Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-14 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim priority for KR10-2023-0192632 and KR10-2024-0128446 filed on 12/27/20233 and 09/23/2024 respectively.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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) are:
“path generation unit” in Claim 7 is being interpreted as a generic processor
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims’ subject matter eligibility will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”).
101 Analysis - With respect to Claim 1
Claims 1 and 7 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 towards a method which is directed to the statutory category of a process. Claim 7 is directed to a robot which is directed to the statutory category of a machine. Therefore Claims 1 and 7 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis- Step 2A Prong One:
Regarding Prong One 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 following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental process.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites, inter alai:
“A method for generating an optimal traveling path of a robot based on a floor condition, the method comprising:
generating a plurality of traveling path candidates from a position of the robot to a destination;
calculating traveling scores of the traveling path candidates; and
generating the optimal traveling path based on the traveling scores.”
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
For example, “generating” and “calculating” in the context of this claim, all encompass a person looking at available data and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either manually or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As drafted, the above claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), that are merely completed via generic computer components. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
Regarding Prong Two 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 idea 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, there are no additional limitations presented in the independent claims.
Accordingly, due to the lack of additional limitation(s), the abstract idea cannot be integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claims 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 of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the act of collecting data and displaying data amounts to no more than merely storing and displaying information of the exception and thus is an extra-solution activity. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-6 and 8-14, no claim further adds a limitation that introduces any practical applications to the claimed invention, the dependent claims merely add more mental process, mathematical concepts, and post-solution activities and are thus not patent eligible.
Further, Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In regards to claims 13 and 14 – Applicant is claiming a computer program, which is directed to non-statutory subject matter, see MPEP section 2106.1.
The claim recites limitation “computer-readable recording medium”, however the applicant does not cite a non-transitory term, and thus the limitation could be interpreted as carrier wave. It is suggested that the applicant to amend the claims 13 and 14 to include a non-transitory term such as “non-transitory computer readable medium”.
Therefore, Claims 1-14 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 20210118672 A) in view of Park et al (KR 20220124064 A). Hereafter referred to as Lee and Park respectively.
Independent Claims
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches a method for generating an optimal traveling path of a robot based on a floor condition (see at least Lee [English Translation pg.5 para.7, pg.7 para.13, pg.9 para.4, pg.6 para.2] The driving route generation API 212 generates optimal route data by extracting road information and related element information of the driving location from the map DB 216...The server 210 determines whether there is a path that the driving robot 220 can reach to the destination among the generated paths (S303)...the driving factor information may include road surface data and driving environment data in units of the moving route or section. In this case, the road surface data may include: road surface state data, and gradient data including an inclination section and an inclination angle...various road or road surface condition data such as a damaged part, a crack, and a road surface type may be acquired from the image acquired through the camera)
the method comprising:
generating a plurality of traveling path candidates from a position of the robot to a destination (see at least Lee [English Translation pg.7 para.9, pg.4 para.12, pg.7 para.12] the server 210 selects and provides an optimal route (considering traffic conditions, road conditions, etc.) from among the possible routes to the driving robot 220...the server 210 provides optimal route data when the driving robot 220 requests to set a route from the current location to the destination location...The server 210 determines whether there is a path that the driving robot 220 can reach to the destination among the generated paths (S303), and creates an optimal path in consideration of the number of pedestrians, road conditions, construction status, traffic conditions, etc. (S304)).
However, Lee does not explicitly teach calculating traveling scores of the traveling path candidates; and
generating the optimal traveling path based on the traveling scores.
Park, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches calculating traveling scores of the traveling path candidates (see at least Park [English Translation pg.5 para.6] the driving path determiner 130 may obtain an evaluation score for each of the plurality of preliminary path)
generating the optimal traveling path based on the traveling scores (see at least Park [English Translation pg.5 para.10] the driving path determining unit 130 may determine a preliminary path having the highest evaluation score among the plurality of preliminary paths as the actual driving path of the robot).
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 the system set forth in Lee to contain a system for calculating traveling scores of the traveling path candidates and generating the optimal traveling path based on the traveling scores with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of methodically selecting a path based on desirable criteria, such as length of a path or distance to an obstacle as discussed in Park (see at least Park [English Translation pg.7 para.5] the driving path determining apparatus 100 may obtain an evaluation score for each of the plurality of preliminary paths based on the distance to the driving path pattern and the distance to the obstacle).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee teaches a robot that generates an optimal traveling path based on a floor condition, the robot comprising (see at least Lee [English Translation Abstract and pg.5 para.7, pg.7 para.13, pg.9 para.4, pg.6 para.2] An autonomous driving method of a driving robot…The driving route generation API 212 generates optimal route data by extracting road information and related element information of the driving location from the map DB 216...The server 210 determines whether there is a path that the driving robot 220 can reach to the destination among the generated paths (S303)...the driving factor information may include road surface data and driving environment data in units of the moving route or section. In this case, the road surface data may include: road surface state data, and gradient data including an inclination section and an inclination angle...various road or road surface condition data such as a damaged part, a crack, and a road surface type may be acquired from the image acquired through the camera)
the method comprising:
a path generation unit generating a plurality of traveling path candidates from a position of the robot to a destination (see at least Lee [English Translation pg.7 para.9, pg.4 para.12, pg.7 para.12] the server 210 selects and provides an optimal route (considering traffic conditions, road conditions, etc.) from among the possible routes to the driving robot 220...the server 210 provides optimal route data when the driving robot 220 requests to set a route from the current location to the destination location...The server 210 determines whether there is a path that the driving robot 220 can reach to the destination among the generated paths (S303), and creates an optimal path in consideration of the number of pedestrians, road conditions, construction status, traffic conditions, etc. (S304)).
However, Lee does not explicitly teach calculating traveling scores of the traveling path candidates; and
generating the optimal traveling path based on the traveling scores.
Park, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches calculating traveling scores of the traveling path candidates (see at least Park [English Translation pg.5 para.6] the driving path determiner 130 may obtain an evaluation score for each of the plurality of preliminary path)
generating the optimal traveling path based on the traveling scores (see at least Park [English Translation pg.5 para.10] the driving path determining unit 130 may determine a preliminary path having the highest evaluation score among the plurality of preliminary paths as the actual driving path of the robot).
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 the system set forth in Lee to contain a system for calculating traveling scores of the traveling path candidates and generating the optimal traveling path based on the traveling scores with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of methodically selecting a path based on desirable criteria, such as length of a path or distance to an obstacle as discussed in Park (see at least Park [English Translation pg.7 para.5] the driving path determining apparatus 100 may obtain an evaluation score for each of the plurality of preliminary paths based on the distance to the driving path pattern and the distance to the obstacle).
Dependent Claims
Regarding Claim 2 and Claim 8, Lee in view of Park teaches all limitations of the method of Claim 1 and the robot of Claim 7 as set forth above. Lee further teaches wherein the calculating of the traveling scores includes classifying types of traveling roads included in the traveling path candidates (see at least Lee [English Translation pg.4 para.10, pg.7 para.13] the driving robot uses, but is not limited to, a roadway, a sidewalk, a bicycle road, an alley, etc., and can grasp information about it and display it as map information…The server 210 determines whether there is a path that the driving robot 220 can reach to the destination among the generated paths (S303), and creates an optimal path in consideration of the number of pedestrians, road conditions, construction status, traffic conditions, etc. (S304)).
Regarding Claim 3 and Claim 9, Lee in view of Park teaches all limitations of the method of Claim 2 and the robot of Claim 8 as set forth above. Lee further teaches wherein the calculating of the traveling scores further includes determining whether or not there is a road that is unusable by the robot among the classified types of traveling roads (see at least Lee [English Translation pg.7 para.8-9] The server 210 creates a route from the current location to the destination for the driving robot 220 , but excludes a road on which the robot 220 cannot travel (by law or regulation, considering the slope)....However, if there is no traversable path despite the path setting request of the driving robot 220 , the server 210 feeds back the fact to the driving robot 220 . In this case, at least one of the server 210 and the driving robot 220 may provide or request data for only a portion of a route or a section within a drivable route, rather than the entire route between the current location and the destination. Accordingly, for the remaining sections, the driving robot 220 may receive data acquired in real time through actual driving and a control command through data communication with the server 210 in real time to drive).
Regarding Claim 4 and Claim 10, Lee in view of Park teaches all limitations of the method of Claim 3 and the robot of Claim 9 as set forth above. Lee further teaches wherein the calculating of the traveling scores further includes regenerating a traveling path candidate based on whether or not there is a road that is unusable by the robot in the traveling path candidates (see at least Lee [English Translation pg.7 para.8-9] The server 210 creates a route from the current location to the destination for the driving robot 220 , but excludes a road on which the robot 220 cannot travel (by law or regulation, considering the slope)....However, if there is no traversable path despite the path setting request of the driving robot 220 , the server 210 feeds back the fact to the driving robot 220 . In this case, at least one of the server 210 and the driving robot 220 may provide or request data for only a portion of a route or a section within a drivable route, rather than the entire route between the current location and the destination. Accordingly, for the remaining sections, the driving robot 220 may receive data acquired in real time through actual driving and a control command through data communication with the server 210 in real time to drive).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee in view of Park teaches all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. Lee further teaches a computer-readable recording medium storing a program for executing the method according to Claim 1 (see at least Lee [English Transaltion pg.3 para.9-10] The computing device 110 is hardware capable of participating in, controlling, and supporting the entire process, such as path setting of the driving robot, generation and update of map data (map map) for the driving robot, in the robot autonomous driving control system 100 according to the present invention. /speaks software. Here, the computing device 110 may be named in various names, such as server, processor, etc., depending on the embodiment, but the scope of the present invention is not limited to the names…The computing device 110 may provide programs, software, firmware, etc. necessary for the traveling robot in order to properly control the traveling robot).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee in view of Park teaches all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. Lee further teaches a program stored in a computer-readable recording medium and including a program code for executing the method according to Claim 1 (see at least Lee [English Transaltion pg.3 para.9-10] The computing device 110 is hardware capable of participating in, controlling, and supporting the entire process, such as path setting of the driving robot, generation and update of map data (map map) for the driving robot, in the robot autonomous driving control system 100 according to the present invention. /speaks software. Here, the computing device 110 may be named in various names, such as server, processor, etc., depending on the embodiment, but the scope of the present invention is not limited to the names…The computing device 110 may provide programs, software, firmware, etc. necessary for the traveling robot in order to properly control the traveling robot).
Claims 5-6 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 20210118672 A) in view of Park et al (KR 20220124064 A) and Anklam et al (CN 115116211 A). Hereafter referred to as Lee, Park, and Anklam respectively.
Regarding Claim 5 and Claim 11, Lee in view of Park teaches all limitations of the method of Claim 4 and the robot of Claim 10 as set forth above. However, Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the calculating of the traveling scores further includes associating an expected motor current change value of the robot with each classified type of traveling road.
Anklam, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches wherein the calculating of the traveling scores further includes associating an expected motor current change value of the robot with each classified type of traveling road (see at least Anklam [English Translation Abstract] An exemplary method for determining a wear score for an alternative energy vehicle may involve determining an amount of stress applied to an electric motor of an alternative energy vehicle due to a gradient of a road on a travel route and an amount of energy consumed by a battery of the alternative energy vehicle due to the travel speed on the travel route) The disclosure discusses calculating a wear score, which is analogous to a traveling score, and the wear score is associated with and calculated based on an energy consumed by a motor battery, which is analogous to motor current change, while on different road gradients, which are analogous with a type of traveling road. Therefore, the disclosure teaches wherein the calculating of the traveling scores further includes associating an expected motor current change value of the robot with each classified type of traveling road.
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 the system set forth in Lee to contain a system for wherein the calculating of the traveling scores further includes associating an expected motor current change value of the robot with each classified type of traveling road with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the selection of routes based on how much energy the robot will use on different sections and types of roads.
Regarding Claim 6 and Claim 12, Lee in view of Park teaches all limitations of the method of Claim 5 and the robot of Claim 11 as set forth above. However, Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the calculating of the traveling scores further includes calculating the traveling scores of the traveling path candidates based on the expected motor current change value.
Anklam, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches wherein the calculating of the traveling scores further includes calculating the traveling scores of the traveling path candidates based on the expected motor current change value. (see at least Anklam [English Translation Abstract] An exemplary method for determining a wear score for an alternative energy vehicle may involve determining an amount of stress applied to an electric motor of an alternative energy vehicle due to a gradient of a road on a travel route and an amount of energy consumed by a battery of the alternative energy vehicle due to the travel speed on the travel route) The disclosure discusses calculating a wear score, which is analogous to a traveling score, and the wear score is associated with and calculated based on an energy consumed by a motor battery, which is analogous to motor current change, while on different road gradients, which are analogous with a type of traveling road. Therefore, the disclosure teaches wherein the calculating of the traveling scores further includes calculating the traveling scores of the traveling path candidates based on the expected motor current change value.
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 the system set forth in Lee to contain a system for wherein the calculating of the traveling scores further includes calculating the traveling scores of the traveling path candidates based on the expected motor current change value with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the selection of routes based on how much energy the robot will use on different sections and types of roads.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A YANOSKA whose telephone number is (703)756-5891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am to 5:00pm (Pacific Time).
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.
/JOSEPH ANDERSON YANOSKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights