DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim status
2. In response to the amendments filed 05/07/2026, claims 1-45 were canceled and new claims 46-100 were added. Therefore, claims 46-100 are currently pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 46-56 and 60-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizawa (US 2021/0197747) in view of Munaoka et al. (Munaoka; US 2017/0158054) and further in view of Magana et al. (Magana; US 2017/0197523).
For claim 46, Yoshizawa discloses a vehicular driver monitoring system, the vehicular driver monitoring system comprising:
a driver monitoring camera [Fig. 1: image capturing device 21], wherein the driver monitoring camera at least (i) views a driver operating the vehicle who is seated in the interior cabin of the vehicle in a driver seat of the vehicle [E.g. 0070: Image capturing device 21 captures an image of the driver in the driver's seat of the vehicle. For example, image capturing device 21 is a charge coupled device (CCD) camera and is highly sensitive in a near-infrared range. Image capturing device 21 captures an image of the general area around the headrest in the driver's seat. Image capturing device 21 outputs a captured image that includes the driver to driver monitoring device 10.];
wherein the driver monitoring camera is operable to capture image data [E.g. 0073: Detector 11 detects an irregular posture of the driver in the driver's seat of the vehicle based on an image captured by image capturing device 21. An irregular posture is a posture that has resulted from the driver moving his or her body to distort the posture from a proper posture that the driver is in while sitting in the driver's seat, and an irregular posture is an improper posture. Examples of an irregular posture also include a posture held when the driver is distracted with his or her eyes off the road. Specifically, detector 11 recognizes an image captured by image capturing device 21 and calculates the amount of irregularity in the posture of the driver. The amount of irregularity in the posture is defined by the amount or the degree of the distortion in the posture. When the amount of irregularity in the posture is greater than or equal to a threshold, detector 11 determines that the driver is in an irregular posture. If detector 11 has detected an irregular posture of the driver based on the amount of irregularity in the posture, detector 11 acquires time information indicating the time when the irregular posture has been detected from timer 13 and outputs the acquired time information along with information indicating the detected irregular posture to determination controller 12. The information indicating the irregular posture also includes the amount of irregularity in the posture];
an electronic control unit (ECU) disposed at the vehicle [Fig. 1: driver monitoring device 10], wherein the ECU comprises electronic circuitry and associated software, and wherein the electronic circuitry of the ECU comprises an image processor operable to process image data captured by the driver monitoring camera [E.g. 0073: Detector 11 detects an irregular posture of the driver in the driver's seat of the vehicle based on an image captured by image capturing device 21. An irregular posture is a posture that has resulted from the driver moving his or her body to distort the posture from a proper posture that the driver is in while sitting in the driver's seat, and an irregular posture is an improper posture. Examples of an irregular posture also include a posture held when the driver is distracted with his or her eyes off the road. Specifically, detector 11 recognizes an image captured by image capturing device 21 and calculates the amount of irregularity in the posture of the driver. The amount of irregularity in the posture is defined by the amount or the degree of the distortion in the posture. When the amount of irregularity in the posture is greater than or equal to a threshold, detector 11 determines that the driver is in an irregular posture. If detector 11 has detected an irregular posture of the driver based on the amount of irregularity in the posture, detector 11 acquires time information indicating the time when the irregular posture has been detected from timer 13 and outputs the acquired time information along with information indicating the detected irregular posture to determination controller 12. The information indicating the irregular posture also includes the amount of irregularity in the posture];
wherein image data captured by the driver monitoring camera is transferred to and is processed at the ECU [E.g. 0073: Detector 11 detects an irregular posture of the driver in the driver's seat of the vehicle based on an image captured by image capturing device 21. An irregular posture is a posture that has resulted from the driver moving his or her body to distort the posture from a proper posture that the driver is in while sitting in the driver's seat, and an irregular posture is an improper posture. Examples of an irregular posture also include a posture held when the driver is distracted with his or her eyes off the road. Specifically, detector 11 recognizes an image captured by image capturing device 21 and calculates the amount of irregularity in the posture of the driver. The amount of irregularity in the posture is defined by the amount or the degree of the distortion in the posture. When the amount of irregularity in the posture is greater than or equal to a threshold, detector 11 determines that the driver is in an irregular posture. If detector 11 has detected an irregular posture of the driver based on the amount of irregularity in the posture, detector 11 acquires time information indicating the time when the irregular posture has been detected from timer 13 and outputs the acquired time information along with information indicating the detected irregular posture to determination controller 12. The information indicating the irregular posture also includes the amount of irregularity in the posture]; and
wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system, via processing at the ECU of image data captured by the driver monitoring camera, determines at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) posture of the driver who is seated in the interior cabin of the vehicle in the driver seat of the vehicle by analyzing position of a body part of the driver in the image data relative to a first feature of the vehicle in the image data [E.g. 0073: Detector 11 detects an irregular posture of the driver in the driver's seat of the vehicle based on an image captured by image capturing device 21. An irregular posture is a posture that has resulted from the driver moving his or her body to distort the posture from a proper posture that the driver is in while sitting in the driver's seat, and an irregular posture is an improper posture. Examples of an irregular posture also include a posture held when the driver is distracted with his or her eyes off the road. Specifically, detector 11 recognizes an image captured by image capturing device 21 and calculates the amount of irregularity in the posture of the driver. The amount of irregularity in the posture is defined by the amount or the degree of the distortion in the posture. When the amount of irregularity in the posture is greater than or equal to a threshold, detector 11 determines that the driver is in an irregular posture. If detector 11 has detected an irregular posture of the driver based on the amount of irregularity in the posture, detector 11 acquires time information indicating the time when the irregular posture has been detected from timer 13 and outputs the acquired time information along with information indicating the detected irregular posture to determination controller 12. The information indicating the irregular posture also includes the amount of irregularity in the posture, 0007, 0013, 0080-0085, 0128, 0132].
Yoshizawa fails to expressly disclose that the driver monitoring camera is disposed at an interior rearview mirror assembly within an interior cabin of a vehicle and a light emitter disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly, wherein the light emitter, when electrically operated, emits near infrared light to illuminate at least the driver that is viewed by the driver monitoring camera and who is seated in the interior cabin of the vehicle in the driver seat of the vehicle.
However, as shown by Munaoka, it was well known in the art of monitoring drivers to include driver monitoring camera disposed at an interior rearview mirror assembly within an interior cabin of a vehicle [E.g. 0022], and a light emitter disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly, wherein the light emitter, when electrically operated, emits near infrared light to illuminate at least the driver that is viewed by the driver monitoring camera and who is seated in the interior cabin of the vehicle in the driver seat of the vehicle [E.g. 0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshizawa with the teaching of Munaoka in order to have a camera that have a better view of the driver, also it is merely combining prior art elements according to known method to yield predictable result.
Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka fails to expressly disclose fails to expressly teach that the light emitter disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly.
Although Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka fails to expressly disclose that the light emitter disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly, Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka teaches a light emitter that emits near infrared light to illuminate at least a portion of the interior cabin that is viewed by the interior-viewing camera [E.g. see analysis above]. However, having the light emitter disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly fails to yield unpredictable results; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka to have the light emitter disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly in order to satisfy system needs and/or environment requirement which require using such threshold time, also because such modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka.
Furthermore, Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka fails to expressly disclose that the driver monitoring camera views a passenger who is seated in the interior cabin of the vehicle in a passenger seat of the vehicle and that the vehicular driver monitoring system determines posture of the passenger who is seated in the interior cabin of the vehicle in the passenger seat of the vehicle by analyzing position of a body part of the passenger in the image data relative to a second feature of the vehicle in the image data.
However, as shown by Magana, it was well known in the art of posture detection to include a driver monitoring camera views a passenger who is seated in interior cabin of the vehicle in a passenger seat of the vehicle and that the vehicular driver monitoring system determines posture of the passenger who is seated in the interior cabin of the vehicle in the passenger seat of the vehicle by analyzing position of a body part of the passenger in the image data relative to a second feature of the vehicle in the image data [E.g. 0031-0032, 0036, 0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka with the teaching of Magana in order to have a monitoring system for all vehicle occupant so that all occupant can have a good posture while seated and thereby increase all vehicle occupant satisfaction.
For claim 47, Yoshizawa discloses wherein the body part of the driver comprises a head of the driver, and wherein, based at least in part on a comparison between a determined posture for the head of the driver and a proper posture for the head of the driver stored in memory, improper posture of the driver is determined [E.g. 0075: Herein, detector 11 may determine how far the position of the head of the driver is away from a predefined position, and if this distance is continuously greater than or equal to a predefined distance for a predetermined time or longer, detector 11 may determine that the driver is in an irregular posture. The predefined position may be the center of the headrest in the driver's seat. In this case, detector 11 may calculate the amount of irregularity in the posture based on the distance between the predefined position and the center of the face of the driver, 0076].
For claim 48, Yoshizawa discloses wherein the proper posture for the head of the driver stored in memory is determined based at least in part on processing at the ECU of image data captured by the driver monitoring camera determining position of the head of the driver in the image data relative to the first feature of the vehicle in the image data [E.g. 0075-0076, 0073].
For claim 49, Yoshizawa discloses wherein the first feature of the vehicle comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) a seat of the vehicle [E.g. 0124, 0073, 0080, 0128, 0015, 0132], (ii) a steering wheel of the vehicle and (iii) a mirror of the vehicle.
For claim 50, Magana further teaches wherein, based at least in part on a comparison between a determined posture for the body part of the passenger and a proper posture for the body part of the passenger stored in memory, improper posture of the passenger is determined [E.g. 0031-0034, 0065-0069, 0018-0019, Fig. 6].
For claim 51, Magana further teaches wherein the proper posture for the body part of the passenger stored in memory is determined based at least in part on processing at the ECU of image data captured by the driver monitoring camera determining position of the body part of the passenger relative to the second feature of the vehicle [E.g. 0031-0034, 0065-0069, 0018-0019, Fig. 6].
For claim 52, Magana further teaches wherein the second feature of the vehicle comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) a seat of the vehicle [E.g. 0031-0034, 0065-0069, 0018-0019, Fig. 6], (ii) a steering wheel of the vehicle and (iii) a mirror of the vehicle.
For claim 53, Yoshizawa discloses wherein the body part of the driver comprises the head of the driver [E.g. 0075-0076].
For claim 54, Although Magana fails to expressly disclose that the body part of the passenger comprises the head of the passenger, Magna teaches analyzing a body part of the passenger to determine the passenger posture [E.g. see analysis above]. However, having the body part of the passenger comprises the head of the passenger fails to yield unpredictable results; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Magana to have the body part of the passenger comprises the head of the passenger in order to satisfy system needs and/or environment requirement which require using such threshold time, also because such modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Magana.
For claim 55, Yoshizawa in view of Magana further teaches wherein the first feature and the second feature of the vehicle each comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) a seat of the vehicle [E.g. Yoshizawa; 0124, 0073, 0080, 0128, 0015, 013; Magana; 0031-0034, 0065-0069, 0018-0019, Fig. 6], (ii) a steering wheel of the vehicle and (iii) a mirror of the vehicle.
For claim 56, Yoshizawa discloses wherein, via processing at the ECU of image data captured by the driver monitoring camera, attentiveness of the driver is determined [E.g. 0073-0074, 0033, 0065].
For claim 60, Magana further teaches wherein posture of the passenger is determined based at least in part on a determined position of the body part of the passenger relative to the passenger seat that is occupied by the passenger [E.g. 0031-0032, 0036, 0006].
For claim 61, Although Magana fails to expressly disclose that the body part of the passenger comprises the head of the passenger, Magna teaches analyzing a body part of the passenger to determine the passenger posture [E.g. see analysis above]. However, having the body part of the passenger comprises the head of the passenger fails to yield unpredictable results; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Magana to have the body part of the passenger comprises the head of the passenger in order to satisfy system needs and/or environment requirement which require using such threshold time, also because such modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Magana.
For claim 62, Magana further teaches wherein the body part of the passenger comprises the spine of the passenger [E.g. 0031-0032, 0036, 0006, 0002].
For claim 63, Yoshizawa discloses wherein, via processing at the ECU of image data captured by the driver monitoring camera, tilt of the head of the driver is determined [E.g. 0075-0076].
For claim 64, Yoshizawa discloses wherein, via processing at the ECU of image data captured by the driver monitoring camera, slouch by the driver is determined [E.g. 0033, 0073-0074, 0065].
For claim 65, is interpreted and rejected as disused with respect to claims 46 and 56.
For claim 66, is interpreted and rejected as disused with respect to claim 50.
For claim 67, is interpreted and rejected as disused with respect to claim 51.
For claim 68, is interpreted and rejected as disused with respect to claim 63.
For claim 69, is interpreted and rejected as disused with respect to claim 64.
For claim 70, is interpreted and rejected as disused with respect to claim 54.
For claim 71, is interpreted and rejected as disused with respect to claim 52.
For claim 72, is interpreted and rejected as disused with respect to claim 60.
For claim 73, is interpreted and rejected as disused with respect to claim 61.
For claim 74, is interpreted and rejected as disused with respect to claim 62.
6. Claims 57, 75, 79-87 and 96-100 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka further in view of Magana and further in view of Sigle et al. (Sigle; US 2017/0366716).
For claim 57, Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka and Magana fails to expressly disclose wherein image data captured by the driver monitoring camera is output to the ECU via a coaxial cable.
However, as shown by Sigle, it was well known in the art of monitoring cameras to image data captured by a driver monitoring camera is output to the ECU via a coaxial cable [E.g. 0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka and Magana with the teaching of Sigle because coaxial cables are designed to transmit high‑frequency video signals with minimal electromagnetic interference, also it is merely combining prior art elements according to known method to yield predictable result.
For claim 75, is interpreted and rejected as disused with respect to claim 57.
For claim 79, is interpreted and rejected as disused with respect to claims 46 and 56-57.
For claim 80, is interpreted and rejected as disused with respect to claim 47.
For claim 81, is interpreted and rejected as disused with respect to claim 48.
For claim 82, is interpreted and rejected as disused with respect to claim 49.
For claim 83, is interpreted and rejected as disused with respect to claim 50.
For claim 84, is interpreted and rejected as disused with respect to claim 51.
For claim 85, is interpreted and rejected as disused with respect to claim 52.
For claim 86, is interpreted and rejected as disused with respect to claim 53.
For claim 87, is interpreted and rejected as disused with respect to claim 54.
For claim 96, is interpreted and rejected as disused with respect to claim 60.
For claim 97, is interpreted and rejected as disused with respect to claim 61.
For claim 98, is interpreted and rejected as disused with respect to claim 62.
For claim 99, is interpreted and rejected as disused with respect to claim 63.
For claim 100, is interpreted and rejected as disused with respect to claim 64.
7. Claims 58-59 and 76-78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka further in view of Magana and further in view of Larson et al. (Larson; US 2016/0375833).
For claim 58, Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka and Magana fails to expressly disclose wherein the interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle comprises a mirror reflective element, and wherein the mirror reflective element comprises a transflective mirror reflector.
However, as shown by Larson, it was well known in the art of interior rearview mirror assembly to include interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle comprises a mirror reflective element, and wherein the mirror reflective element comprises a transflective mirror reflector [E.g. 0004, 0026, 0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka and Magana with the teaching of Larson in order to have a dual functionally in a single mirror and thereby improve the interior rearview mirror assembly.
For claim 59, Larson further teaches wherein the interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle comprises an interior rearview electro-optic mirror assembly [E.g. 0004, 0025], and wherein a video display screen is disposed behind the mirror reflective element [E.g. 0004, 0026, 0033], and wherein the video display screen disposed behind the mirror reflective element is operable to display video images derived from image data captured by at least one exterior-viewing camera of the vehicle element [E.g. 0004, 0024, 0051; Figs. 2 and 10], and wherein the interior rearview mirror assembly comprises a dual-mode interior rearview video mirror assembly [E.g. 0004, 0024, 0034, 0047, Figs. 2 and 10].
For claim 76, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 58.
For claim 77, Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka and Magana fails to expressly disclose wherein the interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle comprises an interior rearview electrochromic mirror assembly.
However, as shown by Larson, it was well known in the art of interior rearview mirror assembly to include interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle comprises an interior rearview electrochromic mirror assembly [E.g. 0025, 0027, 0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka and Magana with the teaching of Larson in order to have a interior rearview mirror assembly that offer automatic glare reduction.
For claim 78, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 59.
8. Claims 88 and 90-95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka further in view of Magana and further in view of Sigle and further in view of Larson.
For claim 88, Yoshizawa in view of Magana further teaches wherein the first feature and the second feature of the vehicle each comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) a seat of the vehicle [E.g. Yoshizawa; 0124, 0073, 0080, 0128, 0015, 013; Magana; 0031-0034, 0065-0069, 0018-0019, Fig. 6], (ii) a steering wheel of the vehicle and (iii) a mirror of the vehicle.
Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka, Magana and Sigle wherein the interior rearview mirror assembly comprises an interior rearview electrochromic rearview mirror assembly.
However, as shown by Larson, it was well known in the art of interior rearview mirror assembly to include interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle comprises an interior rearview electrochromic mirror assembly [E.g. 0025, 0027, 0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka, Magana and Sigle with the teaching of Larson in order to have a interior rearview mirror assembly that offer automatic glare reduction.
For claim 90, Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka, Magana and Sigle fails to expressly disclose wherein the interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle comprises a mirror reflective element, and wherein the mirror reflective element comprises a transflective mirror reflector.
However, as shown by Larson, it was well known in the art of interior rearview mirror assembly to include interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle comprises a mirror reflective element, and wherein the mirror reflective element comprises a transflective mirror reflector [E.g. 0004, 0026, 0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka, Magana and Sigle with the teaching of Larson in order to have a dual functionally in a single mirror and thereby improve the interior rearview mirror assembly.
For claim 91, Larson further teaches wherein the interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle comprises an interior rearview electrochromic mirror assembly [E.g. 0025, 0027, 0029].
For claim 92, Larson further teaches wherein the interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle comprises an interior rearview electro-optic mirror assembly [E.g. 0004, 0025, 0027].
For claim 93, Larson further teaches wherein a video display screen is disposed behind the mirror reflective element, and wherein the video display screen disposed behind the mirror reflective element is operable to display video images derived from image data captured by at least one exterior-viewing camera of the vehicle [E.g. 0004, 0024, 0051; Figs. 2 and 10].
For claim 94, Larson further teaches wherein the interior rearview mirror assembly comprises a dual-mode interior rearview video mirror assembly [E.g. 0004, 0024, 0034, 0047, Figs. 2 and 10].
For claim 95, Larson further teaches wherein the interior rearview electro-optic mirror assembly of the vehicle comprises an interior rearview electrochromic mirror assembly [E.g. 0004, 0025, 0027].
9. Claim 89 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka further in view of Magana and further in view of Sigle and further in view of Official Notice.
For claim 89, Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka, Magana and Sigle fails to expressly disclose wherein an amount of time that the driver has good posture versus bad posture is recorded.
However, examiner takes official notice that having wherein an amount of time that the driver has good posture versus bad posture is recorded is well-known in the art of posture monitoring and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art so that a user is aware of his posture and a correction action can be performed based on the recorded posture data.
Response to Remarks
10. The Applicant's remarks regarding the rejection have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
11. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED BARAKAT whose telephone number is (571)270-3696. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571) 272-2957. 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.
/MOHAMED BARAKAT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights