DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to invent provisions. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bonilla (U.S. P.G. Publication No. 2024/0134385 A1; “Bonilla”).
Bonilla discloses:
Regarding claim 1:
A system (1000), comprising:
(a) a remote controlled unit (1000) having a body (1100), wherein the remote controlled unit is in communication with a controller (1230; ¶¶ 46, 47); and
(b) at least one tire deflation device coupled to the remote controlled unit (¶ 51, “Yet another important component of the disclosed device is the spike strip or spike strip plate delivery mechanism”) by a tether (¶ 51, “embodiments, the chassis features a hook to drag or unfurl the spike strip or plate to the proper location” the “hook” attachment to a “strip” indicating a “tether”), wherein the remote controlled unit deploys the at least one tire deflation device at a predetermined location (51, “embodiments, the chassis features a hook to drag or unfurl the spike strip or plate to the proper location”).
Regarding claim 2:
The system of claim 1, wherein the remote controlled unit further comprises: (a) at least one wheel (1200) coupled to a right side of the body (wheels 1200 located on right-hand side in FIG. 2); and (b) at least one wheel (1200) coupled to a left side of the body (wheels 1200 located on left-hand side in FIG. 2), wherein the at least one wheel on the right side and the at least one wheel on the left side have a predetermined height that extends a distance above and below the body (FIG. 1, 9-10, 26-27 reasonably depict/disclose the wheels sticking out at a height that is beyond the bottom and top surfaces of the body).
Regarding claim 3:
The system of claim 1, wherein the tether comprises a first end (portion of hook directly coupled to the body) and a second end (portion of hook directly coupled to the spike strip), wherein the first end couples to the remote controlled unit and the second end couples to the at least one tire deflation device (¶ 51).
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.
Claim(s) 4-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonilla in view of Lee (U.S. Patent No. 8,132,980 B1; “Lee”).
Regarding claim 4 and 6, Bonilla discloses the limitations of claim 1, see above, including a hitch coupled to the tether (the hitch corresponding to the curved portion of the “hook”). However, it does not expressly disclose a coupling mechanism comprising a latch affixed to the unit and wherein the latch is configured to receive the hitch to couple the at least one tire deflation device to the remote controlled unit, wherein the latch is configured as a magnet, and wherein the hitch magnetically couples to the latch.
Lee teaches a latch (24a, 24b) affixed to the unit (via mounting structure 37) and wherein the latch is configured to receive a hitch (14a, 14b and associated “fastener” structure coupled to the deflation device 11, 12) to couple the at least one tire deflation device to the unit (col. 5, ll. 40-43, “Said armature plates 14a, 14b are preferably welded or otherwise fastened to top surfaces of each end portion of the extensions 12a and 12b, respectively” said “fastening” structure being the hitch structure), wherein the latch is configured as a magnet (24a, 24b; col. 5, ll. 12-43), and wherein the hitch magnetically couples to the latch (col. 5, ll. 12-43) as a means to allow the deflation device to be selectively retained or released from the unit (col. 5, ll. 30-37, “Rotation of said magnets 24a, 24b by said rotary actuators 25a, 25b provides activation or deactivation of the magnetic attraction exerted by said magnets 24a, 24b thereupon the corresponding armature plates 14a, 14b, thereby enabling the main body 11 and extension 12a, 12b portions of the system 10 to be selectively retained in the retracted state or to be released downwardly and deployed outwardly when needed”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, Bonilla to include a coupling mechanism comprising a latch affixed to the unit and wherein the latch is configured to receive the hitch to couple the at least one tire deflation device to the remote controlled unit, wherein the latch is configured as a magnet, and wherein the hitch magnetically couples to the latch, as taught by Lee, as a means to allow the deflation device to be selectively retained or released from the unit.
Regarding claim 5, Bonilla as modified above teaches that the hitch is configured to break away from the latch when a predetermined amount of force is applied to the hitch (Lee’s magnetic coupling described in col. 5, ll. 12-43 is configured to decouple i.e. “break” the hitch from the latch insofar as a situation in which magnetic coupling encounters a pulling/separation force that is greater than the magnetic force between magnets 24a, 24b and plates 14a, 14b, said magnetic force being predetermined so as to be of sufficient force to safely or operably retain the spike strip, that would then contribute to releasing the spike strip). However, it does not expressly disclose that the predetermined amount of force is at least 600 pounds.
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); see also Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."); see also In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977. Here, Bonilla as modified above teaches the latch/hitch connection being a magnetic coupling i.e. using a magnetic force, the force being predetermined insofar as it is disclosed as being sufficient to safely or operably retain the spike strip, and that the amount of magnetic force determines the strength of the connection. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonilla as modified above, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the predetermined amount of force is at least 600 pounds since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05. "[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal-and even common-sensical-we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see MPEP § 2143(I)(G). Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of providing magnets 24a, 24b to be sufficiently strong to sustain up to 600 pounds. As such, the limitation does not amount to a patentable difference.
Regarding claims 7-8, Bonilla discloses the system of claim 1, see above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the remote controlled unit further comprises: (a) a first light positioned at a front side of the body; and (b) a second light positioned at a rear side of the body, wherein the first and second lights are configured to provide a directional position of the remote controlled unit relative to an individual, wherein the first light emits a first light color and the second light emits a second light color, wherein the first light color differs from the second light color.
In certain circumstances where appropriate, an examiner may take official notice of facts not in the record or rely on "common knowledge" in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2144.03. Official notice unsupported by documentary evidence should only be taken by the examiner where the facts asserted to be well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420 (CCPA 1970). Here, the Examiner takes official notice that the remote controlled unit (remote vehicle) comprising: (a) a first light positioned at a front side of the body (i.e. headlights of a vehicle); and (b) a second light positioned at a rear side of the body (i.e. tail or brake lights), wherein the first and second lights are configured to provide a directional position of the remote controlled unit relative to an individual (headlights indicate the front of the vehicle and tail/brake lights indicate the rear of the vehicle), wherein the first light emits a first light color (conventional headlight color e.g. white or off-white) and the second light emits a second light color (conventional tail/brake light color e.g. red), wherein the first light color differs from the second light color (headlight white versus tail/brake light red) is instantly and unquestionably well-known and common knowledge in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonilla, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the remote controlled unit further comprises: (a) a first light positioned at a front side of the body; and (b) a second light positioned at a rear side of the body, wherein the first and second lights are configured to provide a directional position of the remote controlled unit relative to an individual, wherein the first light emits a first light color and the second light emits a second light color, wherein the first light color differs from the second light color.
Regarding claim 9:
A system (100), comprising:
(a) a remote controlled unit (1000) in communication with a controller (1230; ¶¶ 46, 47);
(b) a coupling mechanism (¶ 51, “embodiments, the chassis features a hook to drag or unfurl the spike strip or plate to the proper location”) configured to couple at least one tire deflation device to the remote controlled unit (¶ 51, “Yet another important component of the disclosed device is the spike strip or spike strip plate delivery mechanism”), wherein the coupling mechanism comprises: (i) a latch (24a, 24b in Lee) affixed to the remote controlled unit (and (ii) a hitch (“hook” in ¶ 51; 14a, 14b, fastening structure thereof in Lee supra), wherein the remote controlled unit deploys the at least one tire deflation device at a predetermined location (¶ 51).
Regarding claim 10:
The system of claim 9, wherein the tether comprises a first end (portion of hook directly coupled to the body) and a second end (portion of hook directly coupled to the spike strip), wherein the first end couples to the remote controlled unit and the second end couples to the at least one tire deflation device (¶ 51).
Regarding claim 11:
The system of claim 9, wherein the hitch is configured to break away from the latch when a predetermined amount of force is applied to the hitch (Lee’s magnetic coupling described in col. 5, ll. 12-43 is configured to decouple i.e. “break” the hitch from the latch insofar as a situation in which magnetic coupling encounters a pulling/separation force that is greater than the magnetic force between magnets 24a, 24b and plates 14a, 14b, said magnetic force being predetermined so as to be of sufficient force to safely or operably retain the spike strip, that would then contribute to releasing the spike strip), wherein the predetermined amount of force is at least 600 pounds (see claim 6 above regarding optimization).
Regarding claim 12:
The system of claim 9, wherein latch is configured as a magnet (24a, 24b in Lee), and wherein the hitch magnetically couples to the latch (see claim 6 above).
Regarding claim 13:
The system of claim 9, wherein the remote controlled unit further comprises: (a) a first light positioned at a front side of the body; and (b) a second light positioned at a rear side of the body, wherein the first and second lights are configured to provide a directional position of the remote controlled unit relative to an individual (see claim 7-8 above regarding official notice).
Regarding claim 14:
The system of claim 13, wherein the first light emits a first light color and the second light emits a second light color, wherein the first light color differs from the second light color (see claim 7-8 above regarding official notice).
Regarding claim 15:
The system of claim 9, wherein the remote controlled unit further comprises: (a) a body (1100); (b) at least one wheel coupled to a right side of the body (wheels 1200 located on right-hand side in FIG. 2); and (c) at least one wheel coupled to a left side of the body (wheels 1200 located on left-hand side in FIG. 2), wherein the at least one wheel on the right side and the at least one wheel on the left side have a predetermined height that extends a distance above and below the body (FIG. 1, 9-10, 26-27 reasonably depict/disclose the wheels sticking out at a height that is beyond the bottom and top surfaces of the body).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonilla in view of McCoy et al. (U.S. P.G. Publication No. 2012/0237293 A1; “McCoy”).
Bonilla discloses:
Regarding claim 16:
A system (1000), comprising:
(a) a remote controlled unit (1000) having a body (1100), wherein the remote controlled unit is in communication with a controller (1230; ¶¶ 46, 47); and
(b) a tether coupled to a plurality of tire deflation device (¶ 51, “embodiments, the chassis features a hook to drag or unfurl the spike strip or plate to the proper location” the “hook” attachment to a “strip” indicating a “tether” and the “spike strip” indicating a plurality of spikes),
a coupling mechanism (¶ 51, “embodiments, the chassis features a hook to drag or unfurl the spike strip or plate to the proper location”) configured to couple at least one tire deflation device to the remote controlled unit (¶ 51, “Yet another important component of the disclosed device is the spike strip or spike strip plate delivery mechanism”),
wherein the remote controlled unit deploys the at least one tire deflation device at a predetermined location (51, “embodiments, the chassis features a hook to drag or unfurl the spike strip or plate to the proper location”).
However, Bonilla does not expressly disclose that the tether is coupled to a sleeve containing the tire deflation devices.
McCoy teaches a tether (120; FIG. 11) coupled to a sleeve (112, FIG. 11); ¶ 66) containing tire deflation devices (30) to minimize or eliminate bounce or rebound upon impact (¶¶ 65-66).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, Bonilla such that the tether is coupled to a sleeve containing the tire deflation devices, as taught by McCoy, to minimize or eliminate bounce or rebound upon impact.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonilla in view of McCoy, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Lee.
Regarding claim 17, Bonilla discloses the limitations of claim 16, see above, including a hitch coupled to the tether (the hitch corresponding to the curved portion of the “hook”; also Mccoy’s tether 120). However, it does not expressly disclose a coupling mechanism comprising a latch affixed to the unit and wherein the latch is configured to receive the hitch to couple the at least one tire deflation device to the remote controlled unit.
Lee teaches a latch (24a, 24b) affixed to the unit (via mounting structure 37) and wherein the latch is configured to receive a hitch (14a, 14b and associated “fastener” structure coupled to the deflation device 11, 12) to couple the at least one tire deflation device to the unit (col. 5, ll. 40-43, “Said armature plates 14a, 14b are preferably welded or otherwise fastened to top surfaces of each end portion of the extensions 12a and 12b, respectively” said “fastening” structure being the hitch structure) as a means to allow the deflation device to be selectively retained or released from the unit (col. 5, ll. 30-37, “Rotation of said magnets 24a, 24b by said rotary actuators 25a, 25b provides activation or deactivation of the magnetic attraction exerted by said magnets 24a, 24b thereupon the corresponding armature plates 14a, 14b, thereby enabling the main body 11 and extension 12a, 12b portions of the system 10 to be selectively retained in the retracted state or to be released downwardly and deployed outwardly when needed”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, Bonilla to include a coupling mechanism comprising a latch affixed to the unit and wherein the latch is configured to receive the hitch to couple the at least one tire deflation device to the remote controlled unit, as taught by Lee, as a means to allow the deflation device to be selectively retained or released from the unit.
Regarding claim 18, Bonilla as modified above teaches that the hitch is configured to break away from the latch when a predetermined amount of force is applied to the hitch (Lee’s magnetic coupling described in col. 5, ll. 12-43 is configured to decouple i.e. “break” the hitch from the latch insofar as a situation in which magnetic coupling encounters a pulling/separation force that is greater than the magnetic force between magnets 24a, 24b and plates 14a, 14b, said magnetic force being predetermined so as to be of sufficient force to safely or operably retain the spike strip, that would then contribute to releasing the spike strip). However, it does not expressly disclose that the predetermined amount of force is at least 600 pounds.
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); see also Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."); see also In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977. Here, Bonilla as modified above teaches the latch/hitch connection being a magnetic coupling i.e. using a magnetic force, the force being predetermined insofar as it is disclosed as being sufficient to safely or operably retain the spike strip, and that the amount of magnetic force determines the strength of the connection. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonilla as modified above, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the predetermined amount of force is at least 600 pounds since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05. "[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal-and even common-sensical-we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see MPEP § 2143(I)(G). Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of providing magnets 24a, 24b to be sufficiently strong to sustain up to 600 pounds. As such, the limitation does not amount to a patentable difference.
Regarding claims 19-20, Bonilla discloses the system of claim 16, see above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the remote controlled unit further comprises: (a) a first light positioned at a front side of the body; and (b) a second light positioned at a rear side of the body, wherein the first and second lights are configured to provide a directional position of the remote controlled unit relative to an individual, wherein the first light emits a first light color and the second light emits a second light color, wherein the first light color differs from the second light color.
In certain circumstances where appropriate, an examiner may take official notice of facts not in the record or rely on "common knowledge" in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2144.03. Official notice unsupported by documentary evidence should only be taken by the examiner where the facts asserted to be well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420 (CCPA 1970). Here, the Examiner takes official notice that the remote controlled unit (remote vehicle) comprising: (a) a first light positioned at a front side of the body (i.e. headlights of a vehicle); and (b) a second light positioned at a rear side of the body (i.e. tail or brake lights), wherein the first and second lights are configured to provide a directional position of the remote controlled unit relative to an individual (headlights indicate the front of the vehicle and tail/brake lights indicate the rear of the vehicle), wherein the first light emits a first light color (conventional headlight color e.g. white or off-white) and the second light emits a second light color (conventional tail/brake light color e.g. red), wherein the first light color differs from the second light color (headlight white versus tail/brake light red) is instantly and unquestionably well-known and common knowledge in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bonilla, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the remote controlled unit further comprises: (a) a first light positioned at a front side of the body; and (b) a second light positioned at a rear side of the body, wherein the first and second lights are configured to provide a directional position of the remote controlled unit relative to an individual, wherein the first light emits a first light color and the second light emits a second light color, wherein the first light color differs from the second light color.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL D YABUT whose telephone number is (571)270-5526. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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 Olszewski can be reached on (571) 272-2706. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL D YABUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
