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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant amendments/remarks received 03/03/2026. Claims 1-2, 5-7, 11-12, 15-16 and 20 amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 11, 14-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zribi (US Patent No. 20180227141 A1).
In re claim 1, Zribi teaches A fire alarm control system (Abstract: “A fire detection device of the automation system is adapted to detect a fire condition and output an associated fire condition detected signal to the computing management system.”), comprising:
a plurality of detectors, each detector comprising a sensor and configured to generate an alarm signal based on the sensor and an alarm sensitivity (Para [0021]: “a first detection device adapted to detect a hazard condition and to output an associated hazard condition detected signal to the computing management system; and a second detection device adapted to detect the presence of an occupant in the occupiable structure and the occupant's proximity to the first detection device, and to output an occupied signal to the computing management system, and wherein the computing management system adjusts the sensitivity of the first detection device based on occupancy and proximity of the occupant to the first detection device.”);
a control panel configured to receive alarm signals from the plurality of detectors to control alarm devices (Para [0045]: “The devices 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42 and/or computing management system 44… may be inter-linked by a communications network having communication pathways 52 to establish a network of a plurality of devices 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42 and computing management system 44.”, para [0049]: “The I/O device 50 of the computing management system 44 facilitates the input and output of signals from and to any number of the devices 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42.” and para [0051]: “In operation, the safety automation system 20 may provide notification of a hazard condition associated with safety and property damage risks while the occupant or other individual is outside of the occupiable structure 22. For example, the detection device 30 may detect a hazard condition and output a hazard detected signal (see arrow 70 in FIG. 2) over pathway 52 to the computing management system 44.”); and
a control station (SEE FIG 2, User Interface Device 32) comprising a memory storing computer-executable instructions, and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the computer- executable instructions to cause the control station to (Para [0039]: “The user interface device 32 may be locally or remotely located and may generally alert the user of a detected hazard while providing additionally information with regard to the structure 22, structure occupant(s), system maintenance, and other information. Additionally the user interface device may include interactive prompts that may be selected by the user (e.g., use of a mouse and curser, touching the prompt on a touch screen environment, by issuing a voice command in a voice control I/O environment, etc.) to issue a command. Non-limiting examples of a user interface device 32 may include a computer monitor or screen (e.g., tablet, desktop and laptop), a cellular telephone, a media player (or other handheld or portable electronic device), a wrist-watch device, a pendant device, a headphone or ear-piece device, a router, an embedded system with electronic equipment and a display mounted in a kiosk or automobile, equipment that implements the functionality of two or more of these devices, and others.”):
receive an indication ofan event scheduled in a room for a period of time (SEE PARA [0076], para [0070], and Para [0052]: “For example, other information may include maintenance scheduling, results of a self-check of the system 20, device troubleshooting, location of a disabled device, and others. For example, the batteries in smoke detectors 30 may be scheduled for replacement as pre-programmed into the system 44 or as a result of a system self-check. The management system 44 may notify the user of this need via the user interface device 32 at any time.”);
generate a user interface to receive a configuration of alarm sensitivity for one or more of the plurality of detectors associated with the room (Para [0076]: “…the devices 30 may be adjusted directly or through the user interface device 32.) in response to the indication (Para [0052]: “The management system 44 may notify the user of this need via the user interface device 32 at any time.”); and
update the alarm sensitivity for the one or more of the plurality of detectors associated with the room for the period of time (Para [0076]: “With regard to adjusting the sensitivity of fire and gas detection devices 30 based on structure 22 occupancy, time of day, and/or an increase in energy usage in parts or all of the structure 22, the devices 30 may be adjusted… through the user interface device 32.”; examiner notes ‘user interface device 32’ enables adjustment of devices 30 requiring battery change at given time period.).
Method claim 11 and non-transitory computer-readable medium (CRM taught in Zribi et al. Paragraph 46) of claim 20 are rejected for the same reasons as system claim 1 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 4, Zribi teaches wherein the plurality of detectors include one or more of: a heat detector, a smoke detector, or a carbon-monoxide detector (Para [0038]: “The detection devices 30 may generally be located in or on the occupiable structure 22 and may be constructed to detect hazards including smoke, fire, toxic gases, explosive gases, temperature extremes, fast rate of temperature change, intrusion, and other conditions. Non-limiting examples of a detection device 30 may include smoke detectors (e.g., light-based, ionizing, pyroelectric, infrared, and image-sensor or camera based), detectors of carbon monoxide, methane, propane, and formaldehydes, and flame detectors, and other types.”).
Method claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as system claim 4 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 5, Zribi teaches wherein to receive the indication of the event scheduled in of the room for the period of time, the processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the control station to generate a user interface for receiving event information from a user (Para [0052]: “Yet further, the management system 44 may contact the user via the user interface device 32 with other information not initiated by a hazard detection/condition. For example, other information may include maintenance scheduling, results of a self-check of the system 20, device troubleshooting, location of a disabled device, and others.” and para [0076]: “With regard to adjusting the sensitivity of fire and gas detection devices 30 based on structure 22 occupancy, time of day, and/or an increase in energy usage in parts or all of the structure 22, the devices 30 may be adjusted directly or through the user interface device 32. Setpoints and or sensitivity levels may be stored in the computer readable storage medium 48.”).
Method claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as system claim 5 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 6, Zribi teaches wherein to receive the indication of the event scheduled in the room for the period of time, the processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the control station to:
receive an indication of the room and the period of time from a business scheduling application; and
generate the user interface to receive the configuration of alarm sensitivity in response to the indication from the business scheduling application (Para [0052]: “Yet further, the management system 44 may contact the user via the user interface device 32 with other information not initiated by a hazard detection/condition. For example, other information may include maintenance scheduling…” and para [0076]: “With regard to adjusting the sensitivity of fire and gas detection devices 30 based on structure 22 occupancy, time of day, and/or an increase in energy usage in parts or all of the structure 22, the devices 30 may be adjusted directly or through the user interface device 32. Setpoints and or sensitivity levels may be stored in the computer readable storage medium 48.”).
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 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zribi (US Patent No. 20180227141 A1), in view of Rabb (US Patent No. 20170134895 A1).
In re claim 2, Zribi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to suggest the configuration of alarm sensitivity for one or more of the plurality of detectors associated with the room based on an event category of the event.
However, Rabb teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to suggest the configuration of alarm sensitivity for one or more of the plurality of detectors associated with the room based on an event category of the event (Para [0026]: “In some embodiments, the method 100 may include analyzing the alert communication to determine an alert type. An alert type may be, for example, a security threat alert type (e.g., suspicious activity or burglary attempt in the user's neighborhood, or the like), a weather event alert type (e.g., high winds, hurricane, or the like), and/or an regional event alert type (e.g., an earthquake, spread of wildfires to neighborhoods, etc.) and changing the at least one security setting of the security system according to the determined alert type. For example, the sensitivity of one or more sensors may be changed according to the alert type. A sensitivity may be decreased, for example, when a weather-event alert type is determined (e.g., high wind alert), and may be increased, for example, when a security alert is determined (e.g., suspicious activity or burglary attempt in the user's neighborhood, or the like).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zribi to incorporate the teachings of Rabb to provide wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to suggest the configuration of alarm sensitivity for one or more of the plurality of detectors associated with the room based on an event category of the intended use with the SAFETY AUTOMATION SYSTEM of Zribi. Doing so enables changing the at least one security setting of the security system according to the determined alert type, as recognized by Rabb (Para [0026]).
Method claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as system claim 2 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
Claims 3, 10, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zribi (US Patent No. 20180227141 A1), in view of Bucsa (WO Patent No. 2017117674 A1).
In re claim 3, Zribi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to verify an access level of a user operating the user interface before updating the alarm sensitivity.
However, Bucsa teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to verify an access level of a user operating the user interface before updating the alarm sensitivity (Para [00184]: “Furthermore, although not depicted in FIG. 11, the user 32 may generate a configuration update 84 to modify the settings on one or more of the user's devices. The configuration update 84 may be forwarded to the cloud- or third-party processing device 38 (e.g., using the user's mobile device 36). The cloud- or third-party processing device 38 may validate the configuration update 84 to verify that the user 32 is authorized to make the changes in the configuration update 84. If the cloud- or third-party processing device 38 determines that the user 32 is authorized, the cloud- or third-party processing device 38 may forward the configuration update 84 to the gateway entity 20 for deployment on relevant devices.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zribi to incorporate the teachings of Bucsa to provide wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to verify an access level of a user operating the user interface before updating the alarm sensitivity with the SAFETY AUTOMATION SYSTEM of Zribi. Doing so enables validating a configuration update 84 to verify that the user 32 is authorized to make the changes in the configuration update 84, as recognized by Bucsa (Para [00184]).
Method claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as system claim 3 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 10, Zribi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the control station to revert the alarm sensitivity for the one or more of the plurality of detectors associated with the room to a default mode in response to an indication from a motion detector.
However, Bucsa teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the control station to revert the alarm sensitivity for the one or more of the plurality of detectors associated with the room to a default mode in response to an indication from a motion detector (Para [00106]: “In another example, the sensitivity or threshold for a particular outcome may be changed based on the additional information: in the above example, the presence of a person in the house as reported by the motion detector might cause the system to become less conservative in triggering a fire alarm under questionable or unclear circumstances.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zribi to incorporate the teachings of Bucsa to provide wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the control station to revert the alarm sensitivity for the one or more of the plurality of detectors associated with the room to a default mode in response to an indication from a motion detector with the SAFETY AUTOMATION SYSTEM of Zribi. Doing so enables the system to become less conservative in triggering a fire alarm under questionable or unclear circumstances, as recognized by Bucsa (Para [00106]).
Method claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as system claim 10 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zribi (US Patent No. 20180227141 A1), in view of Kenet (US Patent No. 5475364).
In re claim 7, Zribi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein to receive the indication of the event scheduled in the room for the period of time, the processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the control station to:
receive an indication of the room and the period of time from a heating, vacuuming, and air conditioning (HVAC) application; and
generate the user interface to receive the configuration of alarm sensitivity in response to the indication from the HVAC application.
However, Kenet teaches wherein to receive the indication of the event scheduled in the room for the period of time, the processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the control station to:
receive an indication of the room and the period of time from a heating, vacuuming, and air conditioning (HVAC) application; and
generate the user interface to receive the configuration of alarm sensitivity in response to the indication from the HVAC application (Abstract: “Rooms in a building each have a heating, ventilating and air conditioning system (HVAC), a room control unit having a temperature controller, and various sensors. The control unit monitors the presence of persons in the room, determines the season, sets back the temperature in an empty room by a variable amount which the HVAC can restore in a given time, and restores the temperature to the previous user request when the user returns but to a standard temperature if the user has newly checked in. An outside hallway panel briefly displays, when interrogated by a maid, a person's presence. By monitoring maid requests, door status and maid activity, the unit indicates on a room map whether the room is being cleaned, clean, or ready to rent. By establishing the heat loss/gain (l/g) factor of a room with the HVAC off and comparing it with the time to heat or cool the room, HVAC failures are determined. By comparing a room's l/g factor with those of its neighbors, room environment failures are determined. A fire alarm is displayed immediately if more than one unit or more than one sensor reports fire; otherwise a fire alarm display is delayed briefly to reduce false alarms. Fire spreading is displayed on a screen room map showing in red rooms over a certain temperature. For fire, the hallway panels indicate those rooms where a person is present.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zribi to incorporate the teachings of Bucsa to provide wherein to receive the indication of an intended use of the room for the period of time, the processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the control station to: receive an indication of the room and the period of time from a heating, vacuuming, and air conditioning (HVAC) application; and generate the user interface to receive the configuration of alarm sensitivity in response to the indication from the HVAC application with the SAFETY AUTOMATION SYSTEM of Zribi. Doing so enables determining a person's presence, as recognized by Kenet (Abstract).
Method claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as system claim 6 and system claim 7 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zribi (US Patent No. 20180227141 A1), in view of Ronk (US Patent No. 9739489).
In re claim 8, Zribi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the control station to revert the alarm sensitivity for the one or more of the plurality of detectors associated with the room to a default mode after the period of time.
However, Ronk teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the control station to revert the alarm sensitivity for the one or more of the plurality of detectors associated with the room to a default mode after the period of time (Col 9, lines 7-20: “In one embodiment, the device 10, 300 may include temperature adjustments in order for a user to set a particular temperature below which the device 10, 300 may not be configured to alarm the user. For example, if a user was cooking a stew all day at a low temperature, the device 10, 300 may be set to refrain from entering into the internal timer sequence. Likewise, time may also be adjustable. In this embodiment, the time of the first and second countdowns may be set by the user. Additionally, the time may revert back to default settings after a cooking session finishes. Thus, if a user sets the timer to 20 minutes once to slow cook a particular meal, the next time the user attempts to cook again, the slow set timer will not remain. This may prevent settings being adjusted for dangerously long times.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zribi to incorporate the teachings of Ronk to provide wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the control station to revert the alarm sensitivity for the one or more of the plurality of detectors associated with the room to a default mode after the period of time with the SAFETY AUTOMATION SYSTEM of Zribi. Doing so enables preventing settings being adjusted for dangerously long times, as recognized by Ronk (Col 9, lines 7-20).
Method claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as system claim 8 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 9, Zribi and Ronk teach all of the limitations of claim 8 stated above where Ronk further teaches wherein the alarm sensitivity for the one or more of the plurality of detectors associated with the room in the default mode is based on a time of day (Col 9, lines 7-20: “In one embodiment, the device 10, 300 may include temperature adjustments in order for a user to set a particular temperature below which the device 10, 300 may not be configured to alarm the user. For example, if a user was cooking a stew all day at a low temperature, the device 10, 300 may be set to refrain from entering into the internal timer sequence. Likewise, time may also be adjustable. In this embodiment, the time of the first and second countdowns may be set by the user. Additionally, the time may revert back to default settings after a cooking session finishes. Thus, if a user sets the timer to 20 minutes once to slow cook a particular meal, the next time the user attempts to cook again, the slow set timer will not remain. This may prevent settings being adjusted for dangerously long times.”).
Method claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as system claim 9 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
On page 7 and 8 of applicant remarks, applicant argues:
“The Office Action cites paragraphs [0070] and [0076] of Zribi as allegedly teaching an indication of an intended use. In Zribi, however, the sensitivity of the detection devices is based on occupancy, time of day, and/or a detected increase in energy usage. For example, paragraph [0021] discloses use of a detection device adapted to detect the presence of an occupant, generate an occupancy signal, and adjust the sensitivity of a first detection device based on occupancy and proximity of the occupant to the first detection device. Accordingly, the occupancy of Zribi refers to presence of a person rather than "an event scheduled in a room for a period of time." Additionally, because the occupancy of Zribi is not a scheduled event, the occupancy signal does not indicate a period of time and the system cannot adjust the alarm sensitivity for the period of time.
The additional references do not remedy the deficiencies of Zribi. For example, with respect to claim 2, the Office Action cites paragraph [0026] of Rabb regarding "suggest the configuration of alarm sensitivity for one or more of the plurality of detectors associated with the room based on an event category." The cited paragraph, however, describes changing a security setting in response to alert types such as security threat alerts, weather event alerts, and regional event alerts. Accordingly, the alerts of Rabb are in response to an occurring event rather than "an indication of an event scheduled in a room for a period of time."
* * *
“For example, claim 6 recites, in part, "receive an indication of the room and the period of time from a business scheduling application." Although the Office Action reproduces this limitation on page 6, the Office Action does not identify any teaching of this limitation in Zribi. Accordingly, the Office Action has failed to establish a prima facie rejection of claim 6. “
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown above, and reproduced here, Zribi teaches at least in para [0052]: “For example, other information may include maintenance scheduling, results of a self-check of the system 20, device troubleshooting, location of a disabled device, and others. For example, the batteries in smoke detectors 30 may be scheduled for replacement as pre-programmed into the system 44 or as a result of a system self-check. The management system 44 may notify the user of this need via the user interface device 32 at any time.”, further in para [0076]: “With regard to adjusting the sensitivity of fire and gas detection devices 30 based on structure 22 occupancy, time of day, and/or an increase in energy usage in parts or all of the structure 22, the devices 30 may be adjusted… through the user interface device 32.”—ie, ‘user interface device 32’ enables adjustment of devices 30 requiring scheduled event of battery change at given time period. Examiner notes system 44 includes ‘maintenance scheduling’, ie, a ‘business scheduling application’.
On page 8 of applicant remarks, applicant argues:
With respect to claim 7, the Office Action cites the Abstract of Kenet. The Office Action does not specifically address the limitation of "receive an indication of the room and the period of time from a heating, vacuuming, and air conditioning (HVAC) application." The Abstract of Kenet describes an HVAC system that monitors presence of persons in a room, but does not describe any scheduled events. Accordingly, Kenet also fails to teach "an indication of an event scheduled in a room for a period of time."
* * *
As another example, claim 7 recites, "receive an indication of the room and the period of time from a heating, vacuuming, and air conditioning (HVAC) application." Once again, the Office Action reproduces this limitation, but does not identify any teaching in Kenet. Although the Office Action reproduces the Abstract of Kenet for the second element of claim 7, the Abstract does not describe any indication of the room and a period of time or any alarm sensitivity. Accordingly, the Office Action has failed to establish a prima facie rejection of claim 7.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the rejection above, and reproduced here, Kenet teaches in the Abstract: “Rooms in a building each have a heating, ventilating and air conditioning system (HVAC), a room control unit having a temperature controller, and various sensors. The control unit monitors the presence of persons in the room… An outside hallway panel briefly displays, when interrogated by a maid, a person's presence. By monitoring maid requests, door status and maid activity, the unit indicates on a room map whether the room is being cleaned, clean, or ready to rent.”, ie, HVAC control unit hallway panel displays person’s presence (indication of the room), [or being cleaned for that matter], and indicates whether the room is being cleaned (period of time). Examiner notes the amended feature of ‘the event scheduled…’ was shown to be taught by Zribi as described in rejection above.
Further, examiner notes Kenet teaches at least in the Abstract: “The control unit monitors the presence of persons in the room, determines the season, sets back the temperature in an empty room by a variable amount which the HVAC can restore in a given time, and restores the temperature to the previous user request when the user returns but to a standard temperature if the user has newly checked in…”—ie, alarm sensitivity was shown to be taught in Zribi, however, Kenet teaches ‘setting back the temperature’, or ‘restoring the temperature’, given a room’s temperature setting, etc.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180061211 A1 teaches minimizing or preventing false alarms. In one case, override panels are used such as locally near or in the protected space or remotely at a security desk, for example. These override panels are used to deactivate or block the generation of a fire alarm signal in the case where the occupants or a management personnel recognizes that the fire alarm signal should not be generated. In this way, an alarm verification step is included. In another aspect, additional, contextual information is used to characterize or adjust when fire alarm signals are generated. This contextual information can be generated from sources that are not typically used in the generation of the fire alarm signal but instead are based on other sources of the information concerning the protected space.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMES EDWARD MUNION whose telephone number is (571)270-0437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/JAMES E MUNION/Examiner, Art Unit 2688 04/23/2026
/STEVEN LIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights