DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/26/20206 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 14, and 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,439. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, “a first fixed sensor to capture first sensor data associated with a physical environment” corresponds to “a first fixed image device to capture first image data associated with a physical environment” in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,439;
“an asset tracking system configured to” corresponds to “an asset tracking system configured to” in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,439:
“generate, based at least in part on the first sensor data, a pixel map of the physical environment, the pixel map including at least a first slot and a second slot, the first slot is defined based on a first set of pixels of the pixel map and the second slot is defined based on a second set of pixels of the pixel map, the first set of pixels different than the second set of pixels” corresponds to “generate, based at least in part on the first image data, a pixel map of the physical environment, the pixel map including at least a first slot and a second slot, the first slot is defined based on a first set of pixels of the pixel map and the second slot is defined based on a second set of pixels of the pixel map, the first set of pixels different than the second set of pixels” in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,439;
“detect, based at least in part on the first sensor data, a first asset within the first slot” corresponds to “detect, based at least in part on the first image data, a first asset within the first slot” in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,439;
“assign a virtual identifier to the first asset” corresponds to “assign a virtual identifier to the first asset” in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,439;
“associate the virtual identifier with the first slot, wherein the first slot is a first virtual slot” corresponds to “associate the virtual identifier with the first slot, wherein the first slot is a first virtual slot” in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,439;
“determine, based at least in part on portions of second sensor data captured while the first asset is positioned within the first slot, a physical identifier associated with the first asset” corresponds to “determine, based at least in part on portions of the second image data captured while the first asset is positioned within the first slot, a physical identifier associated with the first asset” in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,439;
“associate the virtual identifier with the physical identifier” corresponds to “associate the virtual identifier with the physical identifier” in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,439.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the same limitations as claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,439.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the same limitations as claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,439.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the same limitations as claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,439.
Regarding claim 7, “detecting, based at least in part on first sensor data, an asset within a physical environment” corresponds to “detecting, based at least in part on first image data, an asset within a physical environment” in claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,439;
“assigning a virtual identifier to the asset” corresponds to “assigning a virtual identifier to the asset” in claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,439;
“determining, based at least in part on second sensor data, that the asset has been placed within the physical environment” corresponds to “determining, based at least in part on second image data, that the asset has been parked within the physical environment” in claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,439;
“defining, in response to determining that the asset has been placed and based at least in part on the second sensor data, a first virtual slot within a virtual map of the physical environment” corresponds to “defining, in response to determining that the asset has been parked based at least in part on pixels within the second image data representing the asset, a virtual slot within a pixel map of the physical environment” in claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,439;
“associating the virtual identifier with the first virtual slot” corresponds to “associating the virtual identifier with the virtual slot, wherein the virtual slot is a first virtual slot” in claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,439; and
“causing the virtual map to be displayed on a display, the virtual map including data indicating the first virtual slot and an occupancy of the first virtual slot by the asset” corresponds to “causing the pixel map to be displayed at a display associated with the physical environment, the pixel map including data indicating the virtual slot and an occupancy of the virtual slot” in claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,439.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the same limitations as claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,439.
Regarding claim 16, “detecting, based at least in part on first sensor data, an asset within a physical environment” corresponds to “detecting, based at least in part on first image data, an asset within a physical environment” in claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,439;
“assigning a virtual identifier to the asset” corresponds to “assigning a virtual identifier to the asset” in claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,439;
“determining, based at least in part on second sensor data, that the asset has been placed within the physical environment” corresponds to “determining, based at least in part on second image data, that the asset has been parked within the physical environment” in claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,439;
“defining, in response to determining that the asset is placed and based at least in part on the second sensor data, a first virtual slot within a virtual map of the physical environment” corresponds to “defining, responsive to determining that the asset has been parked within the physical environment for greater than the predetermined period of time and based at least in part on pixels within the second image data representing the asset, a virtual slot within a pixel map of the physical environment” in claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,439;
“associating the virtual identifier with the first virtual slot” corresponds to “associating the virtual identifier with the virtual slot, wherein the virtual slot is a first virtual slot” in claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,439; and
“causing the virtual map to be displayed on a display, the virtual map including data indicating the first virtual slot and an occupancy of the first virtual slot by the asset” corresponds to “causing the pixel map to be displayed at a display associated with the physical environment, the pixel map including data indicating the virtual slot and an occupancy of the virtual slot” in claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,439.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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) 7, 9, 10, 13, 15-17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sriram et al (US20190294889).
Regarding claim 7, Sriram discloses a method comprising:
detecting, based at least in part on first sensor data (234 and 246 in fig. 2), an asset within a physical environment (116 in fig. 1; para. [0113]-[0114]; para. [0151], The occupancy determiner 116 may use the intersection over the union of the separation line 410 and a bounding box to determine which vehicle is parked in which spot);
assigning a virtual identifier to the asset (para. [0165], When the inter-feed object tracker 138 determines a detected object is a new object, the inter-feed object tracker 138 may assign a global tracking identifier to the object and begin tracking the object in the area 200);
determining, based at least in part on second sensor data, that the asset has been placed within the physical environment (para. [0208], The perception system 102 may monitor each ROI (e.g., parking space, aisle, section of a road, etc.) to determine object behavior—for example, if a vehicle is parked in that spot or not; para. [0213], When the vehicle is parked at a parking spot, the system may assign its license plate to its location);
defining, in response to determining that the asset has been placed and based at least in part on the second sensor data, a first virtual slot within a virtual map of the physical environment (para. [0136]-[0137], [0140], [0143]);
associating the virtual identifier with the first virtual slot (para.[0151], The occupancy determiner 116 may use the intersection over the union of the separation line 410 and a bounding box to determine which vehicle is parked in which spot; para. [0163], Any object attributes and other metadata, which may be associated with the trajectory points (e.g., video frames) and the local object identifier of the intra-feed object tracker(s) 120 may be associated with corresponding trajectory points (e.g., video frames) and the global object identifier; para. [0167]); and
causing the virtual map to be displayed on a display, the virtual map including data indicating the first virtual slot and an occupancy of the first virtual slot by the asset (para. [0109], [0210]-[0211], [0214]).
Regarding claim 9, Sriram discloses a method further comprising:
determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, one or more metrics associate with the virtual slot, the one or more metrics including a vertical stacking capacity metric and an accessibility metric (para. [0036], In contrast, the current system allows for determining whether designated spaces (e.g., parking spots) are occupied by objects, such as vehicles, by leveraging image data from image sensors, such as cameras, that capture the designated spaces in fields of view of the image sensors. Using the approaches described herein, the image data can be used to determine which particular spaces are occupied by objects, the types of objects in the spaces, and other associated metadata; para. [0143], While the ROI indicator line 404A is used as an example, similar approaches may be used where a location(s) of an ROI corresponds to a shape or polygon to statistically derive one or more dimensions of that shape or polygon; para. [0149]-[0150]); and
wherein causing the virtual map to be displayed on the display further comprises indicating via the virtual map the one or more metrics associated with the first virtual slot (para. [0109], An occupancy status for an ROI may generally indicate whether an object is occupying the ROI and/or an amount the object is occupying the ROI. In some examples, the occupancy status may include a binary value, or flag, indicating whether an ROI is occupied (e.g., 0 for unoccupied, 1 for occupied); para. [0149]-[0150]; para. [0210]-[0211]).
Regarding claim 10, Sriram discloses a method wherein causing the virtual map to be displayed on the display further comprises indicating via the virtual map a schedule data associated with the asset (para. [0164], the inter-feed object tracker 138 is part of the semantic analysis system 104 and operates on the metadata generated by the perception system 102 (e.g., by associating time-stamped metadata and/or other frame-based data with a common object); para. [0173], For example, the cameras 228, 230, 232, 234, 236, 238 and other sensors may independently determine location coordinates based at least in part on object detections for a given time (or period of time). Each of these location coordinates may be associated with a same timestamp, for example; para. [0226]-[0227]).
Regarding claim 13, Sriram discloses a method wherein second sensor data includes image data and lidar data (para. [0059]).
Regarding claim 15, Sriram discloses a method wherein the virtual map is a pixel map (para. [0154]-[0155]).
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 17, Sriram discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media wherein the first sensor data includes image data and radar data (para. [0059]).
Regarding claim 19, Sriram discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media further comprising:
determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data, an accessibility metric associated with the first virtual slot (para. [0143], While the ROI indicator line 404A is used as an example, similar approaches may be used where a location(s) of an ROI corresponds to a shape or polygon to statistically derive one or more dimensions of that shape or polygon; para. [0149]-[0150]); and
wherein causing the virtual map to be displayed on the display further comprises indicating via the virtual map the accessibility metric (fig. 4A; para. [0109], [0210]-[0211], [0214]).
Regarding claim 20, Sriram discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media further comprising:
determining, based at least in part on the virtual map, occupancy metrics associated with the physical environment (para. [0036], In contrast, the current system allows for determining whether designated spaces (e.g., parking spots) are occupied by objects, such as vehicles, by leveraging image data from image sensors, such as cameras, that capture the designated spaces in fields of view of the image sensors. Using the approaches described herein, the image data can be used to determine which particular spaces are occupied by objects, the types of objects in the spaces, and other associated metadata; para. [0209]-[0210]); and
wherein causing the virtual map to be displayed on the display further comprises displaying the occupancy metrics (180 in fig. 1; para. [0209]-[0210]).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriram et al (US20190294889) in view of Cohen et al (US20130113936).
Regarding claim 1, Sriram teaches a system comprising:
a first fixed sensor to capture first sensor data associated with a physical environment (234 and 246 in fig. 2; para. [0060]-[0061], For example, a bullet camera(s) may be installed at controlled access points such as entrances or exits of the area 200 and/or rooms or regions thereof to capture objects entering and exiting the area; para. [0112], As an example, the camera 234 may have a fixed field of view such that the field of view always includes at least the parking spots 202A, 202B, 202C, 202D, 202E, 202F);
an asset tracking system (fig. 1A) configured to:
generate, based at least in part on the first sensor data, a pixel map of the physical environment (para. [0136]; para. [0154], Using the camera calibration data, pixel positions in an image captured at that specific camera may be mapped to real-world coordinates, thereby providing a translation between image coordinates to world coordinates. Once camera calibration is performed, ROIs of images generated by a particular camera may also be defined to correspond to specific regions (such as, without limitation, parking spaces, parking spaces designated for particular vehicles, portions of an aisle, etc.) in the real world; para. [0155]), the pixel map including at least a first slot and a second slot (202A-202F in fig. 2; fig. 4A), the first slot is defined based on a first set of pixels of the pixel map and the second slot is defined based on a second set of pixels of the pixel map (para. [0114], [0136], [0154]-[0155]), the first set of pixels different than the second set of pixels (figs. 2 and 4A);
detect, based at least in part on the first sensor data, a first asset within the first slot (116 in fig. 1; para. [0113]-[0114]; para. [0151], The occupancy determiner 116 may use the intersection over the union of the separation line 410 and a bounding box to determine which vehicle is parked in which spot);
assign a virtual identifier to the first asset (para. [0165], When the inter-feed object tracker 138 determines a detected object is a new object, the inter-feed object tracker 138 may assign a global tracking identifier to the object and begin tracking the object in the area 200);
associate the virtual identifier with the first slot (para.[0151], The occupancy determiner 116 may use the intersection over the union of the separation line 410 and a bounding box to determine which vehicle is parked in which spot; para. [0163], Any object attributes and other metadata, which may be associated with the trajectory points (e.g., video frames) and the local object identifier of the intra-feed object tracker(s) 120 may be associated with corresponding trajectory points (e.g., video frames) and the global object identifier), wherein the first slot is a first virtual slot (para. [0136]-[0137], [0143]); and
associate the virtual identifier with a physical identifier (para. [0068], [0163]).
Sriram fails to teach determining, based at least in part on portions of second sensor data captured while the first asset is positioned within the first slot, a physical identifier associated with the first asset.
However Cohen teaches determining, based at least in part on portions of sensor data captured while a first asset is positioned within a first slot, a physical identifier associated with the first asset (para. [0123], For example, in one such embodiment a camera unit 16 detects a vehicle entering a parking space and notifies system controller 44. When system controller 44 receives the image from the camera unit 16, system controller 44 processes the image to extract the license plate image and presents the extracted license plate image to an OCR module for text extraction; para. [0198]-[0200]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Sriram and Cohen as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Cohen into the system of Sriram. The motivation to combine Sriram and Cohen would be to efficiently find available parking in a parking lot (para. [0007] of Sriram).
Regarding claim 2, the modified system of Sriram teaches a system wherein a first fixed sensor device is an image device (para. [0060] of Sriram).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriram et al (US20190294889) and Cohen et al (US20130113936) in view of Reisbick et al (US20200175868).
Regarding claim 3, the modified system of Sriram fails to teach a system wherein a first fixed sensor device is a radar device.
However Reisbick teaches a vehicle detection system wherein a first fixed sensor device is a radar device (fig. 8; para. [0018]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Sriram and Cohen with Reisbick as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Reisbick into the system of Sriram and Cohen. The motivation to combine Reisbick, Sriram and Cohen would be to determine an efficient arrangement for monitoring parking spaces within a parking facility (para. [0016] of Reisbick).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriram et al (US20190294889) and Cohen et al (US20130113936) in view of Ingram-Tedd et al (US20220041373).
Regarding claim 6, the modified system of Sriram fails to teach a system wherein the pixel map includes a second slot associated with a second asset, the second slot is adjacent to a ground surface and the first slot is offset from the ground surface and over the second slot within the pixel map.
However Ingram-Tedd teaches wherein a map includes a second slot associated with a second asset (para. [0011], each bin is in an individual slot in the stack), the second slot is adjacent to a ground surface (fig. 1) and the first slot is offset from the ground surface and over the second slot within the pixel map (para. [0021]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Sriram and Cohen with Ingram-Tedd as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Ingram-Tedd into the system of Sriram and Cohen. The motivation to combine Ingram-Tedd, Sriram and Cohen would be to improve storage density (para. [0004] of Ingram-Tedd).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriram et al (US20190294889) in view of Ingram-Tedd et al (US20220041373).
Regarding claim 8, Sriram fails to teach a method wherein the virtual map includes a second slot associated with a second asset, the second slot is adjacent to a ground surface and the first slot is offset from the ground surface and over the second slot within the pixel map.
However Ingram-Tedd teaches wherein a map includes a second slot associated with a second asset (para. [0011], each bin is in an individual slot in the stack), the second slot is adjacent to a ground surface (fig. 1) and the first slot is offset from the ground surface and over the second slot within a pixel map (para. [0021]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Sriram and Ingram-Tedd as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Ingram-Tedd into the method of Sriram. The motivation to combine Ingram-Tedd and Sriram would be to improve storage density (para. [0004] of Ingram-Tedd).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriram et al (US20190294889) in view of Gao et al (US20220340127).
Regarding claim 11, Sriram fails to teach a method wherein second sensor data includes image data and radar data.
However Gao teaches wherein sensor data includes image data and radar data
(para. [0009]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Sriram and Gao as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Gao into the method of Sriram. The motivation to combine Gao and Sriram would be to improve the driving experience of a user (para. [0006] of Gao).
Regarding claim 12, the modified method of Sriram teaches a method wherein defining the first virtual slot within the virtual map of the physical environment (para. [0136]-[0137], [0140], [0143] of Sriram) is based at least in part on the radar data (para. [0010] of Gao).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriram et al (US20190294889) in view of Diankov et al (US20200377315).
Regarding claim 18, Sriram teach one or more non-transitory computer-readable media further comprising:
causing the virtual map to be displayed on the display (180 in fig. 1; para. [0209]-[0210]).
Sriram fails to teach determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data a vertical stacking capacity metric associated with the first virtual slot; and
indicating via the virtual map the vertical stacking capacity metric.
However Diankov teaches determining, based at least in part on the first sensor data (para. [0123]), a vertical stacking capacity metric associated with the first virtual slot (para. [0135], [0153]-[0154]); and
indicating the vertical stacking capacity metric (para. [0153]-[0155]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Sriram and Diankov as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Diankov into the apparatus of Sriram. The motivation to combine Diankov and Sriram would be to provide enhanced parking and storage efficiency (para. [0024] of Diankov).
Related Art
Nerayoff et al (US20190050634) – see fig. 1; para. [0019]-[0020], [0073]-[0075]
Wunder et al (US20190251842) – see para. [0048]-[0049]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON VIET Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1185. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11AM-7PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LEON VIET Q NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights