DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action on the Merits and is directed towards claims 1-10 as originally presented and filed on 12/09/2024.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Priority is claimed as set forth below, accordingly the earliest effective filing date is December 12, 2023 (20231212).
The present application, effectively filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
This application claims priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2023-209378 filed on December 12, 2023 (20231212).
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609 [R-07.2022], Applicant's 12/09/2024 and 04/30/2025 submission(s) of Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)(s) is/are acknowledged by the Examiner and the reference(s) cited therein has/have been considered in the examination of the claim(s) now pending. A copy of the submitted IDS(s) initialed and dated by the Examiner is/are attached to the instant Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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) 1-7, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20240391112 A1 to HIRAI; Takayoshi et al. (hereinafter HIRAI).
Regarding claim 1 HIRAI teaches in for example the Figure(s) reproduced immediately below:
PNG
media_image1.png
471
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
450
686
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
527
693
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
318
716
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
364
678
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
510
713
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
753
572
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
409
559
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and associated descriptive texts a remote operation system of remote operation of a mobility (as shown in for example only Figs. 1-3 above given the Broadest Reasonable Interpretations (BRI) a Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art (POSITA) would see a remote system 1 remotely operating mobilities (robots) 14-1 through 14-n as explained in for example only paras:
“[0062] FIG. 1 illustrates an example of vision aimed by applying the present technology. Specifically, FIG. 1 illustrates an embodiment of a service platform connecting a requester (business operator) and an operator (remote worker) of remote operation. The service platform includes a remote robot operation system and a remote operation matching system.
[0063] The remote robot operation system is a system that enables remote operation, remote monitoring, device management, and the like of each robot, and enables guarantee of work quality.
[0064] The remote operation matching system is a system that performs matching between an operator (remote worker) and a requester (business operator) by adapting a skill, an operation environment, a schedule, and the like. For example, the remote operation matching system performs matching of an operator consistent with a work request by the requester, user management for managing a work content and a skill and an operation environment of the operator, and performs work evaluation for evaluating work of the operator. For example, the remote operation matching system schedules an operator so that the operator can effectively use free time.
[0089] FIG. 3 illustrates a configuration example of functions of the communication terminal 11, the operation terminal 12, the requester terminal 13, and the robot 14 of the information processing system 1. Note that, for easy understanding of the figure, FIG. 3 illustrates only one communication terminal 11, one operation terminal 12, one requester terminal 13, and one robot 14, and the network 21 is not illustrated.”),
the remote operation system comprising one or more processors configured to (see fig. 3 appears to connote management server 15 described in para:
“[0087] The management server 15 is implemented, for example, by one computer or cooperation of a plurality of computers. The management server 15 executes matching processing between the operator or the operation terminal 12 and the requester or the robot 14, intermediation processing of remote operation between the operation terminal 12 and the robot 14, and the like. For example, the matching processing, the remote operation intermediation processing, and the like are implemented by execution of a predetermined application in a cloud service such as Amazon Web Services (AWS, registered trademark) or Azure (registered trademark).”):
acquire terminal specification information indicating specifications of each of a plurality of remote operator terminals (see Fig. 3 operation terminal 12 as described in for example para:
“[0097] The operation terminal 12 includes an input unit 121, a detection unit 122, a control unit 123, an output unit 124, a communication unit 125, and a storage unit 126.”);
acquire required capability information indicating at least a required terminal specification that is a specification required for the remote operation of a target mobility (see Fig. 5 and para:
“[0122] FIG. 5 illustrates a configuration example of data of the work condition DB accumulated in the storage unit 205 of the management server 15. The work condition DB is a DB that stores data regarding conditions necessary for remote operation of each work.
[0123] The work condition DB includes a work content, a communication amount, a communication speed, a Ping value, an allowable delay, an operation terminal, and a display.
[0124] The work content indicates an outline of each work. Here, work of controlling the robot 14 as a remote operation target is illustrated as an example.
[0125] The communication amount indicates a communication amount of the operation terminal 12 necessary for execution of each work. For example, in a case where the operation terminal 12 is a smartphone, the communication amount may be limited by a contract or the like with a communication company. Specifically, in a case where the communication amount of the smartphone exceeds a monthly capacity limit, a communication speed may be limited and rapidly decrease. In this regard, the communication amount is provided as a condition as a criterion for preventing the communication amount of the operation terminal 12 from exceeding the limited capacity. As a result, it is possible to prevent the communication amount of the operation terminal 12 from exceeding the limit capacity and the communication speed from rapidly decreasing during remote operation, and stability of communication of the operation terminal 12 is improved.”);
and assign a first remote operator terminal that meets the required terminal specification out of the remote operator terminals to the remote operation of the target mobility, based on the terminal specification information and the required terminal specification (as shown in Fig. 9, step S157 as explained in for example paras:
“[0226] Whereas, in a case where it is determined in step S156 that the determination has been performed on all the operators, the processing proceeds to step S157.
[0227] In step S157, the matching unit 211 determines the operator to which the work is to be requested. For example, among the operator candidates extracted using the selection condition, the matching unit 211 determines the operator having the highest matching degree as the operator to which the work is to be requested.
[0228] Note that, for example, in a case where there is a plurality of operators with the highest matching degree, the operator is selected on the basis of a distance between the operation terminal 12 to be used and the robot 14 as the remote operation target. For example, an operator who uses the operation terminal 12 being present at a position closer to the robot 14 as the remote operation target is preferentially selected. This is because the communication time between the operation terminal 12 and the robot 14 is likely to be shorter as the position of the operation terminal 12 is closer to the position of the robot 14.
[0616] For example, in a case where the operator desires a predetermined type of work, the matching unit 211 may preferentially assign the desired type of work to the operator.
[0617] For example, in a case where the operator desires more reward, the matching unit 211 may preferentially assign work with a higher reward to the operator. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 42, the matching unit 211 may assign work with the highest reward to the operator for every time zone so as to maximize the reward. In the case of this example, Work A is assigned in the time zone of 9:00 to 12:00, Work B is assigned in the time zone of 13:00 to 15:00, and Work C is assigned in the time zone of 16:00 to 19:00.
[0618] For example, the matching unit 211 may preferentially assign, to an operator, work of a reward system desired by the operator. For example, the reward system is defined by payment forms such as daily payment, weekly payment, and monthly payment, types of rewards such as cash, virtual passage, and points, and the like.“).
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are NOT imported into the claims. The Examiner must give the claim language the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) the claims allow.
See MPEP 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-10.2024], which states
II. IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Inter US-20100280751-A1 1pretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims."); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). See also subsection IV., below. When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
In Zletz, supra, the examiner and the Board had interpreted claims reading "normally solid polypropylene" and "normally solid polypropylene having a crystalline polypropylene content" as being limited to "normally solid linear high homopolymers of propylene which have a crystalline polypropylene content." The court ruled that limitations, not present in the claims, were improperly imported from the specification. See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'" (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976)). The court looked to the specification to construe "essentially free of alkali metal" as including unavoidable levels of impurities but no more.).”
Regarding claim 2 and the limitation the remote operation system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive a remote operation request indicating either or both of a type of the target mobility and content of the remote operation of the target mobility,
and recognize the required terminal specification required for the remote operation of the target mobility, based on the remote operation request (see for example Fig. 5 and paras:
“[0208] The condition related to an operator includes, for example, a condition related to ability of the operator. The condition related to ability of the operator includes, for example, at least one of a possessed qualification, a possessed skill, or a skill level of the operator.
[0209] The condition related to an operation environment includes an operation environment necessary for remotely operating the robot 14 requested by the requester to execute work. The condition related to an operation environment is set on the basis of, for example, one or more of a type of the robot 14, a specification of the robot 14, and a content of work to be executed by the robot 14.
[0214] For example, in a case where the selection condition includes an essential condition, the matching unit 211 determines whether or not the operation environment and the ability of the selected operator satisfy the essential condition. For example, a possessed qualification, a type of the operation terminal 12 used for remote operation, and the like are set as the essential condition.
[0394] In step S491, the control unit 123 acquires operation environment data. For example, the control unit 123 acquires data regarding identification information, a type, and a specification of the operation terminal 12 from the storage unit 126. For example, the control unit 123 acquires data regarding a position of the operation terminal 12 from the detection unit 122. For example, the control unit 123 acquires data regarding a state of the operation terminal 12. For example, the communication unit 125 actually performs a communication test between with the management server 15 via the network 21, acquires data regarding a communication status between the operation terminal 12 and the management server 15, and supplies the data to the control unit 123.”).
Regarding claim 3 and the limitation the remote operation system according to claim 2, further comprising one or more memories storing a table showing correspondence between the remote operation request and the required terminal specification,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to recognize the required terminal specification corresponding to the remote operation request by referring to the table (see Figs. 5 and 8 above and associated descriptive texts).
PNG
media_image9.png
338
716
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4 and the limitation the remote operation system according to claim 1, wherein the terminal specification information includes operation system information indicating operation system capabilities regarding operation system of each of the remote operator terminals,
the required terminal specification includes an operation system capability required for the remote operation of the target mobility,
and the one or more processors are configured to assign the first remote operator terminal having at least the required operation system capability to the remote operation of the target mobility, based on the operation system information and the required terminal specification (see Figs. 5 and 8 above and associated descriptive texts).
Regarding claim 5 and the limitation the remote operation system according to claim 4, wherein the operation system capabilities include the number of inputs of a forward and reverse operation and the number of inputs of a lateral operation (see Fig. 17, steps S332 and S333 as explained in for example paras:
“[0306] In step S332, the work monitoring unit 222 executes monitoring processing for the skill level of the operator, on the basis of the operation signal, the operator state information, and the work status information.
[0307] For example, the work monitoring unit 222 detects an operation of the operator on the basis of the operator image data and the operator biological information included in the operation state information. Specifically, for example, the work monitoring unit 222 detects a movement of each part (for example, a head part, a line-of-sight, an arm, a hand, a finger, and the like) of the operator. Furthermore, for example, the work monitoring unit 222 detects a method, a speed, a procedure, and the like of the remote operation of the operator on the basis of the movement of each part of the operator.
[0310] In step S333, the work monitoring unit 222 executes monitoring processing for a prohibited act. For example, the work monitoring unit 222 detects the presence or absence of execution of a prohibited act on the basis of a detection result of the operation of the robot 14.
[0311] Here, the prohibited action is, for example, an act of deteriorating progress and quality of work. In particular, for example, an act of significantly deteriorating progress and quality of work and an act of intentionally deteriorating progress and quality of work correspond to the prohibited act. For example, in a case where assembly work of a product is performed, acts are assumed in which a wrong component is installed, a component is installed at a wrong position, and a product or a component is damaged or destroyed by falling or the like.
[0312] Note that, in a case where an act of deteriorating progress or accuracy of the work is repeated a predetermined number of times or more, or continues for a predetermined time or more, for example, the work monitoring unit 222 may determine that the operator has executed the prohibited act. As a result, it becomes possible to identify whether the operator has erroneously executed the prohibited act or has executed the prohibited act with a malicious intent.”)
Regarding claim 6 and the limitation the remote operation system according to claim 5, wherein the operation system capabilities further include presence or absence of operation feedback (given the BRI operation feedback connotes Fig. 10 steps S207, S208 and S210 as explained in for example only para:
“[0295] In step S208, the management server 15 issues a warning indicating absence of the operation competency. For example, the intermediary unit 212 generates warning information (hereinafter, referred to as operation incompetency warning information) for notifying the operator that operation competency is absent and a reason therefor. The intermediary unit 212 transmits the operation incompetency warning information to the operation terminal 12 via the communication unit 204.”).
PNG
media_image10.png
345
441
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7 and the limitation the remote operation system according to claim 1, wherein the terminal specification information includes display system information indicating display system capabilities regarding display system of each of the remote operator terminals,
the required terminal specification includes a display system capability required for the remote operation of the target mobility,
and the one or more processors are configured to assign the first remote operator terminal having at least the required display system capability to the remote operation of the target mobility, based on the display system information and the required terminal specification (see Figs. 5 and 8 above and associated descriptive texts).
Regarding claim 9 and the limitation a remote operation management method of managing remote operation of a mobility by a computer, the remote operation management method comprising:
acquiring terminal specification information indicating specifications of each of a plurality of remote operator terminals;
acquiring required capability information indicating at least a required terminal specification that is a specification required for the remote operation of a target mobility;
and assigning a first remote operator terminal that meets the required terminal specification out of the remote operator terminals to the remote operation of the target mobility, based on the terminal specification information and the required terminal specification (see the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 10 and the limitation a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions of managing remote operation of a mobility that are executable by one or more processors and that cause the one or more processors to perform functions comprising:
acquiring terminal specification information indicating specifications of each of a plurality of remote operator terminals;
acquiring required capability information indicating at least a required terminal specification that is a specification required for the remote operation of a target mobility;
and assigning a first remote operator terminal that meets the required terminal specification out of the remote operator terminals to the remote operation of the target mobility, based on the terminal specification information and the required terminal specification (see the rejection of corresponding parts of AT LEAST claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240391112 A1 to HIRAI; Takayoshi et al. (hereinafter HIRAI) as applied to The claims above in view of US 20200170227 A1 to Rishi; Hemang Ravi et al. (hereinafter Rishi).
Regarding claim 8 and the limitation the remote operation system according to claim 7,
HIRAI does not appear to expressly disclose wherein the display system capabilities include the number of monitors and the number of videos displayed simultaneously.
In analogous art Rishi teaches in for example, the figures below:
PNG
media_image11.png
512
704
media_image11.png
Greyscale
And associated descriptive texts a display system capabilities include the number of monitors and the number of videos displayed simultaneously (in Fig. 1 given the BRI a POSITA would understand a remote operator 104 is monitoring a number of monitors 102, 106 with a number of videos displayed on each different monitor as explained in for example paras:
“[0082] Presently, farmed fish are kept in cages in the sea (although some, or aspects of, embodiments are equally applicable to fish farming in dedicated tanks) and various monitoring of the fishes' conditions is performed via video cameras and environmental sensors. This monitoring is displayed to the farmer via a control room such as shown in FIG. 1. FIG. 1 shows an operator (farmer) confronted with a number of video monitors showing the activity in the various cages of the farm. The operator will typically also have remote control of the quantity and rate of feed applied to each of the cages. In sending data to operators, and in order to optimise and tailor feeding strategies for cages and farms, remote management may be enhanced by one or more artificial intelligence (AI) arrangements breaking down important pieces of information, which may include which cages to focus on if certain cages are not meeting forecasts.
[0083] This monitoring is displayed to a farmer or operator typically via screens provided in a control room such as shown in FIG. 1. In the example shown in FIG. 1, a control room 100 is shown with a human operator 104 positioned to be able to view four display screens 102 which are displaying the fish in each of a number of cages for the human operator 104 to be able to view. The control room 100 is also provided with a computer 106 to allow the operator 104 to be able to control aspects of the fish farm such as the pellet feeding machinery etc.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the multiple monitors/videos disclosed in Rishi with the system taught in HIRAI with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed one operator to remotely control and monitor multiple vehicles or multiple views from multiple cameras on the vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as teaching, inter alia, the state of the art of remote operation at the time of the invention. For example:
US 20070212031 A1 to Hikita; Jun teaches, inter alia a Video monitoring system and video monitoring program in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“Disclosed herein is a video monitoring system including: a camera connected to a network; a recorder configured to record, via the network, a video image
PNG
media_image12.png
485
456
media_image12.png
Greyscale
captured by the camera; a displayer configured to display a video image captured by the camera; and a controller configured to execute control such that at least one of a current video image captured by the camera and a past video image recorded to the recorder onto be displayed on the displayer. In the monitoring system, if displaying of a past video image is specified with a current video image displayed in a window on the displayer, the controller executes control such that, while maintaining a display status of the window, the specified past video image be displayed in the window.”.
US 20190061619 A1 to Reymann; Steffen et al. teaches, inter alia REMOTE OPERATION OF NON-DRIVING FUNCTIONALITY AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“An autonomous transit vehicle includes a vehicle body, a drive mechanism for propelling the body, an audio/video communications device that is in communication with a remote control system, an imaging sensor, a processing unit in communication with the drive mechanism, the communications device, and the sensor. The vehicle includes a memory having instructions stored thereon that cause the processing unit to detect improper behavior by a passenger on the transit vehicle, communicate a notification to the passenger that the improper behavior was detected, detect that the passenger has not rectified the improper behavior, record an image of the passenger, and communicate an alert to a security device. The alert may include the image of the passenger and an indication of the improper behavior. The instructions further cause the processing unit to notify the passenger that the image has been recorded and sent to the security device.”.
US 20190163176 A1 to Wang; Tao et al. teaches, inter alia a METHOD FOR TRANSFERRING CONTROL OF AN AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE TO A REMOTE OPERATOR in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“One variation of a method for transferring control of an autonomous vehicle to a remote operator includes: accessing a specification for triggering manual control of autonomous vehicles; identifying a road segment, within a geographic region, exhibiting characteristics defined by the specification; and associating a location of the road segment, represented in a navigation map, with a remote operator trigger. The method also includes, at the autonomous vehicle operating within the geographic region: autonomously navigating along a route; transmitting a request for manual assistance to the remote operator in response to approaching the location associated with the remote operator trigger; transmitting sensor data to a remote operator portal associated with the remote operator; and executing a navigational command received from the remote operator via the remote operator portal; and resuming autonomous navigation along the route after passing the location.”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LAWSON GREENE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6876. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-THUR 7-5:30PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. 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 L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 20260221