DETAILED ACTION
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filled 07/21/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely solely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 6-10, 12, and 14-23 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.
Initially, the following is noted.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referring to “the danger” of importing claim limitations from the specification). See also Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating how the Federal Circuit “will not at any time” bring in claim limitations from the specification); Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (following that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims).
The claims fail to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter. Applicant appears to be attempting to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims, which as noted above is improper.
Regarding claim 1 and similarly claims 14 and 15, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “at least one sensor device of which at least one of an installation location, a number, and a configuration is changeable.” As claimed the term “a number” is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the term cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. It is unclear what “a number” refers to. Review of the specification reveals at paragraph [0069] “the standard programs include a large number of programs which are different from each other in terms of the number of radar modules 22, the version, the type of the inspection target, the type of setting of the radar modules 22, whether or not an image is generated, and the inspection accuracy; “however, the specification does not explicitly clarify if the claimed number refers to a number of programs, radar modules or individual antenna elements. It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “number.” For examination purposes “a number” will be interpreted to refer to a number of sensors.
Regarding claim 19, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “generate an image based on the sensor signal when the type information corresponds to a type with respect to which the image is to be generated.” As claimed the phrase “corresponds to a type with respect to which the image is to be generated” is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the term cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. It is unclear if the limitation indicates that the type information may include a predetermined image type or simply that an image may be generated from a particular sensor. Review of the specification reveals at paragraph [0039] “In the signal process, an image may be generated or no image may be generated. Examples of the image include information which allows the recognition of the possessed predetermined object.” It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “type information.” For examination purposes the above phrase will be interpreted to the capacity of a sensor to produce an image.
Claims 6-10, 12, and 16-23 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
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, 6-10, 14-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (US 20150127124 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi discloses
A system comprising: at least one sensor device (“A device controller 607 controls a mechanism portion 608 and a sensor group 609 of the device 230 that is a robot arm” [0151]) of which at least one of an installation location, a number, and a configuration is changeable (“an application program that controls the operation sequence of the robot arm, and various kinds of parameters to be used in these programs” [0099]); a processing device configured to receive type information (“ the portable terminal 220 acquires operation condition information of the device 230 and transmits it to the cloud server 210” [0116]) corresponding to the at least one of the installation location, the number, and the configuration (“The device descriptor 711 includes a device class, a device subclass, a vendor ID, a product ID, a serial number, and the like.” [0154]), and to transmit a program based on the type information (“ Based on the device information and the operation condition information, the cloud server selects a device driver program configured to drive the robot arm, an application program that controls the operation sequence of the robot arm, and various kinds of parameters to be used in these programs” [0099]); and a control device configured to drive the sensor device based on the program (“ the cloud server 210 activates the selected application and transmits the operation screen shown in FIG. 2A to the portable terminal 220.” [0117]), and to process a sensor signal output from the sensor device (“ During the operation of the device 230, steps S1611 to S1617 are performed again, and the cloud server 1510 acquires current operation condition information and current operation state information” [0220]).
Regarding claim 6, Kobayashi discloses
The system of claim 1, wherein the control device comprises an input device configured to input the type information (“a device is USB-connected to one of a plurality of portable terminals” [0243]).
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi discloses
The system of claim 6, wherein the input device is configured to receive the type information from the sensor device (FIG.16, Step.S313 & “The device descriptor 711 includes a device class, a device subclass, a vendor ID, a product ID, a serial number, and the like.” [0154])
Regarding claim 8, Kobayashi discloses
The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor device comprises a radar or an image recognition device (“a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) for image processing.” [0168] & “ video acquisition from the camera of the portable terminal” [0206]))
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi discloses
The system of claim 1, wherein: the processing device is configured to determine whether or not the program is appropriate based on the sensor signal generated when the control device drives the sensor device based on the program (“In step S1629, the cloud server 1510 verifies, based on the acquired current operation condition information and current operation state information, whether the selected device driver and the parameters thereof are appropriate” [0220]), and when the processing device determines that the program is not appropriate, the processing device is configured to adjust the program and transmit the adjusted program to the control device (“ If selection needs to be redone based on the result of verification, the cloud server 1510 redoes the selection by referring to the program history DB 1514 and the parameter history DB 1515 again. Note that the program reselection may be prohibited if it is necessary to simply change the order of sequence or adjust the parameters” [0220]).
Regarding claim 10, Kobayashi discloses
The system of claim 1, wherein: the processing device comprises a memory configured to store standard programs for respective types (“The program history DB 214 stores a plurality of pieces of operation condition information 815 in association with device information such as a device ID 811, a model 812 of the device, a version 813, and a capability 814. A use driver 816 and a use application 817 are stored in association with each operation condition information 815, and a user evaluation 818 input by the user is stored in correspondence with them” [0160]), and the processing device is configured to; select one of the standard programs based on the type information(“ Based on the device information and the operation condition information, the cloud server selects a device driver program configured to drive the robot arm, an application program that controls the operation sequence of the robot arm, and various kinds of parameters to be used in these programs” [0099]); determine whether or not the selected standard program is appropriate based on the sensor signal which is generated when the control device drives the sensor device based on the selected standard program(“In step S1629, the cloud server 1510 verifies, based on the acquired current operation condition information and current operation state information, whether the selected device driver and the parameters thereof are appropriate” [0220]); and adjust the selected standard program and transmit the adjusted program to the control device when the processing device determines that the selected standard program is not appropriate (“In step S2129, the cloud server 1510 stops the program and stops the device. Next, in step S2115 of the same procedure as described above, the cloud server 1510 performs program selection processing. When a new program or parameters are selected, the cloud server 1510 activates the program and resumes the device operation by the new program in step S2131” [0238])
Regarding claim 14, Kobayashi discloses
A processing device connectable to a control device for at least one sensor device (“A device controller 607 controls a mechanism portion 608 and a sensor group 609 of the device 230 that is a robot arm” [0151]) of which at least one of an installation location, a number, and a configuration is changeable (“an application program that controls the operation sequence of the robot arm, and various kinds of parameters to be used in these programs” [0099]), the control device being configured to process a sensor signal output from the sensor device (“ During the operation of the device 230, steps S1611 to S1617 are performed again, and the cloud server 1510 acquires current operation condition information and current operation state information” [0220]), and the processing device being configured to receive type information (“ the portable terminal 220 acquires operation condition information of the device 230 and transmits it to the cloud server 210” [0116]) corresponding to the at least one of the installation location, the number (“The device descriptor 711 includes a device class, a device subclass, a vendor ID, a product ID, a serial number, and the like.” [0154]), and the configuration (“ the portable terminal 220 acquires operation condition information of the device 230 and transmits it to the cloud server 210” [0116]); and transmit a program based on the type information to the control device, wherein the control device is configured to drive the sensor device based on the program (“ Based on the device information and the operation condition information, the cloud server selects a device driver program configured to drive the robot arm, an application program that controls the operation sequence of the robot arm, and various kinds of parameters to be used in these programs” [0099])
Regarding claim 15, Kobayashi discloses
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having computer program stored thereon which is executable by one or more computers for controlling (“A ROM (Read Only Memory) 920 stores initial data, permanent data of programs and the like, and programs” [0168]) a system comprising (i) at least one sensor device (“A device controller 607 controls a mechanism portion 608 and a sensor group 609 of the device 230 that is a robot arm” [0151]) of which at least one of an installation location, a number, and a configuration is changeable (“an application program that controls the operation sequence of the robot arm, and various kinds of parameters to be used in these programs” [0099]), (ii) a processing device configured to receive type information (“ the portable terminal 220 acquires operation condition information of the device 230 and transmits it to the cloud server 210” [0116]) corresponding to the at least one of the installation location, the number, and the configuration (“The device descriptor 711 includes a device class, a device subclass, a vendor ID, a product ID, a serial number, and the like.” [0154]), and to transmit a program based on the type information(“ Based on the device information and the operation condition information, the cloud server selects a device driver program configured to drive the robot arm, an application program that controls the operation sequence of the robot arm, and various kinds of parameters to be used in these programs” [0099]), and (iii) a control device configured to drive the sensor device and process a sensor signal output from the sensor devices (“ cloud server selects a device driver program configured to drive the robot arm, an application program that controls the operation sequence of the robot arm, and various kinds of parameters to be used in these programs” [0099]) the computer program being configured to cause the one or more computers to execute functions comprising: receiving type information corresponding to the at least one of the installation location, the number, and the configuration (“The device descriptor 711 includes a device class, a device subclass, a vendor ID, a product ID, a serial number, and the like.” [0154]); transmitting a program based on the type information; and driving the sensor device based on the program (“ Based on the device information and the operation condition information, the cloud server selects a device driver program configured to drive the robot arm, an application program that controls the operation sequence of the robot arm, and various kinds of parameters to be used in these programs” [0099])
Regarding claim 16, Kobayashi discloses
The system of claim 1, wherein the type information further corresponds to at least one of a version of the sensor device, a type of an object to be sensed by the sensor device, and whether or not an image is generated based on the sensor signal (“The device descriptor 711 includes a device class, a device subclass, a vendor ID, a product ID, a serial number, and the like.” [0154])
Regarding claim 18, Kobayashi discloses
The system of claim 1, further comprising a memory for storing the program (“A ROM (Read Only Memory) 920 stores initial data, permanent data of programs and the like, and programs” [0168]).
Regarding claim 19, Kobayashi discloses
The system of claim 1, wherein the control device is configured to generate an image based on the sensor signal when the type information corresponds to a type with respect to which the image is to be generated (“ a portable terminal transmits a video captured by a camera to a cloud server” [0205])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 20150127124 A1) in view of Recker(US20170223807A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kobayashi discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kobayashi does not appear to explicitly disclose where the sensors are located in a sidewall of a passage, a wall of a room, or a pole. Recker teaches in the same field of endeavor of sensor management and control systems. Recker discloses wherein, the installation location is a sidewall of a passage, a wall of a room, or a pole (“the housing 3010 is configured to be mounted on a wall of a room, stairwell, closet, attic, basement, garage, storage area, shed, hallway, stairway, emergency exit path, alley or porch, or in any other indoor or outdoor location “ [0433]).
Recker teaches in the same field of endeavor of sensor management and control systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi with the teachings of Recker to incorporate the features of installation location being a sidewall of a passage, a wall of a room, or a pole so as to gain the advantage of improving sensor coverage. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 20150127124 A1) in view of Blackmon (US 12111419 B1).
Regarding claim 17, Kobayashi discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kobayashi does not appear to disclose wherein type information further corresponds to an accuracy of the determination unit. Blackmon teaches in the same field of endeavor of object detection systems. Blackmon discloses wherein, the control device comprises a determination unit configured to determine whether an object is sensed based on the sensor signal (“the controller 22 to determine when a return at the resonant frequency is strong enough to indicate that it has been reflected from an object 12 of interest” [Col.3, ll.55-58]); and the type information further corresponds to an accuracy of the determination unit (“when a potential target is detected, the controller 22 may be configured to control the transmitter 15 to alter the shape (e.g., peak power and/or duration) of the transmitted pulses, and then analyze the returns of these altered pulses to confirm a presence of the target 12. By tailoring the shape of the pulses to the distance of the suspected target 12, a better SNR may be achieved, thereby improving the system's accuracy in confirming the target 12.” [Col.11, ll.9-16]).
Blackmon teaches in the same field of endeavor of sensor management and control systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi with the teachings of Blackmon to incorporate the features of type information further corresponding to an accuracy of the determination unit so as to gain the advantage of improving accuracy [Col.11, ll.9-16, Blackmon]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 20150127124 A1) in view of ZHANG(US 20220091227 A1)
Regarding claim 20, Kobayashi discloses
The system of claim 9, wherein: the at least one sensor device comprises two or more sensor devices (“two sensors 2381 and 2382” [0251]);
Although Kobayashi discloses the use of more than one sensor, Kobayashi does not appear to disclose altering the order of driving the two or more sensor devices. ZHANG teaches in the same field of endeavor of sensor management systems. ZHANG discloses wherein, an order of driving the two or more sensor devices by the program before adjustment differs from an order of driving the two or more sensor devices by the adjusted program (“the apparatus 1302 includes means for determining the sequence or the schedule for the group of wireless devices based at least in part on a time and a location of each wireless device (e.g., the radar transmission order component 1342)” [0119])
ZHANG teaches in the same field of endeavor of sensor management systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi with the teachings of ZHANG to incorporate the features of altering an order of driving the two or more sensor devices so as to gain the advantage of reducing sensor interference [0119, ZHANG]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 21, Kobayashi as modified by ZHANG discloses all the limitations of claim 20. Kobayashi does not appear to disclose altering the order of transmission. ZHANG teaches in the same field of endeavor of sensor management systems. ZHANG discloses wherein, the sensor devices comprise radar devices (“the radar transmission order includes a sequence or a schedule for a group of wireless devices to transmit radar signals” [0119]); and an order of transmission of an electromagnetic wave from the radar devices by the program before adjustment differs from an order of transmission of an electromagnetic wave from the radar devices by the adjusted program (“the apparatus 1302 includes means for determining the sequence or the schedule for the group of wireless devices based at least in part on a time and a location of each wireless device (e.g., the radar transmission order component 1342)” [0119])
ZHANG teaches in the same field of endeavor of sensor management systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi with the teachings of ZHANG to incorporate the features of altering an order of transmission so as to gain the advantage of reducing sensor interference [0119, ZHANG]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 20150127124 A1) in view of Keilaf (US 20200386872 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Kobayashi discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Kobayashi does not appear to disclose altering an amplification factor. Keilaf teaches in the same field of endeavor of object detection systems. Keilaf discloses wherein, an amplification factor of the sensor signal by the program before adjustment differs from an amplification factor of the sensor signal by the adjusted program (“alter an amplification parameter associated with the at least one sensor during the time of flight” [0011]).
Keilaf teaches in the same field of endeavor of object detection systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi with the teachings of Keilaf to incorporate the features of altering an amplification factor so as to gain the advantage of improving sensor sensitivity [0234, Keilaf]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 23, Kobayashi discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Kobayashi does not appear to disclose altering processing steps. Keilaf teaches in the same field of endeavor of object detection systems. Keilaf discloses wherein, a manner of processing the sensor signal by the program before adjustment differs from a manner of processing the sensor signal by the adjusted program (“The effective amplification parameter of the detector may also be affected by adjusting a gain/amplification level associated with any component in the light reception path or processing path (e.g., analog amplifiers, analog-to-digital-converters, time-to-digital-converters, digital amplifiers, etc).” [0234]).
Keilaf teaches in the same field of endeavor of object detection systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi with the teachings of Keilaf to incorporate the features of altering processing steps so as to gain the advantage of improving sensor sensitivity [0234, Keilaf]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
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 CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights