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 .
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.
Claim Status
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on 8/14/2024. Claims 1-14 are pending and considered below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“acquisition processing unit” and “output processing unit” (claim 14) are control devices such as a CPU, a ROM, and a RAM in a mobile terminal such as a tablet terminal or a smartphone, as disclosed in applicant’s specification, paragraphs [0059] and [0075-0076] (PGPub) and FIG. 1, operation terminal-20, operation control unit-21, acquisition processing unit-212, and output processing unit-213.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application and without an additional element which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 1-12, step 1 analysis, the subject matter of claims 1-12 is included in the four patent-eligible subject matter categories (e.g., process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). Claims 1-12 are directed to a method.
Claims 1-12 are directed to a judicial exception. The claim limitations recite a revised step 2A, prong one, abstract idea (a mental process involving observation and evaluation which could be performed in the human mind). Claims 1-12 are directed to a method for estimating the time required for a work vehicle to perform work in a plurality of work regions. This limitation is a simple process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claims encompass a tractor driver estimating the time required to perform work based on the work needed and the size and condition of the fields and connecting roads. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Claim 12 includes the revised step 2A, prong two, additional element of “wherein travel of the work vehicle is controlled based on the progress status”. This additional element positively recites a vehicle control function and integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 12 is not rejected based on 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-11 include the revised step 2A, prong two, additional elements of acquiring work history information and movement history information, and outputting an estimated required time. Acquiring work history information and movement history information is data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Outputting an estimated required time is insignificant post-solution activity. Claims 1-11 do not recite revised step 2A, prong two, additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1-11 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (work vehicles).
Claims 1-11 do not include any step 2B additional elements. Therefore, claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 13, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the work management program is software per se.
Further, claim 13 is directed to a judicial exception. The claim limitations recite a revised step 2A, prong one, abstract idea (a mental process involving observation and evaluation which could be performed in the human mind). Claim 13 is directed to a program for estimating the time required for a work vehicle to perform work in a plurality of work regions. This limitation is a simple process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a tractor driver estimating the time required to perform work based on the work needed and the size and condition of the fields and connecting roads. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Claim 13 includes the revised step 2A, prong two, additional elements of acquiring work history information and movement history information, and outputting an estimated required time. Acquiring work history information and movement history information is data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Outputting an estimated required time is insignificant post-solution activity. Claim 13 does not recite revised step 2A, prong two, additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 13 generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (work vehicles).
Claim 13 includes the step 2B additional element of a work management program. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the work management program is anything other than a conventional computer program. Acquiring information and outputting a calculated result are well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed using a generic computer program. Computer programs are widely prevalent and in common use in work vehicles. A computer program is not significantly more than the judicial exception since it is a well-understood, routine and conventional feature previously known to the work vehicle industry. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 14, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The work management system comprises an acquisition processing unit and an output processing unit. The acquisition processing unit and output processing unit are control devices such as a CPU, a ROM, and a RAM in a mobile terminal such as a tablet terminal or a smartphone, as disclosed in applicant’s specification, paragraphs [0059] and [0075-0076]. Paragraph [0075] of applicant’s specification states that the RAM is a volatile or non-volatile storage unit that stores various types of information, and is used as a temporary storage memory for various types of processing performed by the CPU. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the work management system includes a signal per se.
Further, claim 14 is directed to a judicial exception. The claim limitations recite a revised step 2A, prong one, abstract idea (a mental process involving observation and evaluation which could be performed in the human mind). Claim 14 is directed to a system for estimating the time required for a work vehicle to perform work in a plurality of work regions. This limitation is a simple process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a tractor driver estimating the time required to perform work based on the work needed and the size and condition of the fields and connecting roads. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Claim 14 includes the revised step 2A, prong two, additional elements of acquiring work history information and movement history information, and outputting an estimated required time. Acquiring work history information and movement history information is data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Outputting an estimated required time is insignificant post-solution activity. Claim 14 does not recite revised step 2A, prong two, additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 14 generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (work vehicles).
Claim 14 includes the step 2B additional elements of an acquisition processing unit and an output processing unit. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the work management system is anything other than conventional control devices. Acquiring information and outputting a calculated result are well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed using generic control devices. Control devices are widely prevalent and in common use in work vehicles. Control devices are not significantly more than the judicial exception since they are well-understood, routine and conventional features previously known to the work vehicle industry. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
See, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, which is available on the USPTO Website.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 8 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (U.S. Patent Number 10,201,121, hereinafter Wilson) in view of Anderson (US-2014/0257911-A1, hereinafter Anderson).
Regarding claim 1, Wilson discloses:
acquiring work history information on work performed by a work vehicle in each of a plurality of work regions (col. 9, lines 45-55; col. 10, lines 42-67; and FIG. 10, field-170, right side of the display-171, large rectangular area-176, and terrace-178);
outputting, based on the work history information (col. 4, line 21 - col. 5, line 50; and FIG. 1, combine-12, monitor-14, mobile devices-15,28,34,38, tractor-24, grain wagon-26, grain auger-32, cloud server-42, and database-44); and
an estimated required time that is required for the work vehicle to perform work in the plurality of work regions (col. 2, lines 32-48).
Wilson does not disclose displaying movement history based on work vehicle movement along roads connecting fields. However, Anderson discloses a method for scheduling refueling of a work machine, including the following features:
movement history information on movement performed in the work by the work vehicle on one or more connecting roads that connect the plurality of work regions (paragraphs [0046], [0062], [0065] and [0067]; and FIG. 5, refueling planner-102, work machine-110, refueling machine-120, environment-500, work area-502, work path-504, access roads-506, highway-508, central data facility-510, and ridge-520); and
the movement history information (paragraphs [0026-0028]; and FIG. 2, refueling planner-102, user interface-214, and data storage device-216).
Anderson teaches that a refueling planner should project a time of arrival at a refueling location based on historical records, and field and road conditions (paragraphs [0046] and [0067-0069]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the estimated required time for work vehicle movement along roads connecting fields of Anderson into the estimated required time for work vehicle completion of agricultural operations in fields of Wilson. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of obtaining an estimation of the time required to perform an agricultural operation which considers both time in the fields and time on the roads.
Regarding claim 2, Wilson does not disclose displaying movement history based on work vehicle movement along roads connecting fields. However, Anderson further discloses:
wherein an estimated total work time that is required for the work vehicle to perform work in the plurality of work regions and an estimated total movement time that is required for the work vehicle to move on the one or more connecting roads are displayed as the estimated required time on an operation terminal (paragraphs [0026-0028]).
Anderson teaches that refueling times and locations should be displayed on a user interface of a refueling planner (paragraphs [0026-0028]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the display based on the estimated required time for work vehicle movement along roads connecting fields of Anderson into the display based on the estimated required time for work vehicle completion of agricultural operations in fields of Wilson. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of displaying an estimation of the time required to perform an agricultural operation which considers both time in the fields and time on the roads.
Regarding claim 3, Wilson does not disclose displaying movement history based on work vehicle movement along roads connecting fields. However, Anderson further discloses:
wherein an estimated work time for each of the plurality of work regions and an estimated movement time for each of the one or more connecting roads are displayed as the estimated required time on an operation terminal (paragraphs [0026-0028]).
Anderson teaches that refueling times and locations should be displayed on a user interface of a refueling planner (paragraphs [0026-0028]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the display based on the estimated required time for work vehicle movement along roads connecting fields of Anderson into the display based on the estimated required time for work vehicle completion of agricultural operations in fields of Wilson. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of displaying an estimation of the time required to perform an agricultural operation which considers both time in the fields and time on the roads.
Regarding claim 8, Wilson further discloses:
wherein when an operation of selecting the plurality of work regions is received from a user (col. 10, line 42 - col. 12, line 38).
Wilson does not disclose displaying movement history based on work vehicle movement along roads connecting fields. However, Anderson further discloses:
a work plan that includes the estimated work time for each of the plurality of work regions and the estimated movement time for each of the one or more connecting roads is created and displayed on the operation terminal (paragraphs [0026-0028]).
Anderson teaches that refueling times and locations should be displayed on a user interface of a refueling planner (paragraphs [0026-0028]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the display based on the estimated required time for work vehicle movement along roads connecting fields of Anderson into the display based on the estimated required time for work vehicle completion of agricultural operations in fields of Wilson. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of displaying an estimation of the time required to perform an agricultural operation which considers both time in the fields and time on the roads.
Regarding claim 13, Wilson further discloses:
A work management program for causing one or more processors (col. 4, lines 28-36; and col. 11, lines 1-19);
to acquire work history information on work performed by a work vehicle in each of a plurality of work regions (col. 9, lines 45-55; col. 10, lines 42-67; and FIG. 10, field-170, right side of the display-171, large rectangular area-176, and terrace-178);
to output, based on the work history information (col. 4, line 21 - col. 5, line 50; and FIG. 1, combine-12, monitor-14, mobile devices-15,28,34,38, tractor-24, grain wagon-26, grain auger-32, cloud server-42, and database-44); and
an estimated required time that is required for the work vehicle to perform work in the plurality of work regions (col. 2, lines 32-48).
Wilson does not disclose displaying movement history based on work vehicle movement along roads connecting fields. However, Anderson further discloses:
movement history information on movement performed by the work vehicle on one or more connecting roads that connect the plurality of work regions (paragraphs [0046], [0062], [0065] and [0067]; and FIG. 5, refueling planner-102, work machine-110, refueling machine-120, environment-500, work area-502, work path-504, access roads-506, highway-508, central data facility-510, and ridge-520); and
the movement history information (paragraphs [0026-0028]; and FIG. 2, refueling planner-102, user interface-214, and data storage device-216).
Anderson teaches that a refueling planner should project a time of arrival at a refueling location based on historical records, and field and road conditions (paragraphs [0046] and [0067-0069]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the estimated required time for work vehicle movement along roads connecting fields of Anderson into the estimated required time for work vehicle completion of agricultural operations in fields of Wilson. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of obtaining an estimation of the time required to perform an agricultural operation which considers both time in the fields and time on the roads.
Regarding claim 14, Wilson further discloses:
A work management system comprising: (col. 4, lines 28-36; and col. 11, lines 1-19);
an acquisition processing unit that acquires work history information on work performed by a work vehicle in each of a plurality of work regions (col. 9, lines 45-55; col. 10, lines 42-67; and FIG. 10, field-170, right side of the display-171, large rectangular area-176, and terrace-178);
an output processing unit that outputs, based on the work history information (col. 4, line 21 - col. 5, line 50; and FIG. 1, combine-12, monitor-14, mobile devices-15,28,34,38, tractor-24, grain wagon-26, grain auger-32, cloud server-42, and database-44); and
an estimated required time that is required for the work vehicle to perform work in the plurality of work regions (col. 2, lines 32-48).
Wilson does not disclose displaying movement history based on work vehicle movement along roads connecting fields. However, Anderson further discloses:
movement history information on movement performed by the work vehicle on one or more connecting roads that connect the plurality of work regions (paragraphs [0046], [0062], [0065] and [0067]; and FIG. 5, refueling planner-102, work machine-110, refueling machine-120, environment-500, work area-502, work path-504, access roads-506, highway-508, central data facility-510, and ridge-520); and
the movement history information (paragraphs [0026-0028]; and FIG. 2, refueling planner-102, user interface-214, and data storage device-216).
Anderson teaches that a refueling planner should project a time of arrival at a refueling location based on historical records, and field and road conditions (paragraphs [0046] and [0067-0069]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the estimated required time for work vehicle movement along roads connecting fields of Anderson into the estimated required time for work vehicle completion of agricultural operations in fields of Wilson. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of obtaining an estimation of the time required to perform an agricultural operation which considers both time in the fields and time on the roads.
Claims 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson in view of Anderson, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kreider et al. (US-2020/0084955-A1, hereinafter Kreider).
Regarding claim 9, Wilson in view of Anderson does not disclose displaying progress status of a work plan. However, Kreider discloses a system in which tractor progress and status are displayed on a smart device, including the following features:
wherein when work is performed according to the work plan by the work vehicle, progress information that indicates a progress status with respect to the estimated required time is output (paragraphs [0007] and [0021]; and FIG. 1, tractor-101, smart device-106, operator-109, and display and input device-112).
Kreider teaches that a tractor operator should use a smart device to plan a route for a tractor through a field (paragraph [0017]). Kreider further teaches that the progress and status of the tractor should be displayed on the smart device (paragraph [0007]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tractor progress display of Kreider into the display based on the estimated required time for work vehicle completion of agricultural operations in fields of Wilson in view of Anderson. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of updating an operator on the progress of an agricultural operation.
Regarding claim 10, Wilson further discloses:
wherein when an operation of setting a desired required time for the work plan is received from a user (col. 2, lines 32-48; and col. 10, line 42 - col. 12, line 38).
Wilson in view of Anderson does not disclose displaying progress status of a work plan. However, Kreider further discloses:
work is performed according to the work plan by the work vehicle, progress information that indicates a progress status with respect to the desired required time is output (paragraphs [0007] and [0021]; and FIG. 1, tractor-101, smart device-106, operator-109, and display and input device-112).
Kreider teaches that a tractor operator should use a smart device to plan a route for a tractor through a field (paragraph [0017]). Kreider further teaches that the progress and status of the tractor should be displayed on the smart device (paragraph [0007]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tractor progress display of Kreider into the display based on the estimated required time for work vehicle completion of agricultural operations in fields of Wilson in view of Anderson. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of updating an operator on the progress of an agricultural operation.
Regarding claim 12, Wilson in view of Anderson does not disclose displaying progress status of a work plan. However, Kreider further discloses:
wherein travel of the work vehicle is controlled based on the progress status (paragraphs [0016] and [0023-0026]; FIG. 1, tractor-101, steering actuator-102, steering computer-103, and steering controller-104; and FIG. 2, Waypoint queue empty? - 204, Steering computer ready for next batch? - 205, Next waypoints assembled into batch-206, Batch transmitted to steering computer-207, Last waypoint reached? - 208, and Done-209).
Kreider teaches that a steering controller controls a tractor based on progress in reaching waypoints (paragraphs [0023-0026]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tractor progress display of Kreider into the display based on the estimated required time for work vehicle completion of agricultural operations in fields of Wilson in view of Anderson. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of updating an operator on the progress of an agricultural operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kubota et al. (US-2024/0172577-A1) discloses a control system for a self-driving work vehicle (Abstract). FIG. 14 shows the work vehicle moving to a preparation site. FIG. 15 shows the work vehicle moving to a field after the preparation work is completed. FIG. 16 shows the work vehicle performing agricultural work in fields.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA L WEBER whose telephone number is (303)297-4249. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 MTN.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 3134464821. 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.
TAMARA L. WEBER
Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/TAMARA L WEBER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667