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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant's communication filed on 12/23/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-20 filed on 12/23/2024 are currently pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information Disclosure statement (IDS) form PTO-1449, filed on 12/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosed therein was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 12/23/2024 have been reviewed by Examiner and they are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 1, 8, and 15 be found allowable, claims 4-7, 11-14, 17-20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Instant independent claims 1(device), 8(method), and 14 (computer readable medium)are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over corresponding similar independent claims 1(system), 8(method), and 15 (computer readable medium) of co-owned US Patent Application No. 11,423671, also similar independent claims 1(device), 8(method), and 15 (computer readable medium) of co-owned US Patent Application No. 11,367293, and US Patent Application No.10,607,095, also similar independent claims 1(device), 8(method), and 15 (computer readable medium) of co-owned US Patent Application No. 11, 417,121, also similar independent claims 1(system), 8(method), and 15 (computer readable medium) of co-owned US Patent Application No. 10,223603, also similar independent 1(device), 8(method), and 15 (computer readable medium) of co-owned US Patent Application No. 10,242,274, also similar independent 1(device), 8(method), and 15 (computer readable medium) of co-owned US Patent Application No. 10,943,136, also similar independent 1(device), 8(method), and 15 (computer readable medium) of co-owned US Patent Application No. 10,163,018, also similar independent 1(device), 8(method), and 15 (computer readable medium) of co-owned US Patent Application No. 10,565,460, also similar independent, 1(device), 8(method), and 15 (computer readable medium) of co-owned US Patent Application No. 9,928,433, also similar independent,1 (device) 8(method), and 15 (computer readable medium) of co-owned US Patent Application No. 10,282,624, US Patent Application No 9, 928,434, US Patent Application No 9,990,553, also similar independent 1(device), 8(method), and 15 (computer readable medium) of co-owned US Patent Application No. 9,710,717.
Claims 1(device), 8(method), and 14 (computer readable medium) of instant application, are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over co-owned claims of all the US patent applications listed above, in view of Albertson, in view of Rau, in view of Maidment, in view of Erik Murphy.
Consider independent claim 1 of the instant application, claim 1 of the co-owned applications disclose all the claim limitation, However, claims 1 of the co-owned applications do not recite the following limitation “wherein the current image data is representative of at least one of: a vehicle occupant head location/orientation, a vehicle occupant hand location/orientation, a vehicle occupant arm location/orientation, a vehicle occupant torso location/orientation, a cellular telephone location, or a vehicle seat location/orientation;” of claim 1 of the instant application. However, as set forth below in the rejection of claim 1 of the instant application under 35 U.S.C 103 (a). The combination of Albertson, Rau, Maidment, Murphy, and Brodeur disclose the limitation of claim 1 of the instant application, which are missing from claim 1 of co-owned applications. In addition, a motivation statement to combine the Albertson, Rau, Maidment, Murphy, and Brodeur references are provided in the next section, as well. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Claim of Co-owned applications listed above with Albertson, Rau, Maidment, Murphy, and Brodeur to arrive at claim 1 of the instant application.
The conflicting claims are not identical because the embodiments of co-owned claims omit steps not explicitly required by the embodiment of instant claims. However, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because:
· Instant claims and co-owned claims recite common subject matter;
· Instant claims, which recite the open ended transitional phrase “comprising,” does not preclude the difference in steps recited by co-owned claims, and
. the elements of instant claims are obvious over co-owned claims, and completely anticipate the subject matter of instant claim, and “anticipation is the epitome of obviousness” Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing In re Fracalossi, 681F.2d 792, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8-11,14, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albertson et al. (US 2008/0169914), Rau et al. (US 2015/0092056), Further in view of Maidment et al. (US 20080130998), in view of Erik Murphy et al; “Head Pose Estimation and Augmented Reality Tracking: An Integrated System and Evaluation for Monitoring Driver Awareness”; IEEE June 2010.
As per claim 1, A vehicle in-cabin imaging device, the vehicle in-cabin imaging device comprising: (Refer to Albertson ¶ [0005], discloses capturing a three-dimensional movement of an operator of a vehicle, wherein the three-dimensional movement is determined by using at least one image capture device aimed at the operator.)
“a processor and a memory, wherein previously classified image data is stored on the memory wherein the previously classified image data is representative of known images of at least one vehicle interior,” ( Albertson, Figure 7, ¶ [0106], discloses warning controller 708 compares behavior record 702 and current operational state record 716 with behavior translation database 710 and determines that entry 720 applies to behavior record 702 and current operational state record 716. Because the behaviors in behavior record 702 correlate with a current operational state in behavior translation database 710, warning controller 708 considers the behavior to be unsafe for the current operational state of the vehicle. Figure 7, item 710 discloses a database storing previously classified vehicle interior data that are representative of operation of vehicle, such as reaching for radio interface, the eye direction, talking on telephone, and gesturing with one hand, etc. Examiner notes the image data are obtained from images (known images) of the vehicle interior. ¶ [0036], discloses image capture device 202 and image capture device 204 may be affixed within a vehicle to capture a particular 3D focus area 220 including, but not limited to, capturing all or portions of the operator of the vehicle, passengers within the vehicle, and the interior of the vehicle. )
“at least one sensor for generating current image data, ” (Albertson, ¶[0036], discloses image capture device 202 and image capture device 204 may be affixed within a vehicle to capture a particular 3D focus area 220, capturing the operator of the vehicle. ¶ [0037], discloses wherein the single video camera then captures a stream of video images within a focus area at different positioned points along the track and 3D behavior detector 104 combines the stream of images into a 3D object property stream of the properties of detectable objects. Albertson, ¶ [0105], discloses behavior record 702 includes aggregated behaviors of "talking" and "eyes directed towards radio interface" with a probability of 90% that the behaviors are accurately predicted (current image data). ¶s [0079] and [0089], discloses the behavior record prediction are obtained using 3D object property. Examiner notes the behavior record interpreted as current image data.)
Albertson does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Rau from similar field of endeavor “wherein the current image data is representative of at least one of: a vehicle occupant head location/orientation, a vehicle occupant hand location/orientation, a vehicle occupant arm location/orientation, a vehicle occupant torso location/orientation, a cellular telephone location, or a vehicle seat location/orientation;” (Rau, ¶[0029] discloses Driver Tracking Front Camera subsystem 1 (DTFC1) (see FIG. 1) tracks the driver of a vehicle 10 and the driver's movements and features. These movements and features may include eyes, pupils, eye focus direction, eyelids, eye flutter, nostrils, head movement, and facial changes. at least one other camera preferably includes the head body and hands of the driver to collect images. ¶[0059] discloses the camera systems are enabled and are preferably used to identify the driver's associated head position.¶[0061] discloses camera systems are initiated to track the head and driver's view. These cameras may identify a period of time that the driver's head may be turned from the roadway.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Rau technique of driving assistance into Albertson technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Rau over determining unsafe vehicle operation based on the vehicle interior data technique of Albertson. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of known technique to a known method/device ready for improvement, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Rau into Albertson in order to increase effectiveness of driving assistance systems. (Refer to Rau paragraph [0005].)
Albertson as modified by Rau discloses “a comparison of the current image data with the previously classified image data”(Rau, ¶[0011] discloses he system can analyze the performance of the driver, compare the driver's performance to the driving profile developed by the system for the driver, and then determine whether the drive may be impaired or distracted. ¶[0042] discloses a safety enhancing system that operates by tracking drivers' impairments and distractive actions and evaluating risk from comparisons with the driver's customized profile history.) however Albertson as modified by Rau is silent on the following which would have been obvious in view of Maidment from similar field of endeavor “and a current image classification module stored on the memory that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to classify current images of the vehicle interior based on a comparison of the current image data with the previously classified image data.” (Maidment, ¶ [0049], discloses the system attempts to classify the image, by determining whether it matches any of the images in the library of previously classified images. ¶ [0050], discloses identify images that are identical in all respects to previously classified images, that is, in which the image files are identical. This could be determined more easily by, for example, forming a hash of the image file and comparing it with a hash of the previously classified image files. Rather, the system, in the preferred embodiment, attempts to detect images which have had one or more changes introduced, such that they are no longer identical in all respects to any previously classified image, but such that they appear identical to a human viewer. They can thus be considered as visually identical.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Maidment technique of classifying images into Albertson as modified by Rau technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Maidment over determining unsafe vehicle operation based on the vehicle interior data technique of Albertson as modified by Rau. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of known technique to a known method/device ready for improvement, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Maidment to Albertson as modified by Rau in order to accurately identify similarity in images. (Refer to Maidment paragraph [0008].).
However Albertson as modified by Rau as modified by Maidment does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Murphy From similar field of endeavor “wherein the previously classified image data is normalized for a range of different drivers,”( Refer to Murphy figures 2 and 3, page 302, column 2, section III discloses The detected facial region is scale normalized to a fixed size and used to compute an LGO histogram. Further page 303, column 2, section C, discloses we scale normalize each component of the input data such that it spans the range [−1, 1] and then perform a cross-validation grid search across the parameter space. During testing, we use the same scaling parameters to normalize the new input before predicting the new pose.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Murphy technique of head pose estimation into Albertson as modified by Rau as modified by Maidment technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Murphy technique over determining unsafe vehicle operation based on the vehicle interior data technique of Albertson as modified by Rau as modified by Maidment. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Murphy to Albertson as modified by Rau as modified by Maidment in order to provide a cost efficient driver tracking system for different automobile. (Refer to Murphy page 301, column 1,3rd paragraph.)
Claims 8 and 15 have been analyzed and are rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 1 above.
As ppr claim 2, The vehicle in-cabin imaging device as in claim 1, “wherein the at least one sensor is selected from: at least one digital image sensor, at least one ultra-sonic sensor, at least one radar-sensor, at least one infrared light sensor, or at least one laser light sensor.” (Albertson, ¶ [0026], discloses 3D object detector 104 may include multiple types of image capture devices, including one or more video cameras arranged for stereoscope video image capture.)
Claims 16 and 9 have been analyzed and are rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 2 above.
As per claim 3, The vehicle in-cabin imaging device as in claim 1, “wherein the current image data is representative of a three-dimensional location of at least a portion of at least one vehicle occupant within the vehicle interior and an orientation of the portion of the at least one vehicle occupant.” (Albertson, [0004], discloses In particular, the present invention provides for detecting, from a three-dimensional image stream captured by one or more image capture devices, whether behaviors of an operator of a vehicle for the current operational state of the vehicle are unsafe and notifying the operator of the unsafe condition. Albertson, ¶ [0005], discloses wherein the three-dimensional movement is determined by using at least one image capture device aimed at the operator. The behavior processing system identifies a three-dimensional object properties stream using the captured movement. The behavior processing system identifies a particular defined behavior of the operator represented by the three-dimensional object properties stream by comparing the identified three-dimensional object properties stream with multiple behavior definitions. ¶[0025], discloses a behavior processing system 100 includes a three-dimensional (3D) object detector 104. 3D object detector 104 represents multiple systems for capturing images, streamlining the captured data, tracking particular objects within the captured movement, streaming the properties of the particular objects, and combining the streamed properties into a three-dimensional representation of the 3D characteristics of the captured objects, as illustrated by 3D object properties 110. 3D object properties 110 may include, but are not limited to, positions, color, size, and orientation, representative of movement by an operator of a vehicle, passengers within a vehicle.)
Claims 10 and 17 have been analyzed and are rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 3 above.
As per claim 4, The vehicle in-cabin imaging device as in claim 1, “wherein the current image data is representative of at least one of: the vehicle occupant head location/orientation, or the vehicle occupant hand location/orientation.” (Rau, ¶[0029] discloses Driver Tracking Front Camera subsystem 1 (DTFC1) (see FIG. 1) tracks the driver of a vehicle 10 and the driver's movements and features. These movements and features may include eyes, pupils, eye focus direction, eyelids, eye flutter, nostrils, head movement, and facial changes. at least one other camera preferably includes the head body and hands of the driver to collect images. ¶[0059] discloses the camera systems are enabled and are preferably used to identify the driver's associated head position.¶[0061] discloses camera systems are initiated to track the head and driver's view. These cameras may identify a period of time that the driver's head may be turned from the roadway.)
Claims 11 and 18 have been analyzed and are rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 4 above.
As per claim 7, The vehicle in-cabin imaging device as in claim 1, “wherein the current image data is representative of the vehicle seat location/orientation.” (Rau, ¶[0008] discloses system/method includes a data collection system that detects and records a driver seat position of the passenger vehicle, body and face positions of a driver of the passenger vehicle while seated in the driver seat. )
Claims 14 and 20 have been analyzed and are rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 7 above.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albertson et al. (US 2008/0169914), Rau et al. (US 2015/0092056), Further in view of Maidment et al. (US 20080130998), in view of Erik Murphy et al; “Head Pose Estimation and Augmented Reality Tracking: An Integrated System and Evaluation for Monitoring Driver Awareness”; IEEE June 2010, further in view of Ren et al. (US 2015/0186714).
As per claim 5, The vehicle in-cabin imaging device as in claim 1, However Albertson as modified by Rau as modified by Maidment as modified by Murphy does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Ren from similar filed of endeavor “wherein the current image data is representative of at least one of: the vehicle occupant arm location/orientation, or the vehicle occupant torso location/orientation.” (Ren, ¶[0032] discloses The camera 100 is mounted in a vehicle so as to capture video content and/or images of driver behavior, including movement of the arm, hand and head positions of the driver. the driver behavior video content includes the arm, hand and head positions, movements associated with these extremities, and objects relevant to the given driver behavior (e.g., a cellphone, a water bottle, etc.). ¶[0043] discloses [0043] In one example, the driver behavior video content includes the arm, hand and head positions. ¶[0060])
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ren technique of driving behavior monitoring into Albertson as modified by Rau as modified by Maidment as modified by Murphy technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Ren technique over determining unsafe vehicle operation based on the vehicle interior data technique of Albertson as modified by Rau as modified by Maidment as modified by Murphy. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Ren to Albertson as modified by Rau as modified by Maidment as modified by Murphy in order to accurately and rapidly detect driver distractions to prevent accidents. (Refer to Ren ¶[0002]).
Claims 12 and 19 have been analyzed and are rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 5 above.
As per claim 6, The vehicle in-cabin imaging device as in claim 1, Although Albertson as modified by Rau as modified by Maidment as modified by Murphy discloses “cellular telephone usage”(Rau, ¶[0063] discloses determining distractions such as mobile phone usage.) however they are silent on the following which would have been obvious in view of Ren from similar filed of endeavor “wherein the current image data is representative of the cellular telephone location.” (Ren, ¶[0043] discloses the driver behavior video content includes the arm, hand and head positions, movements associated with these extremities, and objects relevant to the given driver behavior (e.g., a cellphone, a water bottle, etc.). ¶[0049] discloses a representative foreground image refers to the portion of the representative image frame including the driver's body pose and objects relevant to the given driver behavior (e.g., a cellphone, a water bottle, etc.). ¶[0072] disclose the driver behavior video content for the cellphone distracted driver behavior includes video of a driver performing the following actions: (i) moving his/her hand toward the phone; (ii) picking up the phone; (iii) moving the phone close to his/her ear; (iv) holding the phone at his/her ear; and (v) putting the phone down.¶[0091]. )
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ren technique of driving behavior monitoring into Albertson as modified by Rau as modified by Maidment as modified by Murphy technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Ren technique over determining unsafe vehicle operation based on the vehicle interior data technique of Albertson as modified by Rau as modified by Maidment as modified by Murphy. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Ren to Albertson as modified by Rau as modified by Maidment as modified by Murphy in order to accurately and rapidly detect driver distractions to prevent accidents. (Refer to Ren ¶[0002])
Claims 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albertson et al. (US 2008/0169914), Rau et al. (US 2015/0092056), Further in view of Maidment et al. (US 20080130998), in view of Erik Murphy et al; “Head Pose Estimation and Augmented Reality Tracking: An Integrated System and Evaluation for Monitoring Driver Awareness”; IEEE June 2010, further in view of Graumann (US 2014/0348389).
As per claim 13, The computer-implemented method of claim 8, Albertson as modified by Rau as modified by Maidment as modified by Murphy does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Graumann from similar filed of endeavor “wherein the current image data is representative of vehicle occupant torso orientation.” (Graumann, ¶[0017] discloses the camera 102 may be configured to capture images of the occupant 108, and the images may be processed to determine one or more facial, head, torso features).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Graumann technique of occupants monitoring into Albertson as modified by Rau as modified by Maidment as modified by Murphy technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Graumann technique over determining unsafe vehicle operation based on the vehicle interior data technique of Albertson as modified by Rau as modified by Maidment as modified by Murphy. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Graumann to Albertson as modified by Rau as modified by Maidment as modified by Murphy in order to detect driver distractions to prevent vehicle crashes on the roads. (Refer to Graumann ¶[0002]).
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30-6:30.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. 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.
/SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights