DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 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.
2. Claims 1-9 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 10/16/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 6 and 8, the term “modeling an earth” in claims 6 and 8 is unclear. Is this a different earth or the excavated earth that is claimed in claim 5? The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system.
Claim 9 is directed to a method.
Therefore, claims 1 and 9 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1 and 9 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below - bolded) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The claim limitations that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are underlined.
Claim 1 recites,
A work vehicle path plan generation system that generates a path plan in order for a work vehicle including work equipment to perform an excavation work on a ground of a construction target area, the work vehicle path plan generation system comprising:
a position detection unit configured to detect a position of the work vehicle;
an information storage unit configured to store topographic shape information indicating a shape of a topography in the construction target area, a position of the work vehicle, and design surface information indicating a target shape in the construction target area;
and a path plan generation unit configured to generate a work equipment path plan indicating a movement path of the work equipment and a travel path plan indicating a travel path of the work vehicle, based on the topographic shape information, the position of the work vehicle, and the design surface information. (A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally determine a combination of effectors in which are capable of executing services based off collected data. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.)
Claim 9 has similar mental processes as claim 1. It also showcases generating steps in which can be shown above in the analysis for claim 1.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites,
A work vehicle path plan generation system that generates a path plan in order for a work vehicle including work equipment to perform an excavation work on a ground of a construction target area, the work vehicle path plan generation system comprising:
a position detection unit configured to detect a position of the work vehicle; (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Instantly this appears to be mere data transmitting. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
an information storage unit configured to store topographic shape information indicating a shape of a topography in the construction target area, a position of the work vehicle, and design surface information indicating a target shape in the construction target area; (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Instantly this appears to be mere data transmitting. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
and a path plan generation unit configured to generate a work equipment path plan indicating a movement path of the work equipment and a travel path plan indicating a travel path of the work vehicle, based on the topographic shape information, the position of the work vehicle, and the design surface information.
Claim 9 has similar extra-solution activity steps as claim 1.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1, 10 and 15 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element discussed above, appears to be mere data gathering and transmitting of information which can be analyzed by an abstract mental process. And as discussed above, the additional limitations which are underlined above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims merely have additional steps in which are either mental processes or insignificant post solution activity. Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible. Examiner recommends adding a controlling step where the work vehicle is being controlled based on generated path plan.
Claim(s) 1-9 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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:
“position detection unit” – in claim 1
“information storage unit” – in claim 1
“path plan generation unit” – in claims 1-8
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.
The following are the interpreted corresponding structures found within the specification for some of the above limitations:
“position detection unit” – GPS
“information storage unit” – computer, CPU [0016]
“path plan generation unit” – computer, CPU [0016]
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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
11. Claims 1-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faivre (US 20200347570) in view of Li (US 20210012163).
Regarding Claim 1, Faivre discloses A work vehicle path plan generation system that generates a path plan in order for a work vehicle including work equipment to perform an excavation work on a ground of a construction target area, the work vehicle path plan generation system comprising: (Faivre, see at least [0036] wherein the control system may include a module or planning system 37 for determining or planning various aspects of the excavation plan)
a position detection unit configured to detect a position of the work vehicle; (Faivre, see at least [0020] wherein the machine position sensor may interactor with a positioning system such as a GNSS or GPS to operate as a position sensor to determine the position of the machine)
an information storage unit configured to store topographic shape information indicating a shape of a topography in the construction target area, a position of the work vehicle, and design surface information indicating a target shape in the construction target area; (Faivre, see at least [0036] wherein the planning system may receive and store various inputs such as the configuration of the work surface, the final design plane, and a desired target profile. The planning system may be operative to plan aspects of the moving plan. Also see [0029] wherein the machine position sensing system is used to determine the elevation of configuration of the work surface.)
and a path plan generation unit configured to generate a work equipment path plan indicating a movement path of the work equipment and a travel path plan indicating a travel path of the work vehicle, based on the topographic shape information, the position of the work vehicle, and the design surface information. (Faivre, see at least [0031-0032] wherein a material movement plan may include forming a plurality of spaced apart channels or slots that are cut into the work surface at the work site along a path from a first location to the dump location. The blade of the machine may engage the work surface with a series of cuts that are spaced apart and continues until the entire target surface is exposed.)
Faivre does not explicitly disclose storing a position of a work vehicle
However, Li, in which is directed to generating multiple operation patterns for a construction machine, discloses storing a position of a work vehicle (see at least [0070] wherein position information of the work shovel may be stored in the information transmitter)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Faivre with the teachings of Li to include the technique storing a position of a work vehicle, wherein this would for the generating of a path plan for work equipment. This would further improve the managing of generating an optimal travel path for a work vehicle.
Regarding Claim 2, Faivre in view of Li discloses The work vehicle path plan generation system according to Claim 1, (see rejection above)
Faivre does not explicitly disclose wherein the path plan generation unit is subjected to reinforcement learning such that an optimal travel path and an optimal movement path are generated.
However, Li discloses wherein the path plan generation unit is subjected to reinforcement learning such that an optimal travel path and an optimal movement path are generated. (Li, see at least [0106-107] wherein the reinforcement learning unit performs reinforcement learning for each operation type and each target index based on predetermined conditions. The simulator can perform a simulation of movements of each operation type.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Faivre with the teachings of Li to include the capability of performing reinforcement learning as this would allow for optimal travel paths and optimal movement paths to be generated with minimal error. This would further improve the managing of generating an optimal travel path for a work vehicle.
Regarding Claim 3, Faivre in view of Li discloses The work vehicle path plan generation system according to Claim 2, (see rejection above)
Faivre does not explicitly disclose wherein a plurality of times of simulations are performed by using at least an earth excavated by the work equipment and a parameter related to the work vehicle on the travel path to perform the reinforcement learning on the path plan generation unit.
However, Li discloses wherein a plurality of times of simulations are performed by using at least an earth excavated by the work equipment and a parameter related to the work vehicle on the travel path to perform the reinforcement learning on the path plan generation unit. (Li, see at least [0106-0110] wherein the reinforcement learning unit performs reinforcement learning for each operation type and each target index based on predetermined conditions. The simulator can perform performs simulations by generating multiple operation setting conditions by changing operation settings, excavation path, and more.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Faivre with the teachings of Li to include the capability of performing reinforcement learning and utilizing parameters related to the work vehicle as this would allow for optimal travel paths and optimal movement paths to be generated with minimal error. This would further improve the managing of generating an optimal travel path for a work vehicle.
Regarding Claim 4, Faivre in view of Li discloses The work vehicle path plan generation system according to Claim 2,
Faivre does not explicitly disclose wherein the path plan generation unit is subjected to the reinforcement learning based on a reward obtained by using at least one of an excavation earth amount and a work time in a case where the work vehicle is caused to move along the travel path.
However, Li discloses wherein the path plan generation unit is subjected to the reinforcement learning based on a reward obtained by using at least one of an excavation earth amount and a work time in a case where the work vehicle is caused to move along the travel path. (Li, see at least [0134-0136] wherein feature values relate to an arrangement can include the amount of soil for each excavation and the amount of soil for each loading. The reinforcement learning unit causes the simulator to repeatedly perform a simulation on an arrangement with a target combination and select operation patterns with higher rewards.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Faivre with the teachings of Li to include the capability of performing reinforcement learning and using rewards to allow to mimic human learning as decisions are made for optimal travel paths and optimal movement paths. This would further improve the managing of generating an optimal travel path for a work vehicle.
Regarding Claim 5, Faivre in view of Li discloses The work vehicle path plan generation system according to Claim 4, (see rejection above)
Faivre does not explicitly disclose wherein the path plan generation unit is subjected to the reinforcement learning using the excavation earth amount calculated based on a holding earth amount with the work equipment, which is based on a difference in a topography before and after the work vehicle is caused to move along the travel path to excavate the ground with the work equipment
However, Li discloses the excavation earth amount calculated based on a holding earth amount with the work equipment, which is based on a difference in a topography before and after the work vehicle is caused to move along the travel path to excavate the ground with the work equipment. (Li, see at least [0154-0156] wherein the current ground shape is known, a target ground shape is acquired and a comparison is done to output information on a difference between the current ground shape and the target ground shape.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Faivre with the teachings of Li to include the capability of performing reinforcement learning and using the difference between topography before and after work is done to allow to mimic human learning as decisions is to be made for travel paths. This would further improve the managing of generating an optimal travel path for a work vehicle.
Regarding Claim 6, Faivre in view of Li discloses The work vehicle path plan generation system according to Claim 5, (see rejection above)
Faivre does not explicitly disclose wherein the path plan generation unit is subjected to the reinforcement learning using the holding earth amount calculated by causing the work vehicle to move along the travel path and then modeling an earth held in front of the work equipment as a polygonal prism-shaped three- dimensional model.
However, Li discloses wherein the path plan generation unit is subjected to the reinforcement learning using the holding earth amount calculated by causing the work vehicle to move along the travel path and then modeling an earth held in front of the work equipment as a polygonal prism-shaped three- dimensional model. (Li, see at least Fig. 4 in which showcases the work vehicle moving along a travel path and earth being held in front of the work equipment in a shape of a prism shaped model.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Faivre with the teachings of Li to include the capability of performing reinforcement learning and utilizing a held earth amount to further enable for the AI model to learn complex decisions. This would further improve the managing of generating an optimal travel path for a work vehicle.
As per claim 9, the claim is directed towards a work vehicle path plan generation method that recites similar limitations performed by the work vehicle path plan generation system that generates a path plan of claim 1. The cited portions of Faivre and Li used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same system limitations of claim 9. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
11. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faivre (US 20200347570) in view of Li (US 20210012163) in view of Mathew (US 20210246636).
Regarding Claim 7, Faivre in view of Li discloses The work vehicle path plan generation system according to Claim 5, (see rejection above)
Faivre does not explicitly disclose wherein the path plan generation unit is subjected to the reinforcement learning using the excavation earth amount calculated based on an earth amount of wavy windrows protruding on both sides of the work equipment in a case where the work vehicle is caused to move along the travel path.
However, Mathew discloses wherein the path plan generation unit is subjected to the reinforcement learning using the excavation earth amount calculated based on an earth amount of wavy windrows protruding on both sides of the work equipment in a case where the work vehicle is caused to move along the travel path. (, see at least [0009] a machine including a prime mover, a ground-engaging work implement for engaging a work surface along a path, a visual perception sensor and a controller and see at least [0041] machine learning is utilized to detect windrows in the resultant two-dimensional image.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Faivre with the teachings of Mathew to include the capability of performing reinforcement learning and utilizing the earth that is detected in windrows to enable for the AI model to learn complex decisions. This would further improve the managing of generating an optimal travel path for a work vehicle.
Regarding Claim 8, Faivre in view of Li discloses The work vehicle path plan generation system according to Claim 7, (see rejection above)
Faivre does not explicitly disclose wherein the path plan generation unit is subjected to the reinforcement learning using the earth amount of the windrows calculated by modeling an earth of the windrows as a polygonal prism-shaped three-dimensional model.
However, Mathew discloses wherein the path plan generation unit is subjected to the reinforcement learning using the earth amount of the windrows calculated by modeling an earth of the windrows as a polygonal prism-shaped three-dimensional model. (Mathew, see at least [0009] a machine including a prime mover, a ground-engaging work implement for engaging a work surface along a path, a visual perception sensor and a controller and see at least [0041] machine learning is utilized to detect windrows in the resultant two-dimensional image.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Faivre with the teachings of Mathew to include the capability of performing reinforcement learning and utilizing the earth that is detected in windrows to enable for the AI model to learn complex decisions. This would further improve the managing of generating an optimal travel path for a work vehicle.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180170393 – Provides a fleet management system for receiving vehicle capacity, a pick up schedule, location data and the vehicle’s battery charge state.
US 20210146785 – Provides a method for monitoring when a vehicle needs to be recharged and selecting vehicles to drive to destinations with the knowledge of the vehicle’s battery status.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI whose telephone number is (571) 272-2052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 8AM-5PM.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664