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 .
It is noted that the claims of 11/26/2024 read “Please enter claims 15 through 30 as follows”. However, only claims 15-28 were part of the file; as such, only claims 15-28 have been examined. Applicant must clarify the status of the claims in the next response.
Information Disclosure Statement
The two information disclosure statements filed 11/26/2024 and 11/24/2025 have been considered.
Drawings
It is noted that no drawings have been filed in the application. 37 CFR 1.81(a) reads “The applicant for a patent is required to furnish a drawing of the invention where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented.” In this case, a drawing is deemed necessary to understand the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
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 15-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 15-27 are directed to a method. Claim 28 is directed to a machine or article of manufacture.
Regarding claim 15:
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
“and subsequently via a determination unit coupled with the receiving unit, automatically determining an adjustment recommendation suitable for the manufacture of the textile product by one or more of: (i) the textile machine, (ii) the further textile machine, or (iii) at least one machine component of the textile machine or the further textile machine, the adjustment recommendation determined as a function of the input parameters and affecting one or more production parameters of the textile machine”
The limitation of determining an adjustment recommendation suitable for the manufacture of the textile product can be reasonably performed with the human mind/with pen and paper and thus falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the following limitations:
“A method for obtaining an adjustment recommendation for a textile machine for manufacturing a textile product comprising the steps of:”
“receiving input parameters via a receiving unit, wherein each of the input parameters contains at least one piece of data information about one or more of: (i) a starting material from which the textile product is manufactured; (ii) a machine type or at least one machine component of the textile machine required to manufacture the textile product; (iii) a production target of the textile machine or of a further textile machine downstream of the textile machine in a processing chain of the textile product; (iv) a type of further processing for the textile product following the manufacture of the textile product; (v) climatic data prevailing in a production hall housing the textile machine; or (vi) at least one machine component of the further textile machine upstream or downstream of the textile machine in the processing chain of the textile product;”
“via an output unit coupled to the determination unit, outputting one or more output parameters that contain data information from the adjustment recommendation;”
“changing operation of the one or more of: (i) the textile machine, (ii) the further textile machine, or (iii) at least one machine component of the textile machine or the further textile machine in accordance with the one or more output parameters.”
The limitation of a method for obtaining an adjustment recommendation for a textile machine for manufacturing a textile product describes a generic system and thus falls under mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation of receiving input parameters falls under data gathering and is thus insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation of outputting one or more output parameters falls under post-solution activity and is also thus insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation of changing operation of the one or more of the textile machine, further textile machine, or at least one machine component of the textile machine(s) falls under mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of a method for obtaining an adjustment recommendation for a textile machine, receiving input parameters, outputting one or more output parameters, and changing operation of the textile machine(s)/components represent functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner within the industry.
With regards to “A method for obtaining an adjustment recommendation for a textile machine for manufacturing a textile product comprising the steps of:”, US 20220004151 A1 to Blaser et al. (herein “Blaser”) describes “A textile mill system and associated method include a plurality of spinning mills each having textile machines. A computer system determines adapted machine parameters for the textile machines and processes within the spinning mills” (abstract). US 5161111 A to Oehler et al. (herein “Oehler”) describes “A method and an apparatus for operating a process line in a spinning mill comprising various regions” and “…in that correction values are formed from at least some of the quality features measured in the spinning preparation and spinning regions and are used to influence the operation of a textile machine of an earlier region” (abstract).
With regards to “receiving input parameters via a receiving unit, wherein each of the input parameters contains at least one piece of data information about one or more of: (i) a starting material from which the textile product is manufactured; (ii) a machine type or at least one machine component of the textile machine required to manufacture the textile product; (iii) a production target of the textile machine or of a further textile machine downstream of the textile machine in a processing chain of the textile product; (iv) a type of further processing for the textile product following the manufacture of the textile product; (v) climatic data prevailing in a production hall housing the textile machine; or (vi) at least one machine component of the further textile machine upstream or downstream of the textile machine in the processing chain of the textile product;”, Blaser describes “The computer system includes a receiving and transmitting section configured to receive operational information from the spinning mills and the textile machines” (abstract). Oehler describes “one measures at least one quality feature of the respectively produced fiber structure at at least some textile machines in each of the named regions” (abstract).
With regards to “via an output unit coupled to the determination unit, outputting one or more output parameters that contain data information from the adjustment recommendation;” Blaser describes “Preferably, the transmission section is further configured to transmit adapted machine parameters to the spinning mill and/or the textile machines” (Paragraph 42). Oehler describes “correction values are formed from at least some of the quality features measured in the spinning preparation and spinning regions and are used to influence the operation of a textile machine of an earlier region” (abstract).
With regards to “changing operation of the one or more of: (i) the textile machine, (ii) the further textile machine, or (iii) at least one machine component of the textile machine or the further textile machine in accordance with the one or more output parameters.”, Blaser describes “Preferably, the transmission section is further configured to transmit adapted machine parameters to the spinning mill and/or the textile machines” (Paragraph 42). Oehler describes “correction values are formed from at least some of the quality features measured in the spinning preparation and spinning regions and are used to influence the operation of a textile machine of an earlier region” (abstract).
In view of the foregoing, in accord with MPEP 2106.05(d), simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception does not qualify the claim as reciting “significantly more”. Therefore, the additional claimed features do not amount to significantly more and the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The limitation wherein the adjustment recommendation is read from a data storage unit or newly generated by the determination unit falls under mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 17, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The limitation wherein the automatic determination of the adjustment recommendation is performed via a database-based approach wherein the input parameters are automatically assigned to at least one of the output parameters falls under mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 18, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The limitation herein the automatic determination of the adjustment recommendation is performed via a model-based approach wherein a concrete relationship between at least one of the input parameters and at least one output parameter is defined falls under mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 19, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The limitation wherein the automatic determination of the adjustment recommendation is performed via one of a database-based or a model-based approach falls under mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation wherein prior to the automatic determination of the adjustment recommendation, a selection step for selecting the database-based or model-based approach takes place, wherein the selection is made manually by an operator or automatically based on predeterminable decision processes can be reasonably performed with the human mind/with pen and paper and thus falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 20, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The limitation wherein the automatic determination of the adjustment recommendation is performed on the basis of statistical models or on the basis of machine learning models falls under mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 21, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The limitation wherein that input parameters and the output parameters are stored in a data storage unit in a readable manner and are subsequently used continuously or intermittently to improve existing prediction models or to generate new prediction models for the automatic determination of the adjustment recommendation falls under mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 22, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The limitation wherein the production target of the textile machine or of a further textile machine relates to the textile product and is one or more of: a uniformity, a weight, a maximum productivity, a defined fineness, a defined twist, a piecing that is as similar as possible to a yarn, a defined quality target, or a splice having a defined or maximum density that is as similar as possible to the yarn falls under mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))..
Regarding claim 23, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The limitation wherein at least one of the input parameters is manually entered via an input unit coupled to the receiving unit falls under data gathering and is thus insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 24, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The limitation wherein the output parameters contain information about components of the textile machine or the further textile machine, including one or more of: specific clothings, rotors, spinnerets, drafting system components, ring traveller system, tube formats, take-off units, splicing devices, bobbin holders, weaving machine type, reed machine type, knitting machine type, or knitting needle type falls under mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 25, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The limitation wherein the output parameters contain information about one or more of: production speed, air pressure, draft, tension, or rotational speed of the textile machine, further textile machine, or machine component of the textile machine or the further textile machine falls under mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 26, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The limitation wherein the input parameters are read out from the textile machine by a read-out unit and are transmitted to the receiving unit coupled to the read-out unit falls under post-solution activity and is thus insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding claim 27, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The limitation wherein the one or more output parameters are manually entered at an input unit of the textile machine, the further textile machine, or machine component of the textile machine or the further textile machine falls under data gathering and is thus insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2105.05(g)). The limitation wherein the output parameters are subsequently transmitted to a control device of the textile machine, the further textile machine, or machine component of the textile machine falls under post-solution activity and is also thus insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding claim 28, the claim recites an abstract idea (see claim 15 analysis).
The examiner notes that amending claim 15 to more precisely recite what “changing operation” entails – such as “sending commands consisting of setpoints” – would serve to overcome the 101 rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 15-18, 20-22, 24-26, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220004151 A1 to Blaser et al. (herein "Blaser") in light of US 5161111 A to Oehler et al. (herein "Oehler").
Regarding claim 15, Blaser teaches a method for obtaining an adjustment recommendation for a textile machine for manufacturing a textile product (abstract “textile mill and associated method”) comprising the steps of:
receiving input parameters via a receiving unit (Paragraph 30 “Preferably, the computer system is further configured to receive operational information from the spinning mills and the textile machines”),
and subsequently
via a determination unit coupled with the receiving unit, automatically determining an adjustment recommendation (Paragraph 17 “Preferably, the computer system is further configured to determine adapted machine parameters”) suitable for the manufacture of the textile product by one or more of: (i) the textile machine (Paragraph 22 “the operation of the textile machines”), (ii) the further textile machine (Paragraph 22 “the operation of the textile machines”), or (iii) at least one machine component of the textile machine or the further textile machine (Paragraph 23 “specific components of the textile machines”), the adjustment recommendation determined as a function of the input parameters and affecting one or more production parameters of the textile machine (Paragraph 17 “adapted machine parameters”);
via an output unit coupled to the determination unit, outputting one or more output parameters that contain data information from the adjustment recommendation (Paragraph 42 “Preferably, the transmission section is further configured to transmit adapted machine parameters to the spinning mill and/or the textile machines”); changing operation of the one or more of: (i) the textile machine, (ii) the further textile machine, or (iii) at least one machine component of the textile machine or the further textile machine in accordance with the one or more output parameters (Paragraph 42 “Preferably, the transmission section is further configured to transmit adapted machine parameters to the spinning mill and/or the textile machines”).
Blaser does not specifically teach wherein each of the input parameters contains at least one piece of data information about one or more of:
(i) a starting material from which the textile product is manufactured;
(ii) a machine type or at least one machine component of the textile machine required to manufacture the textile product;
(iii) a production target of the textile machine or of a further textile machine downstream of the textile machine in a processing chain of the textile product;
(iv) a type of further processing for the textile product following the manufacture of the textile product;
(v) climatic data prevailing in a production hall housing the textile machine; or
(vi) at least one machine component of the further textile machine upstream or downstream of the textile machine in the processing chain of the textile product;
However, Oehler teaches wherein each of the input parameters contains at least one piece of data information about one or more of:
(i) a starting material from which the textile product is manufactured (Fig. 5 “raw material”);
(ii) a machine type or at least one machine component of the textile machine required to manufacture the textile product (Fig. 6 “ring spinning machine”, “rotor spinning machine”, “new type of spinning machines” where the type of machine is known);
(iii) a production target of the textile machine or of a further textile machine downstream of the textile machine in a processing chain of the textile product (Col. 6 lines 8-13 “FIG. 9 a tabular overview which shows quality features which are measured at individual textile machines and also control interventions which are primarily to be taken on deviations from these parameters, i.e. parameters which can be controlled when deviations from the desire values occur”) ;
(iv) a type of further processing for the textile product following the manufacture of the textile product;
(v) climatic data prevailing in a production hall housing the textile machine; or
(vi) at least one machine component of the further textile machine upstream or downstream of the textile machine in the processing chain of the textile product (Col. 5 lines 62-68, Col. 6 lines 1-12, Figs. 2-12 wherein it is apparent that the different sensor readings correspond to different components);
Blaser and Oehler are both analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of controlling textile machines. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the system of Blaser with the system of Oehler. Such a combination would merely be combining prior art elements (system for controlling textile machines that gathers data inputs, and a system that gathers specific data inputs related to textiles) according to known methods to yield predictable results, where the predictable result would be a system for controlling textile machines wherein the data inputs specifically relate to textile machines (i.e. type of raw material).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Blaser and Oehler teaches the method according to claim 15.
Blaser also teaches wherein the adjustment recommendation is read from a data storage unit (Paragraph 39 “a fourth database having stored adapted machine parameters”) or newly generated by the determination unit (Paragraph 17 “Preferably, the computer system is further configured to determine adapted machine parameters”).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Blaser and Oehler teaches the method according to claim 15.
Blaser also teaches wherein the automatic determination of the adjustment recommendation is performed via a database-based approach (Paragraph 14 “a first database”, Paragraphs 37-39 “second database”, “a third database”, “a fourth database”) wherein the input parameters are automatically assigned to at least one of the output parameters (Paragraph 35 “neural network” wherein the structure of a neural network necessitates that inputs are automatically assigned to outputs).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Blaser and Oehler teaches the method according to claim 15.
Blaser also teaches wherein the automatic determination of the adjustment recommendation is performed via a model-based approach wherein a concrete relationship between at least one of the input parameters and at least one output parameter is defined (Paragraph 35 “neural network” wherein the structure of a neural network necessitates that inputs are automatically assigned to outputs).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Blaser and Oehler teaches the method according to claim 15.
Blaser also teaches wherein the automatic determination of the adjustment recommendation is performed on the basis of statistical models or on the basis of machine learning models (Paragraph 35 “neural network”).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Blaser and Oehler teaches the method according to claim 15.
Blaser also teaches wherein that input parameters (Paragraph 14 “a first database configured to store the received operational information”) and the output parameters are stored in a data storage unit (Paragraph 39 “a fourth database having stored adapted machine parameters”) in a readable manner and are subsequently used continuously or intermittently to improve existing prediction models or to generate new prediction models for the automatic determination of the adjustment recommendation (Paragraph 15 “a processing section…uses operational information stored in the first database”, Paragraph 39 “wherein the optimizer section and preferably the neural network are further configured to determine adapted machine parameters using one or more of data stored in the second database, of data stored in the third database, and of data stored in the fourth database”).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Blaser and Oehler teaches the method according to claim 15.
Blaser also teaches wherein the production target of the textile machine or of a further textile machine relates to the textile product and is one or more of: a uniformity, a weight, a maximum productivity (Paragraph 12 “increase in production volume”), a defined fineness, a defined twist, a piecing that is as similar as possible to a yarn, a defined quality target (Paragraph 24“production quality”), or a splice having a defined or maximum density that is as similar as possible to the yarn.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Blaser and Oehler teaches the method according to claim 15.
Blaser also teaches wherein the output parameters contain information about components of the textile machine or the further textile machine (Paragraph 23 “specific components of the textile machines”).
Blaser does not specifically teach the information including one or more of: specific clothings, rotors, spinnerets, drafting system components, ring traveller system (Figs. 6 and 8-9 “ring spinning machine”,, tube formats, take-off units, splicing devices, bobbin holders, weaving machine type, reed machine type, knitting machine type, or knitting needle type.
However, Oehler teaches the information including one or more of: specific clothings, rotors, spinnerets, drafting system components, ring traveller system, tube formats, take-off units, splicing devices, bobbin holders, weaving machine type, reed machine type, knitting machine type, or knitting needle type.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Blaser and Oehler teaches the method according to claim 15.
Oehler also teaches wherein the output parameters contain information about one or more of: production speed (Figs. 7-8 “production”), air pressure, draft, tension (Fig. 9 “thread tension”), or rotational speed of the textile machine (Fig. 9 “speed of rotation”), further textile machine, or machine component of the textile machine or the further textile machine.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Blaser and Oehler teaches the method according to claim 15.
Blaser also teaches wherein the input parameters are read out from the textile machine by a read-out unit (Paragraph 30 “information from sensors and auxiliary spinning devices”) and are transmitted to the receiving unit coupled to the read-out unit (Paragraph 30 “Preferably, the computer system is further configured to receive operational information from the spinning mills and the textile machines“).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Blaser and Oehler teaches a data-based assistance system configured for performing the method according to claim 15 (see claim 15 analysis).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaser in light of Oehler, further in light of US 20200326674 A1 to Palla et al. (herein "Palla").
The combination of Blaser and Oehler teaches the method according to claim 15, wherein the automatic determination of the adjustment recommendation is performed via one of: (i) a database-based approach wherein the input parameters are automatically assigned to at least one of the output parameters or (ii) a model-based approach wherein a concrete relationship between at least one of the input parameters and at least one output parameter is defined (Paragraph 35 “neural network” wherein the structure of a neural network necessitates that inputs are automatically assigned to outputs).
The combination of Blaser and Oehler does not specifically teach and wherein prior to the automatic determination of the adjustment recommendation, a selection step for selecting the database-based or model-based approach takes place, wherein the selection is made manually by an operator or automatically based on predeterminable decision processes.
However, Palla teaches and wherein prior to the automatic determination of the adjustment recommendation, a selection step for selecting the database-based or model-based approach takes place, wherein the selection is made manually by an operator or automatically based on predeterminable decision processes (Paragraph 19 “If the model does not have a high enough quality, then the system can dynamically switch to an alternate model, or it can switch back to manual operation or preset values”).
Both Blaser and Palla are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of controlling industrial equipment. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the system of Blaser with the system of Palla. Such a combination would merely be combining prior art elements (system for controlling textile machines, and a system for controlling equipment that can choose between a database-based or model-based approach) according to known methods to yield predictable results, where the predictable result would be a system for controlling textile machines wherein the system can select between a database-based or model-based approach.
Claim(s) 23 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaser in light of Oehler, further in light of US 20170003676 A1 to Yoshida et al (herein “Yoshida”).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Blaser and Oehler teaches the method according to claim 15.
The combination of Blaser and Oehler does not specifically teach wherein at least one of the input parameters is manually entered via an input unit coupled to the receiving unit.
However, Yoshida teaches wherein at least one of the input parameters is manually entered via an input unit coupled to the receiving unit (Paragraph 36 “plant characteristic information manually inputted by the operator”).
While Yoshida does not specifically relate to manually entering input data for textile machines, Blaser teaches entering information relevant to textile machines (see claim 15 analysis). It is the examiner’s interpretation that the principle of manually entering information is applicable to any equipment in general including textile machines.
Both Blaser and Yoshida are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of controlling industrial equipment. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the system of Blaser with the system of Yoshida. Such a combination would merely be combining prior art elements (system for controlling textile machines, a system for controlling equipment that can accept manual inputs) according to known methods to yield predictable results, where the predictable result would be a system for controlling textile machines wherein the system can accept manual data inputs.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Blaser and Oehler teaches the method according to claim 15.
The combination of Blaser and Oehler does not specifically teach wherein the one or more output parameters are manually entered at an input unit of the textile machine, the further textile machine, or machine component of the textile machine or the further textile machine, and are subsequently transmitted to a control device of the textile machine, the further textile machine, or machine component of the textile machine.
However, Yoshida teaches wherein the one or more output parameters are manually entered at an input unit of the
While Yoshida does not specifically teach a textile machine, Blaser teaches the textile machine, further textile machine, or a machine component of either the textile machine or the further textile machine (see claim 15 analysis). Furthermore, it is the examiner’s interpretation that the principle of manually entering information is applicable to any equipment in general including textile machines.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM XIANG ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1276. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8:30 AM - 5 PM).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Fennema can be reached at 5712722748. 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.
/W.X.Z./ Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights