature of wherein the multi-axis sensor actuator, the multi- directional sensor, and the second multi-directional sensor comprise a synthetic sensor, and wherein computing instructions stored on the computer memory, when executed by the processor, are further configured to cause the processor to: generate synthetic sensor data based on the sensor data of the multi-directional sensor and the second sensor data of the second multi-directional sensor.
However, Svendsen, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for determining coverage of a robot, where actual physical sensors may be represented in the architecture by “virtual” sensors synthesized from the conditioning and drivers, or from detectable or interpreted physical properties, proprioceptive or interpreted upon the robot (100), such as over-current of a motor, stasis or stuck condition of the robot (by monitoring a lack of odometry reading from a wheel encoder or counter), battery charge state via coulometry, and other virtual sensors (e.g. Paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, with the feature of synthesizing the data in the system of Svendsen, in order to more predictably collect and process data for the robot’s understanding of its environment (see at Paragraph [0058] of Svendsen).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0001311 A1, to Bushman, et al (hereinafter referred to as Bushman; previously of record), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0234492 A1, to Svendsen, et al (hereinafter referred to as Svendsen; previously of record), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,505,140, to Fay, et al (hereinafter referred to as Fay; previously of record).
As per Claim 16, Bushman, in view of Svendsen, teaches the features of Claim 15, but Bushman fails to disclose every feature of wherein the synthetic sensor data comprises data computed using each of the sensor data and the second sensor data, wherein the sensor data and the second sensor data differ based on at least one of: direction or magnitude.
However, Svendsen, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the features of wherein the synthetic sensor data comprises data computed using each of the sensor data and the second sensor data.
Svendsen teaches a method for determining coverage of a robot, where actual physical sensors may be represented in the architecture by “virtual” sensors synthesized from the conditioning and drivers, or from detectable or interpreted physical properties, proprioceptive or interpreted upon the robot (100), such as over-current of a motor, stasis or stuck condition of the robot (by monitoring a lack of odometry reading from a wheel encoder or counter), battery charge state via coulometry, and other virtual sensors (e.g. Paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, with the feature of synthesizing the data in the system of Svendsen, in order to more predictably collect and process data for the robot’s understanding of its environment (see at Paragraph [0058] of Svendsen).
Fay further teaches the features of wherein the sensor data and the second sensor data differ based on at least one of: direction or magnitude.
Fay teaches contact sensors for a mobile robot, where the bumper includes a bumper sensor associated with the corner of the robot, and the bumper comprises multiple segments, which can move somewhat independently from each other in response to applied force; and where the controller determines the attribute of the contact by comparing electrical signals received from the bumper sensors, including the strength of the electrical signal, a location of the contact, and a magnitude of force for each bumper section that is in contact with an obstacle (i.e. sensor data is different in direction or magnitude for each bumper segment) (e.g. Col. 13 lines 20-35; Col. 14 lines 36-43; Col. 18 lines 27-43; Figures 2, 8A).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, in view of Svendsen, with the feature of determining a difference in signal strength in the system of Fay, in order to more accurately detect forces on each of the bumper segments (see at least Col. 19 lines 13-17 of Fay).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERRITT LEVY whose telephone number is (571)270-5595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0630-1600.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/MERRITT LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights