DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10 October 2025 and 5 November 2025 have been received and the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 10 and 20 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 claim 10, the term “sufficient” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficient” is not defined by the claim, 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. Further, the claim recites a proximity. It is unclear what proximity is being referred to, the proximity between two or more defects to each other or the proximity between the vehicle and the defects. Finally, the claim recites combining images from the two vision systems in a differential manner and proceeds to recite an intended use for the combination which is not being given patentable weight. Therefore, only the portion of the claim stating "wherein the captured images of the first vision system and the captured images of the second vision system are combined in a differential manner" will be considered to have patentable weight.
Regarding claim 20, the term “sufficient” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficient” is not defined by the claim, 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. Further, the claim recites a proximity. It is unclear what proximity is being referred to, the proximity between two or more defects to each other or the proximity between the vehicle and the defects. Finally, the claim recites combining images from the two vision systems in a differential manner and proceeds to recite an intended use for the combination which is not being given patentable weight. Therefore, only the portion of the claim stating "wherein the captured images of the first vision system and the captured images of the second vision system are combined in a differential manner" will be considered to have patentable weight.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea – mental process without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 details the analysis for determining the eligibility of an invention as completed below.
The independent claims: Claims 1 and 11
Claim 1
Claim 1 elements:
A) A first vision system including an image capture device, a depth sensor, a positioning sensor, and a processor. This is understood as a device for capturing data and processing the captured data.
B) Receive one or more captured images. This is understood as mere data handling
C) Analyze the one or more captured images to detect and classify one or more types of road defects.
D) Quantify the detected and classified road defects as quantified parameters.
E) Score a severity of each of the defects using a predetermined rule-based scorer based on the quantified parameters.
Step 1:
The claim is directed at least to a machine and a process.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The claim recites abstract ideas - mental process in C), D), and E).
Regarding C), a person of ordinary skill in the art may mentally analyze an image to detect and classify one or more types of road defects.
Regarding D), a person of ordinary skill in the art may mentally, especially with the assistance of a simple tool such as a ruler, quantify the detected and classified road defects to generate quantified parameters. For example, a person of ordinary skill in the art may use a ruler to measure the width of a crack in the road image and generate a crack width quantified parameter.
Regarding E), a person of ordinary skill in the art may mentally assign a score to a road defect using a predetermined rule-based scorer based on the quantified parameters.
Step 2A Prong 2:
The claim recites additional elements A) and B).
Regarding A), the recited elements are an arrangement of sensors for gathering data that are described in broad terms. Further, A) includes a processor which is described in general terms and is understood as a general purpose computer. This does not integrate the claim into a practical application as it does not present enough detail to provide for an improvement to the technology. Regarding this system, the specification states in paragraph [0054] "a computer system that emulates the decision-making capabilities of a human expert. It utilizes explicit knowledge and reasoning, employing a rule-based methodology to draw conclusions and provide guidance" emphasis added. A human expert makes decisions mentally and the system is understood to emulate that mental process. Therefore, the system is understood as "performing a mental process on a generic computer", see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.C., and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The specification goes into a significant amount of detail starting in paragraph [0062] describing a Vision Transformer (ViT) model for detection and classification. This may be a route to change the interpretation of the processor in the claim as a generic computer to one which integrates the abstract idea into a practical application if sufficient detail of the model is included in the claim.
Regarding B), the recited element is a simple data handling operation and is understood as an extra solution activity which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim recites additional elements A) and B).
As seen above, A) recites a broadly recited image and data acquiring system and a generic computer while B) recites an extra solution activity. The use of a broadly recited system to acquire data and a generic computer to perform an abstract idea - mental process does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is a method claim with steps corresponding to the steps performed by the system of claim 1. Accordingly, it recites similar abstract idea - mental process limitations and additional elements which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 11 is similarly rejected as claim 1.
Dependent claims: Claims 2-10 and 12-20
Claims 2 and 12
Claims 2 and 12 recite the additional abstract idea - mental process of providing a recommendation for fixing the detected road defects which may be performed mentally by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 3 and 13
Claims 3 and 13 recite the additional elements of an extended expert system and a machine learning model. These elements are recited in terms of broad generality and are understood as being performed on general purpose computers. Therefore, they do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 4 and 14
Claims 4 and 14 further define the image capture device as a red-green-blue camera which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 5 and 15
Claims 5 and 15 further define the depth sensor as a second red-green-blue camera which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 6 and 16
Claims 6 and 16 further define the depth sensor as a red-green-blue camera with a depth sensor which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 7 and 17
Claims 7 and 17 further defines the positioning sensor as a global positioning system sensor which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 8 and 18
Claims 8 and 18 further define the location of the vision system on a vehicle which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 9 and 19
Claims 9 and 19 add a second vision system to the vehicle which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 10 and 20
Claims 10 and 20 define an additional element for combining images of the first vision system and the second vision system which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 114066808 A; hereafter, Chen) in view of Jahanshahi et al. (US 20130155061 A1, hereafter, Jahanshahi).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses:
receive one or more captured images (pg. 7 para. 3 "after finishing training, using the trained model to detect the defect image." As an image is being used to detect a defect it is understood that the image was necessarily captured and received);
analyze the one or more captured images to thereby i) detect (pg. 7 para. 3 "after finishing training, using the trained model to detect the defect image." The defect is detected), and ii) classify one or more types of road defects (pg. 7 para. 5 "The road surface damage is mainly divided into transverse longitudinal linear crack, net and block irregular crack, rut, concave bulge and pit groove and several types," dividing the defects into the listed types is understood as classifying the road defects) from a plurality of predetermined road defects (pg. 7 para. 5 "The road surface damage is mainly divided into transverse longitudinal linear crack, net and block irregular crack, rut, concave bulge and pit groove and several types," the listed defect types are understood as "a plurality of predetermined road defects");
quantify the detected and classified one or more types of road defects to thereby generate quantified parameters associated with each of the one or more types of road defects (pg. 7 para. 4 "quantifying and calculating various defects according to the obtained prediction result, comprising length of each linear crack, width and direction, covering area of the net-shaped crack and crack density, geometric area of defects such as hole, bulge and concave and external rectangular length and width and other quantization parameters.") score severity of each of the one or more types of road defects (pg. 7 para. 5 the severity or degree of the road defect is scored on a range of [0, 100]) using a predetermined rule-based scorer based on the generated quantified parameters of the one or more types of road defects (pg. 7 para. 5 the score is a PCI (Pavement Condition Index) score which is a predetermined rule-based scorer. The scoring is based on the measure quantified parameters).
Chen does not disclose expressly a system comprising an image capture device, a depth sensor, generating location information, and a processing system.
Jahanshahi discloses:
A system for managing road defects, comprising: a first vision system, comprising: at least one image capture device adapted to capture images of a roadway having a plurality of pixels for each image ([0042] each vehicle may have a Microsoft Kinect which is understood as an image sensor, see [0059]. [0082] and Fig. 5, the image sensor captures images of the roadway);
at least one depth sensor ([0042] the vehicle has a depth sensor) adapted to provide depth information for each pixel in the captured images ([0042] the depth sensor is a Microsoft Kinect. [0059]-[0060] the depth sensor captures both RGB and depth data and a person or ordinary skill would understand a Microsoft Kinect to capture depth information for each pixel of the image);
a positioning sensor ([0042] the vehicle includes a GPS) adapted to generate location information for each captured image ([0077] location information is recorded for each captured image);
a processing system having at least one processor adapted to execute instructions maintained on a non-transient memory and adapted to ([0115] a processing system which includes a processor for executing instructions stored on tangible memory):
Chen and Jahanshahi are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of detecting road defects (Chen, pg. 3 para. 4; Jahanshahi, [0004]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Jahanshahi with the invention of Chen.
The motivation for doing so would have been "Despite the incorporation of several sensors in this device, its price is (currently) $150 due to the mass production of this system as an input device for the Microsoft Xbox 360R game console" (Jahanshahi, [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Jahanshahi with Chen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Chen in view of Jahanshahi discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Chen further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to provide a recommendation for fixing each of the one or more detected road defects ([0110] the system prioritizes needed repairs which is understood as to provide a recommendation for fixing the defects) based on a predetermined schedule of defect correction ([0110] the prioritization of needed repairs is in part "based on available guidelines" which is understood as based on a predetermined schedule of defect correction).
Regarding claim 3, Chen in view of Jahanshahi discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Chen further discloses:
and a machine learning model (pg. 7 para. 1 a machine learning model is used in detection).
Chen does not disclose expressly that the processing system includes an extended expert system.
Jahanshahi discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the processing systems includes one or more of an extended expert system (the applicant's specification defines an extended expert system as "An expert system refers to a computer system that emulates the decision-making capabilities of a human expert", the applicant's specification [0054]. Therefore, the examiner understands it as a computer system for performing the disclosed method since the method is one that an expert may perform, namely detecting, classifying, quantifying, and scoring. Jahanshahi, [0115] the method is performed by a computer system and is understood as an extended expert system)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the extended expert system of Jahanshahi with the invention of Chen.
The motivation for doing so would have been "The system that has been described may be integrated into smart cars. The smart cars may be configured to remember the locations of potholes and provide driver alerts to help the driver avoid them" (Jahanshahi, [0114]). In other words, the motivation would have been for the invention to be implemented in practical applications such as automated drivers' assistance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Jahanshahi with Chen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Chen in view of Jahanshahi discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Chen does not disclose expressly that the image capture device is a red-green-blue (RGB) camera.
Jahanshahi discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one image capture device is a first red-green-blue-camera ([0059] the sensor includes an RGB camera).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the RGB sensor of Jahanshahi with the invention of Chen.
The motivation for doing so would have been " the RGB image can be used to detect and quantify tiny cracks" (Jahanshahi, [0109]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Jahanshahi with Chen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Chen in view of Jahanshahi discloses the subject matter of claim 4.
Chen does not disclose expressly that the at least one depth sensor is the RGB camera equipped with a depth sensor.
Jahanshahi discloses:
The system of claim 4, wherein the at least one depth sensor is the first red-green-blue camera equipped with a depth sensor ([0059] the Microsoft Kinect includes a depth sensor and an RGB camera).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the depth sensor if Jahanshahi with the invention of Chen.
The motivation for doing so would have been "Using the depth-image obtained by the Kinect, the maximum depth of the defect regions may be computed" (Jahanshahi, [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Jahanshahi with Chen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Chen in view of Jahanshahi discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Chen does not disclose expressly that the positioning sensor is a global positioning system (GPS) sensor.
Jahanshahi discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the positioning sensor is a global positioning system sensor ([0042] the vehicle includes a GPS).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the GSP sensor of Jahanshahi with the invention of Chen.
The motivation for doing so would have been "the defects may be localize[d] and an optimum pavement rehabilitation route may be determined based on their depth maps and locations" (Jahanshahi, [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Jahanshahi with Chen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim, claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Chen in view of Jahanshahi, presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in claim 2. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim, claim 2. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Chen in view of Jahanshahi, presented in rejection of claim 2, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in claim 3. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim, claim 3. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Chen in view of Jahanshahi, presented in rejection of claim 3, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in claim 4. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim, claim 4. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Chen in view of Jahanshahi, presented in rejection of claim 4, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in claim 6. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim, claim 6. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Chen in view of Jahanshahi, presented in rejection of claim 6, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in claim 7. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim, claim 7. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Chen in view of Jahanshahi, presented in rejection of claim 7, apply to this claim.
Claims 5, 8-10, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 114066808 A; hereafter, Chen) in view of Jahanshahi et al. (US 20130155061 A1, hereafter, Jahanshahi) in further view of Park et al. (US 20220250624 A1; hereafter, Park).
Regarding claim 5, Chen in view of Jahanshahi discloses the subject matter of claim 4.
Chen in view of Jahanshahi does not disclose expressly a second camera operated in concert with the first camera to generate depth information.
Park discloses:
The system of claim 4, wherein the at least one depth sensor is a second red-green-blue cameras operated in concert with the first red-green-blue camera in a stereo vision manner to generate depth information ([0020] "The two cameras—which may include overlapping field-of-view (FOV) regions—may execute, e.g., a cross-camera OF tracking algorithm to extract depth information from pairwise images." [0168] the camera may be RGB).
Park is combinable with Chen in view of Jahanshahi because it is from the same field of endeavor of detecting defects in a road (Park, [0020]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the two cameras for depth information of Park with the invention of Chen in view of Jahanshahi.
The motivation for doing so would have been "the system may generate a depth map of the ego-machine's environment and subsequently carve out regions of interest—such as regions that correspond to the roadway surface—in order to minimize the search space" (Park, [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Park with Chen in view of Jahanshahi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, Chen in view of Jahanshahi discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Chen in view of Jahanshahi does not disclose expressly that the first vision system is coupled to the rear of a vehicle.
Park discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first vision system is coupled to a rear-side of a road-based vehicle ([0064] the camera may be on the rear of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the camera of Park with the invention of Chen in view of Jahanshahi.
The motivation for doing so would have been "for surround view, providing information used to create and update the occupancy grid," (Park, [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Park with Chen in view of Jahanshahi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Chen in view of Jahanshahi in further view of Park discloses the subject matter of claim 8.
Chen in view of Jahanshahi does not disclose expressly a camera on the front of the vehicle.
Park discloses:
The system of claim 8, further comprising a second vision system adapted to provide images and depth information of the roadway coupled to a front-side of the road-based vehicle ([0064] a camera on the front of the vehicle is coupled with the rear camera).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the camera of Park with the invention of Chen in view of Jahanshahi.
The motivation for doing so would have been "for surround view, providing information used to create and update the occupancy grid," (Park, [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Park with Chen in view of Jahanshahi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Jahanshahi in further view of Park discloses the subject matter of claim 9.
Chen in view of Jahanshahi does not disclose combining the image of the first and second vision systems in a differential manner.
Park discloses:
The system of claim 9, wherein the captured images of the first vision system and the captured images of the second vision system are combined in a differential manner ([0021] "Based on a disparity between pixels in left and right camera image data in the overlapping FOV for a particular location," The left and right cameras may be understood as a first vision system and a second vision system. The images are combined and the disparity is detected which is understood as being combined in a differential manner) to account for road defects in sufficient close proximity less than a length between the first and the second vision systems (this limitation is understood as an intended use limitation and does not limit the scope of the claim).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the differential combination of camera view of Park with the invention of Chen in view of Jahanshahi.
The motivation for doing so would have been "Based on a disparity between pixels in left and right camera image data in the overlapping FOV for a particular location, the system may determine a distance to the particular location" (Park, [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Park with Chen in view of Jahanshahi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in claim 5. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim, claim 5. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Chen in view of Jahanshahi in further view of Park, presented in rejection of claim 5, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in claim 8. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim, claim 8. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Chen in view of Jahanshahi in further view of Park, presented in rejection of claim 8, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in claim 9. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim, claim 9. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Chen in view of Jahanshahi in further view of Park, presented in rejection of claim 9, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 20, claim 10 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in claim 10. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim, claim 10. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Chen in view of Jahanshahi in further view of Park, presented in rejection of claim 10, apply to this claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Majidifard et al., the full reference is on PTO-892 included with this action, discloses a system which assesses pavement conditions by classifying defects, quantifying classified defects, and scoring the defects by a standard scoring system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA B CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-7989. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 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, John M Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/JOSHUA B. CROCKETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights