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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following claim limitations must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
a user behavior analysis unit operatively connected to the artificial intelligence module (claim 1);
a dynamic path generation unit operatively connected to the artificial intelligence module (claim 1);
a feedback mechanism operatively connected to the dynamic path generation unit and feed data back into the artificial intelligence module (claim 1);
a user interface management module operatively connected to the CPU (claim 1);
the feedback mechanism further comprises a physiological monitoring unit, the physiological monitoring unit being operatively connected to the CPU and the artificial intelligence module (claim 6);
the user interface management module further comprises a haptic feedback generator operatively connected to the CPU (claim 7);
the haptic feedback generator being controlled by the artificial intelligence module (claim 7);
the central processing unit (CPU) further comprises a multi-core processor architecture, the multi-core processor architecture being configured to independently handle parallel processing tasks including user behavior analysis, contextual data processing, dynamic path generation, and user interface management (claim 8);
virtual reality headset comprises integrated displays with a high refresh rate and wide field of view, operatively connected to the CPU (claim 9)
the hand-held controllers further comprise inertial measurement units (IMUs) and force feedback mechanisms, operatively connected to the CPU and haptic feedback generator, the hand-held controllers being configured to allow the user to interact with virtual objects through gestures and button inputs, with the force feedback mechanisms (claim 10);
the NPU directly communicates with the CPU through a high-speed bus (claim 11);
the haptic feedback generator operates by receiving real-time input from the artificial intelligence module (claim 16);
the inertial measurement units (IMUs) within the hand-held controllers, wherein the IMUs capture fine-grained motion data at a high sampling rate, which is processed by a Kalman filter within the CPU to fuse the sensor data, and wherein the processed data is then transmitted to the artificial intelligence module (claim 17).
No new matter should be entered.
In addition, the drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the above structural connections also described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1, includes the phrase "AI" instead of "artificial intelligence (AI) ". The acronym should be spelled out in the first time it is used in a claim.
Claim 1, lines 1-2, recites “A system for providing an AI-based intelligent virtual reality navigation system to enhance user experience”. The underlined phrase is intended use. To clarify the claim language, examiner suggests “A system for providing an AI-based intelligent virtual reality navigation system”.
Claim 1, lines 6-7, recite “the virtual reality environment”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggests “a virtual reality environment”.
Claim 1, line 11, recites “the user’s movement”. To correct antecedent issues, Examiner suggests “user’s movement”.
Claim 1, line 11, recite “the virtual environment”. To consistency in the claim language, examiner suggests “the virtual reality environment”, as recited in lines 6-7.
Claim 1, line 14, recites “the virtual environment’s layout”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggests “virtual environment’s layout”.
Claim 1, line 22, recites “the navigation strategy”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggest “navigation strategy”.
Claim 1, line 25, recites “the user”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggest “a user”.
Claim 2, lines 1-2, recites “thereby enhancing the system’s ability to predict”. The underlined phrase is intended use. To clarify the claim language, examiner suggests “to predict”.
Claim 2, line 3, recites “user preference”. Examiner suggest “the user preferences”, since the phrase previously appears in claims 1.
Claim 3, lines 4-5, recites “the understanding of user intentions”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggest “understanding of user intentions”.
Claim 3, line 5, recites ”the virtual environment”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggest “the virtual reality environment”, as previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 4, line 3, recites “the spatial relationships”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggests “spatial relationships”.
Claim 4, line 3, recites ”the virtual environment”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggest “the virtual reality environment”, as previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 5, lines 2-3, recites “user behavior”. Examiner suggests “the analyzed user behavior”, since the phrase previously appears in claim 1.
Claim 5, lines 4-5, recite “the user’s navigation trajectory”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggests “user’s navigation trajectory”.
Claim 5, line 5, recite “the user’s overall experience”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggests “user’s overall experience”.
Claim 5, line 6, recites ”the virtual environment”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggest “the virtual reality environment”, as previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 6, line 5, recite “the user’s physiological state”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggests “user’s physiological state”.
Claim 6, lines 6-7, recite “the VR experience”. To correct antecedent issues and clarify the claim language, examiner suggest “virtual reality (VR) experience”. The acronym should be spelled out in the first time it is used in a claim.
Claim 7, line 4, recite “the immersive quality”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggests “immersive quality”.
Claim 7, line 5, recite “the navigation experience”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggests “navigation experience”.
Claim 9, line 1, recites “the virtual reality headset comprises”. To correct antecedent issue, examiner suggest “the system further comprises a virtual reality headset, the virtual reality headset comprises”.
Claim 9, line 4, recites ”the virtual environment”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggest “the virtual reality environment”, as previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 9, line 4, recite “the immersive quality”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggests “immersive quality”.
Claim 9, line 5, recite “the navigation experience”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggests “navigation experience”.
Claim 9, lines 5-6, recites “the headset”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggests “the virtual reality headset”.
Claim 9, line 6, recites “the visual display”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggests “visual display”.
Claim 10, line 1, recites “the hand-held controllers further comprise”. To correct antecedent issue, examiner suggest “the system further comprises hand-held controllers, the hand-held controllers comprise”.
Claim 10, lines 5-6, recite “the virtual interactions”. To correct antecedent issues and keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggests “the interactions within the virtual reality environment”, as recited in claim 1.
Claim 10, line 6, recites “the realism of the navigation experience”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggest “realism of navigation experience”.
Claim 11, line 1, recites “wherein the machine learning techniques are executed within a dedicated neural processing unit (NPU), configured to handle tensor operations”. To correct antecedent issue, examiner suggest “the system further comprises a dedicated neural processing unit (NPU) configured to execute machine learning techniques and handle tensor operations”.
Claim 11, line 3, recites “the data”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggest “data”.
Claim 11, lines 5-6, recites “the system’s primary processing tasks”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggest “system’s primary processing tasks”.
Claim 12, line 2, recites “user movement and gaze data”. To clarify the claim language, examiner suggest “user’s movement data and gaze data”.
Claim 12, line 3, recites “said memory system”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggest “the cache memory system”.
Claim 12, line 4, recites “the processor”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggest “the neural network processor”.
Claim 13, line 2, recites “the virtual space”. To correct antecedent issues, Examiner suggest “a virtual space”.
Claim 13, line 3, recite “the array”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggest “the 3D spatial mapping array”.
Claim 13, line 3, recites “measure the distance”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggest “measure distance”.
Claim 13, line 4, recites “the time delay”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggest “time delay”.
Claim 13, line 4, recites “the reflected light”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggest “reflected light”.
Claim 13, line 4 and line 6, recites “the point cloud”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggest “the high-density point cloud”.
Claim 14, line 2, recites ”the virtual environment”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggest “the virtual reality environment”, as previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 14, lines 3-4, recites “the processor”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggests “the path optimization processor”.
Claim 14, lines 4-5, recites “the user’s visual confusion”. TO correct antecedent issues, examiner suggests “user’s visual confusion”.
Claim 14, line 6, recites “the weightings”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggests “the heuristic weightings”.
Claim 15, line 1, recites “the physiological monitoring unit uses a series of embedded sensors”. Examiner suggest “the physiological monitoring unit comprises a series of embedded sensors”.
Claim 15, lines 3-4, recites “the data”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggest “the biometric data”.
Claim 15, “this physiological data”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggest “the stress-related physiological data”.
Claim 15, lines 5-6, recites ”the virtual environment”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggest “the virtual reality environment”, as previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 16, line 2, recites “the intensity”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggest “intensity”.
Claim 16, line 3, recites “the generator uses a piezoelectric actuator array”. To keep consistency and clarify the claim language, examiner suggest “the haptic generator comprises a piezoelectric actuator array”.
Claim 16, line 4, recites “each actuator”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggest “each piezoelectric actuator of the piezoelectric actuator array”.
Claim 16, line 7, recites “the user’s interaction patterns”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggests “user’s interaction patterns”.
Claim 16, line 7, recites “the feedback intensity”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggests “the haptic feedback intensity”.
Claim 17, line 5, recites “the sensor data”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggest “sensor data”.
Claim 17, line 5, recites “the processed data”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggests “the processed sensor data”.
Claim 17, line 8, recites “virtual objects”. Examiner suggests “the virtual objects”, since the phrase previously appears in claim 10.
Claim 17, line 8, recites “force feedback mechanism”. Examiner suggests “the force feedback mechanism”, since the phrase previously appears in claim 1.
Claim 18, line 2, recites “the user’s trajectory”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggests “the user’s navigation trajectory”.
Claim 18, line 3, recites “the processor”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggest “the path optimization processor”.
Claim 18, line 3, recites “the gradient of the navigation path”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggest “a gradient of a navigation path”.
Claim 18, lines 4-5, recites “the recalculated trajectory”. To correct antecedent issues and keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggest ”the recalculated gradient of the navigation path”.
Claim 18, line 6, recites “the virtual route”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggest “a virtual route”.
Claim 18, line 6, recites ”the virtual environment”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggest “the virtual reality environment”, as previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 19, line 3, recites “the analysis”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggest “the time domain analysis”.
Claim 19, line 3 recites “the root mean square”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggests “root mean square”.
Claim 19, line 4, recites “the user’s stressed response”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggests “user’s stressed response”.
Claim 19, line 7, recites “the user’s physiological comfort”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggests “user’s physiological comfort”.
Claim 19, line 8, recites ”the virtual environment”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggest “the virtual reality environment”, as previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 20, lines 2-3 recite “said techniques”. To keep consistency in the claim language, Examiner suggests “the pupil detection techniques”.
Claim 20, line 4, recites “the user’s point of focus”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggests “user’s point of focus”.
Claim 20, line 4, recites ”the virtual environment”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggest “the virtual reality environment”, as previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 20, lines 4-5 recite “the gaze tracking system”. To keep consistency in the claim language, Examiner suggests “the machine learning-based gaze tracking system”.
Claim 20, line 5, recites “the navigation prompts”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggests “navigation prompts”.
Claim 20, lines 5-6, recites ”the virtual environment”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggest “the virtual reality environment”, as previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 20, lines 7-8, recites “the user’s focal attention”. To correct antecedent issues, examiner suggests “user’s focal attention”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“artificial intelligence module… configured to analyze real-time user behavior….” in claim 1;
“dynamic path generation unit… configured to create and update in real time, personalizes navigation paths ….” In claim 1;
“machine learning-based gaze tracking system dynamically adjusts the navigation prompts and visual cues…” in claim 20.
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.
“artificial intelligence module” = The artificial intelligence module further comprises machine learning techniques and the machine learning techniques are executed within a dedicated neural processing unit (NPU) (see specification, pages 7 and 9);
“dynamic path generation unit” = the dynamic path generation unit, comprising biometric sensors and user input interfaces. The dynamic path generation unit further comprises a path optimization processor (see specification, page 7)
“machine learning-based gaze tracking system” = User behavior analysis unit comprises gaze trackers and a neural network processor. The user behavior analysis unit comprises a machine learning based gaze tracking system (see specification, pages 1, 7 and 17)
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 § 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 1-20 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.
Claim 1, line 9, recites “the unit”. However, the claim previously recites two different units (“central processing unit”, in line 3, and “user behavior analysis unit”, in line 8). It is unclear to which unit the limitation refers to. Based on applicant’s disclosure, examiner suggest changing the limitation to “the user behavior analysis unit”, to correct indefinite issues.
Claim 1, line 13, recites “the unit”. However, the claim previously recites three different units (“central processing unit”, in line 3, “user behavior analysis unit”, in line 8, and “contextual data processing unit”, in line 12). It is unclear to which “unit” the above limitation refers to. Based on applicant’s disclosure, examiner suggests changing the limitation to “the contextual data processing unit”, to correct indefinite issues.
The term “user satisfaction” in claim 1 (lines 20-21) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “user satisfaction” 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. Applicant’s disclosure lacks standard for measuring how the user satisfaction is determined.
The term “smooth operation” in claim 8 (line 5) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smooth operation” 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. Applicant’s disclosure lacks standard for measuring how the smooth operation of the AI based intelligent virtual reality navigation system is determined.
The term “relevant data chunks” in claim 12 (line 3) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relevant data chunks” 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. Applicant’s disclosure lacks standard for “relevant data chunks”.
The term “relevant environmental changes” in claim 13 (lines 6-7) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relevant environmental changes” 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. Applicant’s disclosure lacks standard for measuring how environmental changes are determined to be relevant.
The term “optimal navigation route” in claim 14 (line 7) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimal navigation route” 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. Applicant’s disclosure lacks standard for measuring how navigation routes are determined to be optimal.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 19, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “relevant objects or paths” in claim 20 (line 7) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relevant objects or paths” 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. Applicant’s disclosure lacks standard for measuring how objects or paths are determined to be relevant.
Claims 2-7, 9-11, 16-17, and 20 depend directly or indirectly from an indefinite claim, therefore are also indefinite.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200322754 A1 – Soule et al – A navigation system for providing a route and directions for a visitor to experience the venue. The navigation system includes a machine learning algorithm to analyze data.
US 20220065651 A1 – Beaurepaire et al. - Multi-modal navigation assistance via virtual markers.
US 20190385379 A1 – Woo – Extended reality (XR) system and method for controlling an extended reality device. The method includes launching a route guidance app and selecting a destination by a user in the XR device. The method also includes guiding the user through a route when the user starts to walk.
US 11763560 B1 – Wang – A head-mounted device that operates to detect and respond to a user's behavior.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IVELISSE MARTINEZ QUILES whose telephone number is (571)270-7618. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 1:00 PM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/IM/Examiner, Art Unit 2626
/NITIN PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2628