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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “an acquisition unit”, “a triangle division unit”, “the triangle division unit”, “a primary division number setting unit”, “a secondary division number setting unit”, and “an execution unit” in claim 1, “a primary division point identification setting unit” and “a secondary division point identification setting unit” in claim 4, “a target determining unit”, “a pre-shaping execution unit”, and “an addition unit” in claim 6, and “a primary division point identification setting unit” and “a secondary division point identification setting unit” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. (see [1-1. Configuration] in page 6 line 17 -page 8 line 17; [1-2. Processes] in page 8 line 28 - page 10 line 12)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 12, and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/990,433 (reference application). A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where a claim in an application under examination claims subject matter that is different, but not patentably distinct, from the subject matter claimed in a prior patent or a copending application. The claim under examination is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) if the claim under examination is anticipated by the reference claim(s). MPEP 804(II)(B)(2).
Regarding claim 1, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of pending application recites substantially same limitation except claim 1 of pending application omits limitations “at least one of (i) a circuit and (ii) a processor with a memory storing computer program code executable by the processor, the at least one of the circuit and the processor being configured to cause the triangle generation apparatus to: and the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to set the primary division number by the at least one of the circuit and the processor and the secondary division number by the at least one of the circuit and the processor for each basic triangle defined by the coordinates of the vertices included in the new vertex coordinate group generated by the at least one of the circuit and the processor and calculate the coordinates of the vertices of the plurality of subdivided triangles that divide the area of the basic triangle into parts smaller than the basic triangle.” from claim 4 of ‘433 application. Thus, the scope of claim 1 of pending application is broader than the scope of claim 4 of 18/990,433 application and therefore is anticipated by claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is anticipated by claim 4 of ‘433 application.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 9-10, the claims are anticipated by claims 5-8 and 10-11 of ‘433 application. For the same reason, dependent claims 2-6 and 9-10 are rejected as well.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Correspondence
18/990,421
(current application)
18/990,433
(copending application claims 09/01/26)
Claim 1
A triangle generation apparatus including:
an acquisition unit that is configured to acquire a vertex coordinate group including coordinates of each vertex of one or a plurality of basic triangles;
and a triangle division unit that is configured to divide each basic triangle defined by the coordinates of the vertices included in the vertex coordinate group into a plurality of subdivided triangles,
wherein the triangle division unit includes a primary division number setting unit that is configured to set a primary division number (M) when equally dividing a first side based on a division length prescribed in advance,
a secondary division number setting unit that is configured to set a secondary division number when equally dividing a minor line set for each of a plurality of primary division points set on the first side, based on the division length,
and an execution unit that is configured to acquire combination information, the combination information being information specifying a combination method of secondary division points belonging to the subdivided triangle for each minor line pair set for each primary division point,
the subdivided triangle being one or more triangles dividing an area of the basic triangle sandwiched between the minor line pair without overlapping each other and with the secondary division points on the two minor lines belonging to the minor line pair as vertices,
and calculate the coordinates of the vertices of the subdivided triangle for each minor line pair set for each primary division point using the vertex coordinate group, the primary division number, and the combination information,
wherein the primary division points are a plurality of points including both end points of the first side and in positions equally dividing the first side by the primary division number,
the minor line is a line segment that passes through the primary division point and runs from the first side to a second side along a third side,
the secondary division points are a plurality of points including both end points of the minor line and equally dividing the minor line by the secondary division number,
and the minor line pair is a combination of two arbitrary adjacent minor lines among the minor lines.
Claim 1
A triangle generation apparatus comprising:
at least one of (i) a circuit and (ii) a processor with a memory storing computer program code executable by the processor, the at least one of the circuit and the processor being configured to cause the triangle generation apparatus to:
and
(Claim 4) […] primary division number when a first side of the basic triangle is equally divided based on a division length prescribed in advance,
and
the subdivided triangle being one or more triangles dividing an area of the basic triangle sandwiched between the minor line pair without overlapping each other and with the secondary division points on the two minor lines belonging to the minor line pair as vertices,
and calculate the coordinates of the vertices of the subdivided triangle for each minor line pair set for each primary division point using the vertex coordinate group, the primary division number, and the combination information,
and the primary division points are a plurality of points including both end points of the first side and in positions equally dividing the first side by the primary division number,
the minor line is a line segment that passes through the primary division point and runs from the first side to a second side along a third side,
the secondary division points are a plurality of points including both end points of the minor line and equally dividing the minor line by the secondary division number,
and the minor line pair is a combination of two arbitrary adjacent minor lines among the minor lines, […]
Regarding claims 12 and 13, claims recite substantially same limitation of claim 1 except that the limitations are incorporated into a corresponding method claim or non-transitory computer readable medium (“CRM”) claim that has all the limitations. As limitations in the apparatus claim 1 are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) limitations, the corresponding apparatus claim is directed to a generic computer and the corresponding method and CRM claims in claims 12 and 13 would be a basic way a computer can access a program to execute functionality, rendering them obvious over claim 4 of the patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, 12, and 13 recite(s):
A triangle generation apparatus including [claim 1]:
A triangle generation method that is configured to [claim 12]:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a triangle generation program that causes a computer to function as a triangle generation apparatus, the triangle generation program comprising [claim 13]:
an acquisition unit that is configured to acquire a vertex coordinate group including coordinates of each vertex of one or a plurality of basic triangles; and
a triangle division unit that is configured to divide each basic triangle defined by the coordinates of the vertices included in the vertex coordinate group into a plurality of subdivided triangles, wherein the triangle division unit includes
a primary division number setting unit that is configured to set a primary division number (M) when equally dividing a first side based on a division length prescribed in advance,
a secondary division number setting unit that is configured to set a secondary division number when equally dividing a minor line set for each of a plurality of primary division points set on the first side, based on the division length, and
an execution unit that is configured to acquire combination information, the combination information being information specifying a combination method of secondary division points belonging to the subdivided triangle for each minor line pair set for each primary division point, the subdivided triangle being one or more triangles dividing an area of the basic triangle sandwiched between the minor line pair without overlapping each other and with the secondary division points on the two minor lines belonging to the minor line pair as vertices, and calculate the coordinates of the vertices of the subdivided triangle for each minor line pair set for each primary division point using the vertex coordinate group, the primary division number, and the combination information, wherein
the primary division points are a plurality of points including both end points of the first side and in positions equally dividing the first side by the primary division number,
the minor line is a line segment that passes through the primary division point and runs from the first side to a second side along a third side,
the secondary division points are a plurality of points including both end points of the minor line and equally dividing the minor line by the secondary division number, and
the minor line pair is a combination of two arbitrary adjacent minor lines among the minor lines.
The claim recites a mathematical formula or calculation that is used to “generate triangles by dividing existing triangles into smaller triangles.” That is, other than reciting “apparatus,” “computer-readable storage medium,” and “unit,” covers mathematical formula or calculation.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical formula or calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “apparatus,” “computer-readable storage medium,” and “unit.”
The “apparatus,” “computer-readable storage medium,” and “unit” in the aforementioned steps is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-11 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites the additional limitations of “primary division point identification setting unit” and “secondary division point identification setting unit” in claim 4, “target determining unit”, “pre-shaping execution unit”, and “addition unit” in claim 6, and “primary division point identification setting unit” and “secondary division point identification setting unit” in claim 10, which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, insignificant extra-solution activity, or that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. The additional element of using “primary division point identification setting unit”, “secondary division point identification setting unit”, “target determining unit”, “pre-shaping execution unit”, and “addition unit” in claim 6, and “primary division point identification setting unit”, and “secondary division point identification setting unit” to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter over prior art
Claims 1-13 are allowable if pending supra rejections are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art:
The closes prior art Migdal et al. (US 20010013866 A1) discloses A triangle generation apparatus including: (Abstract, " the system operates upon a triangulated mesh model and analyzes each edge of the triangle in question to determine whether that particular edge should be subdivided based on a predetermined subdivision criteria. After an analysis of each of the edges of that triangle (using the adaptive subdivision criteria) the system and method may make one of several different types of subdivisions — e.g. dividing the mesh triangle into two, three or four smaller triangles."; para. [0043], "The system and method of the present invention described herein is implemented using computer program code and a computer comprising a processor, memory and graphics rendering capability.")
an acquisition unit that is configured to acquire a vertex coordinate group including coordinates of each vertex of one or a plurality of basic triangles; and (Fig 2a-2c; Fig 7; Fig 6;
PNG
media_image1.png
314
599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
para. [0017, "In the exemplary embodiment which operates upon a triangulated mesh model, the system of the present invention analyzes each edge of the triangle in question to determine whether that particular edge should be subdivided based on a predetermined subdivision criteria."; para. [0046], "FIG. 2a shows triangle 100 having original vertices 105, 106 and 107."; para. [0086], "FIG. 7 illustrates a triangle 300 that is subjected to the recursive subdivision process described in FIG. 6. Initially boundary vertices 310, 311 and 312 are defined."; para. [0081], "The following description and figures will describe in more detail the process of adaptive subdivision according to the present invention and an exemplary extrusion formula. Referring back to step 200 of FIG. 6, the boundary vertices of a triangle to be analyzed by the adaptive subdivision routine of FIG. 6 can be defined as V0, V1, and V2 with each vertex having associated coordinates, e.g. X, Y, Z coordinates (r0, r1, r2) and normals (n0, n01, n02)."]
a triangle division unit that is configured to divide each basic triangle defined by the coordinates of the vertices included in the vertex coordinate group into a plurality of subdivided triangles, wherein (Fig 2a-2c; Fig 7; para. [0046], " Triangle 100 is subdivided by a new edge 103 from e.g., the midpoint 108 of the original edge 109 to original vertex 105. This new edge 103 creates two new triangles 101 and 102 from original triangle 100, thus a double subdivision. Similarly, FIG. 2b shows a double subdivision of triangle 110 into new triangles 111 and 112 as a second variation, and FIG. 2c shows a double subdivision of triangle 120 into new triangles 121 and 122 as a third variation."; para. [0080], " The first edge 301 is tested against the subdivision criteria to determine whether the edge needs to be subdivided. In this case, edge 301 does not require subdivision. Then the second edge 302 is tested against the subdivision criteria. In this case, it is determined that edge 302 requires subdivision and that point 313 is the subdivision point. Finally, the third edge 303 is tested against the subdivision criteria and it is determined that this edge does not require subdivision. In this case, since only a single edge requires subdivision, double subdivision will occur by connecting newly inserted point 313 with original vertex 310 as depicted by the line 314.")
Adiditionally, Usame et al. (WO 2014065978 A2; IDS REF) teaches each edge of a triangular domain divided into the same number of segments.
However, the cited prior art in combination or alone fail to teach “A triangle generation apparatus including: an acquisition unit that is configured to acquire a vertex coordinate group including coordinates of each vertex of one or a plurality of basic triangles; and a triangle division unit that is configured to divide each basic triangle defined by the coordinates of the vertices included in the vertex coordinate group into a plurality of subdivided triangles, wherein the triangle division unit includes a primary division number setting unit that is configured to set a primary division number (M) when equally dividing a first side based on a division length prescribed in advance, a secondary division number setting unit that is configured to set a secondary division number when equally dividing a minor line set for each of a plurality of primary division points set on the first side, based on the division length, and an execution unit that is configured to acquire combination information, the combination information being information specifying a combination method of secondary division points belonging to the subdivided triangle for each minor line pair set for each primary division point, the subdivided triangle being one or more triangles dividing an area of the basic triangle sandwiched between the minor line pair without overlapping each other and with the secondary division points on the two minor lines belonging to the minor line pair as vertices, and calculate the coordinates of the vertices of the subdivided triangle for each minor line pair set for each primary division point using the vertex coordinate group, the primary division number, and the combination information, wherein the primary division points are a plurality of points including both end points of the first side and in positions equally dividing the first side by the primary division number, the minor line is a line segment that passes through the primary division point and runs from the first side to a second side along a third side, the secondary division points are a plurality of points including both end points of the minor line and equally dividing the minor line by the secondary division number, and the minor line pair is a combination of two arbitrary adjacent minor lines among the minor lines.” in combination with all the limitation recited in the independent claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 12-13, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 1 is applied.
None of the prior art previously cited, nor any other prior art discovered by the
Examiner, fully teaches independent claims 1, 12, and 13 either singly or in an obvious
combination. Thus, the independent claims 1, 12, and 13 distinguish over the prior art. Claims 2-11 each distinguish over the prior art, at least due to their respective dependencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 112562078A (constructing a three-dimensional geological analysis prediction model).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hyorim Park whose telephone number is (571)272-3859. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at (571) 272-2330. 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.
/Hyorim Park/Examiner, Art Unit 2615
/ALICIA M HARRINGTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights