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 .
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 1-7 and 12-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,657. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-7 and 12-13 in the current application are broader than the reference claims 2-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,657.
Specifically, it is well established that “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same functions as before” In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963). Claims 1-7 and 12-13 in the current application are broader than the reference claims 2-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,657.
Below is a table indicating the corresponding relationship between claims 1-7 and 12-13 of the current application and claims 2-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,657.
Current Application
U.S. Patent No. 11,694,657
1
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
12
2
13
2
To perform analysis required, claim 1 of the current application is compared to claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,657.
Claim 1: Current Application
Claim 2: U.S. Patent No. 11,694,657
A heart lung machine (HLM), comprising:
a trolley including a base and at least one mast assembly attached to the base;
a plurality of actuators coupled to the trolley;
a peripheral processing unit coupled to the trolley and configured to receive a set of parameter data from the plurality of actuators;
a peripheral display device coupled to the trolley and configured to present a subset of the set of parameter data;
and a control assembly coupled to the trolley and comprising a control display device configured to present a user interface having a representation of a parameter value and an associated indication;
wherein the representation of the parameter value is rendered using a first font, and the associated indication is rendered using a second font different from the first font.
A heart lung machine (HLM), comprising:
a trolley including a base and at least one mast assembly attached to the base;
a plurality of actuators coupled to the trolley;
a peripheral processing unit coupled to the trolley and configured to receive a set of parameter data from the plurality of actuators;
a peripheral display device coupled to the trolley and configured to present a subset of the set of parameter data;
and a control assembly coupled to the trolley and comprising a control display device configured to present a user interface having a representation of a parameter value displayed as alphanumeric text and an associated indication displayed as alphanumeric text and/or a symbol,
wherein at least a portion of the associated indication overlaps at least a portion of the representation of the parameter value.
wherein the representation of the parameter value is rendered using a first font, and wherein the associated indication is rendered using a second, different, font.
Claim 1 of the current application is broader than claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,657 as shown above. Therefore, this claim is properly subject to ODP rejection.
Similarly, ODP rejection can be shown for claims 2-7 and 13-14 of the current application, as additional limitations in claims 2-7 and 13-14 are present verbatim in the reference claims 2-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,694,657.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,617 in view of Hyde et al. (US 2018/0289886, hereinafter Hyde). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 in the current application is broader than the reference claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,617.
Specifically, it is well established that “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same functions as before” In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963). Claim 1 in the current application is broader than the reference claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,617 in view of Hyde.
To perform analysis required, claim 1 of the current application is compared to claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,617.
Claim 1: Current Application
Claim 9: U.S. Patent No. 12,165,617
A heart lung machine (HLM), comprising:
a trolley including a base and at least one mast assembly attached to the base;
a plurality of actuators coupled to the trolley;
a peripheral processing unit coupled to the trolley and configured to receive a set of parameter data from the plurality of actuators;
a peripheral display device coupled to the trolley and configured to present a subset of the set of parameter data;
and a control assembly coupled to the trolley and comprising a control display device configured to present a user interface having a representation of a parameter value and an associated indication;
wherein the representation of the parameter value is rendered using a first font, and the associated indication is rendered using a second font different from the first font.
A heart lung machine (HLM) comprising:
a trolley comprising a base and a mast assembly coupled to the base and extending upwards from the base;
a plurality of actuators;
a peripheral processing unit configured to receive a set of parameter data from the plurality of actuators;
a peripheral display device configured to present a subset of the set of parameter data; wherein the peripheral display device is coupled to the mast assembly at a second location spaced apart from the control assembly and the control display device;
a control assembly comprising a control display device and a plurality of input control devices, wherein each of the control input devices is operably connected to one of the plurality of actuators; wherein the control assembly, including the control display device, is coupled to the mast assembly at a first location; wherein the control display device is configured to present a user interface having a representation of a parameter value and an associated indication;
wherein the representation of the parameter value has a first font and the associated indication has a second font, the second font being different than the first font.
a plurality of actuator control units (ACUs), each of the plurality of ACUs operably connected to one of the plurality of actuators; and wherein the peripheral display device is separate from the control assembly; wherein at least some of the plurality of actuators are controlled by both their connected ACU and one of the plurality of input control devices on the control assembly.
As shown in the analysis above, claim 1 of the current application is broader than claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,617, however, claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,617 does not explicitly teach a plurality of actuators are coupled to the trolley and a peripheral processing unit is coupled to the trolley.
Hyde teaches a plurality of actuators (one or more controls 22, fig. 3) coupled to the trolley (as shown in fig. 1A, the one or more controls 22 are attached to console 8; [0065]: The base 12 may further house or support electrical components, cable connection ports, processors, batteries, power converters, and controllers useful for controlling, capturing data from, and managing power, machine instructions, and energy delivery to one or more modules. Examples of such modules include one or more console pumps 16, which are illustrated in FIG. 1A as either an individual pump module 16a or as a twin-pump console module 16b, and are shown resting on a console pump module support surface 96. Each of the two types of pump modules 16 have one or more roller pump heads 18 that comprise a raceway for receiving the tubing of one or more cardiopulmonary circuits. The console pump modules 16 further comprise an integral display 20 and one or more controls 22 for controlling their respective pump speeds and resulting flow rates of fluid conveyed through the tubing connected to the pumps); and a peripheral processing unit (console pump modules 16a-16b, fig. 1A) coupled to the trolley (as shown in fig. 1A, the console pump modules are attached to console 8; [0065]: The base 12 may further house or support electrical components, cable connection ports, processors, batteries, power converters, and controllers useful for controlling, capturing data from, and managing power, machine instructions, and energy delivery to one or more modules. Examples of such modules include one or more console pumps 16, which are illustrated in FIG. 1A as either an individual pump module 16a or as a twin-pump console module 16b, and are shown resting on a console pump module support surface 96. Each of the two types of pump modules 16 have one or more roller pump heads 18 that comprise a raceway for receiving the tubing of one or more cardiopulmonary circuits). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Hyde’s knowledge of having both the plurality of actuators and the peripheral processing unit coupled to the trolley as taught and modify the heart-lung machine of claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,617 because such a heart-lung machine has improved features that permit the user to simplify the reconfiguring, set up and management of their systems ([0007]).
Therefore, this claim is properly subject to ODP rejection.
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 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyde, in view of Russell (US 2013/0066612), and further in view of Aguglia (US 2008/0169935).
Regarding claim 14, Hyde teaches a heart lung machine (HLM) (medical apparatus system 10, fig. 1A; [0064]: FIGS. 1A through 5 illustrate a console 8 of a medical apparatus system 10, and more specifically illustrate by example an apparatus system 10 configured as a medical bypass machine such as a heart-lung machine (i.e., a cardiopulmonary bypass machine)), comprising:
a trolley (console 8 as shown in fig. 1 is a trolley with wheels) including a base (base 12, fig. 1A) and at least one mast assembly (plurality of masts 52, fig. 1A) attached to the base ([0065]: The medical apparatus system 10 comprises a console 8 is which is illustrated in FIG. 1A as having a base 12 (or base portion/chassis) and a frame 14 (or frame portion) that is connected to the base 12 and generally is mounted to be on top of the base 12; [0012]: the frame has one or more masts connected to and extending vertically with respect to the base; [0066]: The console 8 is shown in the figures to have a plurality of masts 52 that extend vertically from a frame support surface 50 to a shelf 62. The masts 52 are generally fixed with respect to the frame and support surface 50);
a plurality of actuators (one or more controls 22, fig. 3) coupled to the trolley (as shown in fig. 1A, the one or more controls 22 are attached to console 8; [0065]: The base 12 may further house or support electrical components, cable connection ports, processors, batteries, power converters, and controllers useful for controlling, capturing data from, and managing power, machine instructions, and energy delivery to one or more modules. Examples of such modules include one or more console pumps 16, which are illustrated in FIG. 1A as either an individual pump module 16a or as a twin-pump console module 16b, and are shown resting on a console pump module support surface 96. Each of the two types of pump modules 16 have one or more roller pump heads 18 that comprise a raceway for receiving the tubing of one or more cardiopulmonary circuits. The console pump modules 16 further comprise an integral display 20 and one or more controls 22 for controlling their respective pump speeds and resulting flow rates of fluid conveyed through the tubing connected to the pumps);
a peripheral processing unit (console pump modules 16a-16b, fig. 1A) coupled to the trolley (as shown in fig. 1A, the console pump modules are attached to console 8; [0065]: The base 12 may further house or support electrical components, cable connection ports, processors, batteries, power converters, and controllers useful for controlling, capturing data from, and managing power, machine instructions, and energy delivery to one or more modules. Examples of such modules include one or more console pumps 16, which are illustrated in FIG. 1A as either an individual pump module 16a or as a twin-pump console module 16b, and are shown resting on a console pump module support surface 96. Each of the two types of pump modules 16 have one or more roller pump heads 18 that comprise a raceway for receiving the tubing of one or more cardiopulmonary circuits);
a peripheral display device (auxiliary display 232 fig. 19) coupled to the trolley (as shown in fig. 19, display 232 is attached to console 8; [0080]: an auxiliary display 232 used to monitor and control a mast mounted pump 170); and
a control assembly (primary module display 6 including control functionality, fig. 1A) coupled to the trolley (as shown in fig. 1A, primary module display 6 is attached to console 8) and comprising a control display device (display 6) configured to present a user interface (touch-screen interface; [0066]: The console pumps may be controlled directly by an operator or through a primary module display 6 (see FIG. 1) to the extent the display 6 includes control functionality as for example may be implemented via a touch-screen interface).
However, Hyde does not explicitly teach a peripheral processing unit configured to receive a set of parameter data from the plurality of actuators; a peripheral display device configured to present a subset of the set of parameter data; and a control assembly comprising a control display device configured to present a user interface having a representation of a parameter value, a first associated indication, and a second associated indication, wherein the first associated indication includes a symbol configured to represent a type of the parameter value; and wherein the second associated indication indicates measurement units corresponding to the parameter value.
Russell teaches a plurality of actuators ([0006]: machine having a plurality of actuators and a plurality of mechanical elements; [0046]: servo actuators, upper belt actuator, lower belt actuator, etc.);
a peripheral processing unit (programmable logic control mode includes an emulator, [0006]) configured to receive a set of parameter data from the plurality of actuators ([0006]: receive a plurality of parameters into the plurality of input fields, wherein the plurality of parameters are associated with the plurality of actuators and the plurality of mechanical elements);
a peripheral display device (a graphical user interface, [0006]; a graphics displace device 13, [0025]) configured to present a subset ([0047]: output response data generated by the emulator with respect to the upper belt actuator) of the set of parameter data (data related to parameters associated with upper belt actuators is selected by the user to be displayed from a set of data related to a plurality of actuators such as servo actuators, upper belt actuator, lower belt actuator, etc.; [0006]: display a graphical representation of output response data of the machine using parameters; [0046]: the output response data produced by the calculation routine may be displayed in a graphical representation within the graphical user interface 100. The graphical representation of the output response data may come in a variety of forms. In one embodiment, as depicted in FIG. 4, the graphical representation may be in the form of a servo drive data chart 120 that displays servo drive data of one or more of the servo actuators of the machine. In one embodiment, the servo drive data chart 120 mimics an output from the programmable logic controller code used to control the machine. The graphical representation may provide graphs (as well as tables) of the actuators' position, velocity, acceleration, and jerk. The graphical user interface 100 may include a graphical representation selection area 130 having one or more selectable buttons to generate particular charts, graphs, tables, etc. In the illustrated embodiment, the graphical representation selection area 130 has an upper belt button to generate an upper belt chart, a lower belt button to generate a lower belt chart, a chopper roll button to generate a chopper roll chart, a tail pan button to generate a tail pan chart, a roll build button to generate a roll build chart, a turret button to generated a turret chart, and a mandrel button to generate a mandrel chart. By selecting one of these buttons within the graphical representation selection area 130, a user may cause a graph and/or table depicting output response data associated with the particular actuator (e.g., the upper belt, the lower belt, etc.)).
Hyde contains a “base” system for displaying data related to console pump modules of a medical device controlled by one or more controls (fig. 1A, fig. 1B, fig. 3, fig. 19, [0012], [0065], [0066], [0080]) which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement’ in that receiving a set of parameter data and presenting a subset of the set of parameter data on a peripheral display device.
Russell contains a “comparable” system of receiving a set of parameter data and presenting a subset of the set of parameter data on a peripheral display device (fig. 4, [0006], [0025], [0046], and [0047]).
Russell’s known “improvement” could have been applied in the same way to the “base” system of Hyde and the results would have been predictable and resulted in displaying a subset of parameter data. Furthermore, both Hyde and Russell disclose a system with various components having a similar functionality of displaying parameter data on a user interface, and thus, the combination is more easily implemented. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Aguglia teaches a control assembly (indicator 12 comprising a control circuit 30, fig. 1) comprising a control display device (indicator 12 comprises a display 20, fig. 1) configured to present a user interface (fig. 2 displays a user interface displaying data; [0018]: FIG. 2 depicts a layout exemplifying a display device according to the invention) having a representation of a parameter value (fig. 1 shows alphanumeric display 26 for displaying numerical indications of values measured by the measuring device 15; [0022]: values measured by a measuring device 15; [0023]: The display 20 (FIG. 1 and FIG. 2) comprises a plurality of display entities (entities), 22, 25, 26, 28, 29 respectively, that are selectively actuatable and that are arranged for displaying, for example, graphical symbols and/or measured values and/or measurement units; [0025]: The display 20 further comprises an alphanumeric display 26, for example an alphanumeric display having three digits comprised each of 7 segments and a dot. Such an alphanumeric display 26 is configured, for example, for displaying numerical indications of values measured by the measuring device 15) and a first associated indication (a plurality of icons 22, fig. 2), and a second associated indication (a plurality of indicators of units of measure 29, fig. 2), wherein the first associated indication includes a symbol configured to represent a type of the parameter value ([0023]: The display 20 (FIG. 1 and FIG. 2) comprises a plurality of display entities (entities), 22, 25, 26, 28, 29 respectively, that are selectively actuatable and that are arranged for displaying, for example, graphical symbols and/or measured values and/or measurement units; [0024]: the display 20, according to a preferred embodiment, comprises a plurality of icons 22, for example 4 icons, representing each a different sensor 15 connectable to the indicator 12; [0028]: the temperature indication, by selecting among the icons 22, the icon representing a thermometer; [0029]: the indication of the unit of measure, by selecting among the units of measure 29.degree. C. (centigrade degrees) or .degree. F. (Fahrenheit)); and wherein the second associated indication indicates measurement units corresponding to the parameter value ([0023]: The display 20 (FIG. 1 and FIG. 2) comprises a plurality of display entities (entities), 22, 25, 26, 28, 29 respectively, that are selectively actuatable and that are arranged for displaying, for example, graphical symbols and/or measured values and/or measurement units; [0024]: the display 20, according to a preferred embodiment, comprises a plurality of indicators of units of measure 29; [0028]: the temperature indication, by selecting among the icons 22, the icon representing a thermometer; [0029]: the indication of the unit of measure, by selecting among the units of measure 29.degree. C. (centigrade degrees) or .degree. F. (Fahrenheit)).
The combination of Hyde and Russell contains a “base” system comprising a peripheral processing unit to process data from a plurality of actuators and a peripheral display device to present a subset of the obtained data which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” in that the subset of data having a parameter value and a first and second associated indication is displayed on a user interface.
Aguglia contains known technique of displaying a parameter value and a first and second associated indication of a selected subset of data (fig. 1, fig. 2, [0020]-[0033]) that is applicable to the “base” system.
Aguglia’s known technique of displaying a parameter value and a first and second associated indication of a selected subset of data (fig. 1, fig. 2, [0020]-[0033]) would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as applicable to the “base” system of the combination of Hyde and Russell and the results would have been predictable and resulted in displaying a subset of data obtained from a plurality of actuators with a parameter value and a first and second associated indication on a user interface of a display which results in an improved process. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 12-13, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyde, in view of Russell, in view of Aguglia, and further in view of Vukosavljevic et al. (US 2017/0255614, hereinafter Vukosavljevic).
Regarding claim 1, Hyde teaches a heart lung machine (HLM) (medical apparatus system 10, fig. 1A; [0064]: FIGS. 1A through 5 illustrate a console 8 of a medical apparatus system 10, and more specifically illustrate by example an apparatus system 10 configured as a medical bypass machine such as a heart-lung machine (i.e., a cardiopulmonary bypass machine)), comprising:
a trolley (console 8 as shown in fig. 1 is a trolley with wheels) including a base (base 12, fig. 1A) and at least one mast assembly (plurality of masts 52, fig. 1A) attached to the base ([0065]: The medical apparatus system 10 comprises a console 8 is which is illustrated in FIG. 1A as having a base 12 (or base portion/chassis) and a frame 14 (or frame portion) that is connected to the base 12 and generally is mounted to be on top of the base 12; [0012]: the frame has one or more masts connected to and extending vertically with respect to the base; [0066]: The console 8 is shown in the figures to have a plurality of masts 52 that extend vertically from a frame support surface 50 to a shelf 62. The masts 52 are generally fixed with respect to the frame and support surface 50);
a plurality of actuators (one or more controls 22, fig. 3) coupled to the trolley (as shown in fig. 1A, the one or more controls 22 are attached to console 8; [0065]: The base 12 may further house or support electrical components, cable connection ports, processors, batteries, power converters, and controllers useful for controlling, capturing data from, and managing power, machine instructions, and energy delivery to one or more modules. Examples of such modules include one or more console pumps 16, which are illustrated in FIG. 1A as either an individual pump module 16a or as a twin-pump console module 16b, and are shown resting on a console pump module support surface 96. Each of the two types of pump modules 16 have one or more roller pump heads 18 that comprise a raceway for receiving the tubing of one or more cardiopulmonary circuits. The console pump modules 16 further comprise an integral display 20 and one or more controls 22 for controlling their respective pump speeds and resulting flow rates of fluid conveyed through the tubing connected to the pumps);
a peripheral processing unit (console pump modules 16a-16b, fig. 1A) coupled to the trolley (as shown in fig. 1A, the console pump modules are attached to console 8; [0065]: The base 12 may further house or support electrical components, cable connection ports, processors, batteries, power converters, and controllers useful for controlling, capturing data from, and managing power, machine instructions, and energy delivery to one or more modules. Examples of such modules include one or more console pumps 16, which are illustrated in FIG. 1A as either an individual pump module 16a or as a twin-pump console module 16b, and are shown resting on a console pump module support surface 96. Each of the two types of pump modules 16 have one or more roller pump heads 18 that comprise a raceway for receiving the tubing of one or more cardiopulmonary circuits);
a peripheral display device (auxiliary display 232 fig. 19) coupled to the trolley (as shown in fig. 19, display 232 is attached to console 8; [0080]: an auxiliary display 232 used to monitor and control a mast mounted pump 170); and
a control assembly (primary module display 6 including control functionality, fig. 1A) coupled to the trolley (as shown in fig. 1A, primary module display 6 is attached to console 8) and comprising a control display device (display 6) configured to present a user interface (touch-screen interface; [0066]: The console pumps may be controlled directly by an operator or through a primary module display 6 (see FIG. 1) to the extent the display 6 includes control functionality as for example may be implemented via a touch-screen interface).
However, Hyde does not explicitly teach a peripheral processing unit configured to receive a set of parameter data from the plurality of actuators; a peripheral display device configured to present a subset of the set of parameter data; and a control assembly comprising a control display device configured to present a user interface having a representation of a parameter value and an associated indication, wherein the representation of the parameter value is rendered using a first font, and the associated indication is rendered using a second font different from the first font.
Russell teaches a plurality of actuators ([0006]: machine having a plurality of actuators and a plurality of mechanical elements; [0046]: servo actuators, upper belt actuator, lower belt actuator, etc.);
a peripheral processing unit (programmable logic control mode includes an emulator, [0006]) configured to receive a set of parameter data from the plurality of actuators ([0006]: receive a plurality of parameters into the plurality of input fields, wherein the plurality of parameters are associated with the plurality of actuators and the plurality of mechanical elements);
a peripheral display device (a graphical user interface, [0006]; a graphics displace device 13, [0025]) configured to present a subset ([0047]: output response data generated by the emulator with respect to the upper belt actuator) of the set of parameter data (data related to parameters associated with upper belt actuators is selected by the user to be displayed from a set of data related to a plurality of actuators such as servo actuators, upper belt actuator, lower belt actuator, etc.; [0006]: display a graphical representation of output response data of the machine using parameters; [0046]: the output response data produced by the calculation routine may be displayed in a graphical representation within the graphical user interface 100. The graphical representation of the output response data may come in a variety of forms. In one embodiment, as depicted in FIG. 4, the graphical representation may be in the form of a servo drive data chart 120 that displays servo drive data of one or more of the servo actuators of the machine. In one embodiment, the servo drive data chart 120 mimics an output from the programmable logic controller code used to control the machine. The graphical representation may provide graphs (as well as tables) of the actuators' position, velocity, acceleration, and jerk. The graphical user interface 100 may include a graphical representation selection area 130 having one or more selectable buttons to generate particular charts, graphs, tables, etc. In the illustrated embodiment, the graphical representation selection area 130 has an upper belt button to generate an upper belt chart, a lower belt button to generate a lower belt chart, a chopper roll button to generate a chopper roll chart, a tail pan button to generate a tail pan chart, a roll build button to generate a roll build chart, a turret button to generated a turret chart, and a mandrel button to generate a mandrel chart. By selecting one of these buttons within the graphical representation selection area 130, a user may cause a graph and/or table depicting output response data associated with the particular actuator (e.g., the upper belt, the lower belt, etc.)).
Hyde contains a “base” system for displaying data related to console pump modules of a medical device controlled by one or more controls (fig. 1A, fig. 1B, fig. 3, fig. 19, [0012], [0065], [0066], [0080]) which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement’ in that receiving a set of parameter data and presenting a subset of the set of parameter data on a peripheral display device.
Russell contains a “comparable” system of receiving a set of parameter data and presenting a subset of the set of parameter data on a peripheral display device (fig. 4, [0006], [0025], [0046], and [0047]).
Russell’s known “improvement” could have been applied in the same way to the “base” system of Hyde and the results would have been predictable and resulted in displaying a subset of parameter data. Furthermore, both Hyde and Russell disclose a system with various components having a similar functionality of displaying parameter data on a user interface, and thus, the combination is more easily implemented. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Aguglia teaches a control assembly (indicator 12 comprising a control circuit 30, fig. 1) comprising a control display device (indicator 12 comprises a display 20, fig. 1) configured to present a user interface (fig. 2 displays a user interface displaying data; [0018]: FIG. 2 depicts a layout exemplifying a display device according to the invention) having a representation of a parameter value (fig. 1 shows alphanumeric display 26 for displaying numerical indications of values measured by the measuring device 15; [0022]: values measured by a measuring device 15; [0023]: The display 20 (FIG. 1 and FIG. 2) comprises a plurality of display entities (entities), 22, 25, 26, 28, 29 respectively, that are selectively actuatable and that are arranged for displaying, for example, graphical symbols and/or measured values and/or measurement units; [0025]: The display 20 further comprises an alphanumeric display 26, for example an alphanumeric display having three digits comprised each of 7 segments and a dot. Such an alphanumeric display 26 is configured, for example, for displaying numerical indications of values measured by the measuring device 15) and an associated indication (a plurality of icons 22 and a plurality of indicators of units of measure 29; [0023]: The display 20 (FIG. 1 and FIG. 2) comprises a plurality of display entities (entities), 22, 25, 26, 28, 29 respectively, that are selectively actuatable and that are arranged for displaying, for example, graphical symbols and/or measured values and/or measurement units; [0024]: the display 20, according to a preferred embodiment, comprises a plurality of icons 22, for example 4 icons, representing each a different sensor 15 connectable to the indicator 12; a plurality of indicators of units of measure 29; [0028]: the temperature indication, by selecting among the icons 22, the icon representing a thermometer; [0029]: the indication of the unit of measure, by selecting among the units of measure 29.degree. C. (centigrade degrees) or .degree. F. (Fahrenheit)).
The combination of Hyde and Russell contains a “base” system comprising a peripheral processing unit to process data from a plurality of actuators and a peripheral display device to present a subset of the obtained data which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” in that the subset of data having a parameter value and an associated indication is displayed on a user interface.
Aguglia contains known technique of displaying a parameter value and an associated indication of a selected subset of data (fig. 1, fig. 2, [0020]-[0033]) that is applicable to the “base” system.
Aguglia’s known technique of displaying a parameter value and an associated indication of a selected subset of data (fig. 1, fig. 2, [0020]-[0033]) would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as applicable to the “base” system of the combination of Hyde and Russell and the results would have been predictable and resulted in displaying a subset of data obtained from a plurality of actuators with a parameter value and an associated indicator on a user interface of a display which results in an improved process. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Vukosavljevic teaches the representation of the parameter value is rendered using a first font, and the associated indication is rendered using a second font different from the first font ([0030]: The text of the first language 106 and/or the second language 110 can have graphical emphasis applied such as is related to font size and type, degrees of transparency (e.g., 50%), coloration, etc., that differentiate to the viewer the languages and which is on top (or underlying the other). This also includes graphical emphasis such as highlighting, italicization, and so on; claim 3: the overlay algorithm enable application of graphical emphasis to visually differentiate the text of the second language from the text of the first language; in order to differentiate the text of first language from the text of second language, the first text and the second text can be displayed using fonts of different type and size). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Vukosavljevic’s knowledge of using different fonts for displaying different information types and modify the system of Hyde, Russell and Aguglia to display the parameter values and parameter name or parameter measurement units in different fonts because such a system enables a user to easily distinguish between different content or data.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hyde, Russell, Aguglia and Vukosavljevic teaches the HLM of claim 1, wherein the first font has a first line thickness, and the second font has a second line thickness different from the first line thickness (Vukosavljevic - [0030]: The text of the first language 106 and/or the second language 110 can have graphical emphasis applied such as is related to font size and type, degrees of transparency (e.g., 50%), coloration, etc., that differentiate to the viewer the languages and which is on top (or underlying the other). This also includes graphical emphasis such as highlighting, italicization, and so on; Vukosavljevic - claim 3: the overlay algorithm enable application of graphical emphasis to visually differentiate the text of the second language from the text of the first language; in order to differentiate the text of first language from the text of second language, the first text and the second text can be displayed using fonts of different type and size; same fonts, but of different size will inherently have different line thickness for the fonts).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hyde, Russell, Aguglia and Vukosavljevic teaches the HLM of claim 2, wherein the first line thickness is greater than the second line thickness (Vukosavljevic - [0030]: The text of the first language 106 and/or the second language 110 can have graphical emphasis applied such as is related to font size and type, degrees of transparency (e.g., 50%), coloration, etc., that differentiate to the viewer the languages and which is on top (or underlying the other). This also includes graphical emphasis such as highlighting, italicization, and so on; Vukosavljevic - claim 3: the overlay algorithm enable application of graphical emphasis to visually differentiate the text of the second language from the text of the first language; in order to differentiate the text of first language from the text of second language, the first text and the second text can be displayed using fonts of different type and size; same fonts, but of different size will inherently have different line thickness for the fonts).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hyde, Russell, Aguglia and Vukosavljevic teaches the HLM of claim 1, wherein the first font has a first color value, the second font has a second color value, and a background of the user interface has a third color value, wherein the first, second, and third color values are different (Vukosavljevic - [0030]: The text of the first language 106 and/or the second language 110 can have graphical emphasis applied such as is related to font size and type, degrees of transparency (e.g., 50%), coloration, etc., that differentiate to the viewer the languages and which is on top (or underlying the other). This also includes graphical emphasis such as highlighting, italicization, and so on; Vukosavljevic - claim 3: the overlay algorithm enable application of graphical emphasis to visually differentiate the text of the second language from the text of the first language; in order to differentiate the text of first language from the text of second language, the first text and the second text can be displayed using fonts of different colors; moreover, as shown in fig. 2 of Vukosavljevic, the background of the display screen is white, while the colors for the first text and second text are different shades of black).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hyde, Russell, Aguglia and Vukosavljevic teaches the HLM of claim 1, wherein the first font has a first brightness value, the second font has a second brightness value, and a background of the user interface has a third brightness value, wherein the first, second, and third brightness values are different (Vukosavljevic - [0030]: The text of the first language 106 and/or the second language 110 can have graphical emphasis applied such as is related to font size and type, degrees of transparency (e.g., 50%), coloration, etc., that differentiate to the viewer the languages and which is on top (or underlying the other). This also includes graphical emphasis such as highlighting, italicization, and so on; Vukosavljevic - claim 3: the overlay algorithm enable application of graphical emphasis to visually differentiate the text of the second language from the text of the first language; in order to differentiate the text of first language from the text of second language and further from the background, the first text and the second text can be displayed using fonts of different transparency levels and the background is transparent as shown in fig. 2). However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use different brightness levels for the font of first text, font of the second text, and the background rather than using different transparency levels to emphasis differentiation between the font of first text, the font of second text and the background. Whether using transparency levels or brightness levels to differentiate between the font of first text, the font of second text and the background is solely a matter of aesthetic design choice, and would not be sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hyde, Russell, Aguglia and Vukosavljevic teaches the HLM of claim 5, wherein the second brightness value is less than the first brightness value and greater than the third brightness value (Vukosavljevic - [0030]: The text of the first language 106 and/or the second language 110 can have graphical emphasis applied such as is related to font size and type, degrees of transparency (e.g., 50%), coloration, etc., that differentiate to the viewer the languages and which is on top (or underlying the other). This also includes graphical emphasis such as highlighting, italicization, and so on; Vukosavljevic - claim 3: the overlay algorithm enable application of graphical emphasis to visually differentiate the text of the second language from the text of the first language; in order to differentiate the text of first language from the text of second language and further from the background, the first text and the second text can be displayed using fonts of different transparency levels and the background is transparent as shown in fig. 2). However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the brightness level for font of second text less than the brightness level for font of first text and greater than the brightness level for the background rather than using different transparency levels to emphasis differentiation between the font of first text, the font of second text and the background. Whether using transparency levels or brightness levels of varying values to differentiate between the font of first text, the font of second text and the background is solely a matter of aesthetic design choice, and would not be sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hyde, Russell, Aguglia and Vukosavljevic teaches the HLM of claim 5, wherein a contrast between the background of the user interface and the representation of the parameter value has a first contrast level and a first contrast direction; and wherein a contrast between the associated indication and the representation of the parameter value has the first contrast level and a second contrast direction (Vukosavljevic - [0030]: The text of the first language 106 and/or the second language 110 can have graphical emphasis applied such as is related to font size and type, degrees of transparency (e.g., 50%), coloration, etc., that differentiate to the viewer the languages and which is on top (or underlying the other). This also includes graphical emphasis such as highlighting, italicization, and so on; Vukosavljevic - claim 3: the overlay algorithm enable application of graphical emphasis to visually differentiate the text of the second language from the text of the first language; in order to differentiate the text of first language from the text of second language and further from the background, the first text and the second text can be displayed using fonts of different transparency levels and the background is transparent as shown in fig. 2). However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use different contrast levels, specifically, a first contrast level and a first contrast direction between the background and the font of first text, and a second contrast level and a second contrast direction between the font of first text and the font of second text, rather than using different transparency levels to emphasis differentiation between the font of first text, the font of second text and the background. Whether using transparency levels or contrast levels of varying values to differentiate between the font of first text, the font of second text and the background is solely a matter of aesthetic design choice, and would not be sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hyde, Russell, Aguglia and Vukosavljevic teaches the HLM of claim 1, wherein the associated indication comprises an indication of measurement units (plurality of indicators of units of measure 29, fig. 2 - Aguglia; Aguglia - [0024]: the display 20, according to a preferred embodiment, comprises a plurality of indicators of units of measure 29; Aguglia - [0029]: the indication of the unit of measure, by selecting among the units of measure 29.degree. C. (centigrade degrees) or .degree. F. (Fahrenheit)).\
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Hyde, Russell, Aguglia and Vukosavljevic teaches the HLM of claim 1, wherein the parameter value is configured to be displayed as alphanumeric text (Aguglia - fig. 1 shows alphanumeric display 26 for displaying numerical indications of values measured by the measuring device 15; Aguglia - [0022]: values measured by a measuring device 15; Aguglia - [0023]: The display 20 (FIG. 1 and FIG. 2) comprises a plurality of display entities (entities), 22, 25, 26, 28, 29 respectively, that are selectively actuatable and that are arranged for displaying, for example, graphical symbols and/or measured values and/or measurement units; Aguglia - [0025]: The display 20 further comprises an alphanumeric display 26, for example an alphanumeric display having three digits comprised each of 7 segments and a dot. Such an alphanumeric display 26 is configured, for example, for displaying numerical indications of values measured by the measuring device 15) and the associated indication is configured to be displayed as a symbol (a plurality of icons 22; Aguglia - [0023]: The display 20 (FIG. 1 and FIG. 2) comprises a plurality of display entities (entities), 22, 25, 26, 28, 29 respectively, that are selectively actuatable and that are arranged for displaying, for example, graphical symbols and/or measured values and/or measurement units; Aguglia - [0024]: the display 20, according to a preferred embodiment, comprises a plurality of icons 22, for example 4 icons, representing each a different sensor 15 connectable to the indicator 12; Aguglia - [0028]: the temperature indication, by selecting among the icons 22, the icon representing a thermometer).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Hyde, Russell, Aguglia and Vukosavljevic teaches the HLM of claim 1, wherein the parameter value is configured to be displayed as alphanumeric text (Aguglia - fig. 1 shows alphanumeric display 26 for displaying numerical indications of values measured by the measuring device 15; Aguglia - [0022]: values measured by a measuring device 15; Aguglia - [0023]: The display 20 (FIG. 1 and FIG. 2) comprises a plurality of display entities (entities), 22, 25, 26, 28, 29 respectively, that are selectively actuatable and that are arranged for displaying, for example, graphical symbols and/or measured values and/or measurement units; Aguglia - [0025]: The display 20 further comprises an alphanumeric display 26, for example an alphanumeric display having three digits comprised each of 7 segments and a dot. Such an alphanumeric display 26 is configured, for example, for displaying numerical indications of values measured by the measuring device 15) and the associated indication is configured to be displayed as alphanumeric text (Aguglia - fig. 2 shows a plurality of indicators of units of measure 29 displayed as alphanumeric; Aguglia - [0023]: The display 20 (FIG. 1 and FIG. 2) comprises a plurality of display entities (entities), 22, 25, 26, 28, 29 respectively, that are selectively actuatable and that are arranged for displaying, for example, graphical symbols and/or measured values and/or measurement units; Aguglia - [0024]: a plurality of indicators of units of measure 29; Aguglia - [0029]: the indication of the unit of measure, by selecting among the units of measure 29.degree. C. (centigrade degrees) or .degree. F. (Fahrenheit)).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Hyde, Russell and Aguglia does not explicitly teach the HLM of claim 14, wherein the representation of the parameter value is rendered using a first font, and the first and second associated indications are rendered using a second font different from the first font.
Vukosavljevic teaches the representation of the parameter value is rendered using a first font, and the first and second associated indications are rendered using a second font different from the first font ([0030]: The text of the first language 106 and/or the second language 110 can have graphical emphasis applied such as is related to font size and type, degrees of transparency (e.g., 50%), coloration, etc., that differentiate to the viewer the languages and which is on top (or underlying the other). This also includes graphical emphasis such as highlighting, italicization, and so on; claim 3: the overlay algorithm enable application of graphical emphasis to visually differentiate the text of the second language from the text of the first language; in order to differentiate the text of first language from the text of second language, the first text and the second text can be displayed using fonts of different type and size). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Vukosavljevic’s knowledge of using different fonts for displaying different information types and modify the system of Hyde, Russell and Aguglia to display the parameter values and parameter name or parameter measurement units in different fonts because such a system enables a user to easily distinguish between different content or data.
Claims 16-20 are similar in scope to claims 2 and 2-7, respectively, and therefore the examiner provides similar rationale to reject these claims.
Claims 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyde, in view of Russell (US 2013/0066612), in view of Aguglia (US 2008/0169935), in view of Vukosavljevic, and further in view of Ranucci (US 2015/0272487).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hyde, Russell, Aguglia and Vukosavljevic teaches the HLM of claim 1, wherein the associated indication comprises an indication of a parameter ([0023]: The display 20 (FIG. 1 and FIG. 2) comprises a plurality of display entities (entities), 22, 25, 26, 28, 29 respectively, that are selectively actuatable and that are arranged for displaying, for example, graphical symbols and/or measured values and/or measurement units; Aguglia - [0024]: the display 20, according to a preferred embodiment, comprises a plurality of icons 22, for example 4 icons, representing each a different sensor 15 connectable to the indicator 12; a plurality of indicators of units of measure 29; Aguglia - [0028]: the temperature indication, by selecting among the icons 22, the icon representing a thermometer).
The combination of Hyde, Russell, Aguglia and Vukosavljevic does not explicitly teach the associated indication comprises an indication of a parameter name.
Ranucci teaches the associated indication comprises an indication of a parameter name (displaying parameter name such as temperature underneath element 55 displaying the temperature value, Time (min) underneath element 56 displaying the time value, etc. as shown in fig. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Ranucci’s knowledge of displaying a representation of a parameter value and associated parameter indication such as parameter name or parameter and modify the system of Hyde, Russell, Aguglia and Vukosavljevic because such a system enables a user to easily understand the displayed information and also alerts a user of a potentially dangerous situation when the parameter value crosses a threshold level by triggering an alarm ([0125]).
Claims 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyde, in view of Russell (US 2013/0066612), in view of Aguglia (US 2008/0169935), in view of Vukosavljevic, and further in view of Knoppert et al. (US 2018/0136823, hereinafter Knoppert).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hyde, Russell, Aguglia and Vukosavljevic teaches the HLM of claim 1, wherein characteristics of the first font is configured to be large and characteristics of the second font is configured to be smaller (the parameter value display using a larger font while the measurement units are displayed using smaller font; Vukosavljevic - [0030]: The text of the first language 106 and/or the second language 110 can have graphical emphasis applied such as is related to font size and type, degrees of transparency (e.g., 50%), coloration, etc., that differentiate to the viewer the languages and which is on top (or underlying the other). This also includes graphical emphasis such as highlighting, italicization, and so on; Vukosavljevic - claim 3: the overlay algorithm enable application of graphical emphasis to visually differentiate the text of the second language from the text of the first language; in order to differentiate the text of first language from the text of second language, the first text and the second text can be displayed using fonts of different type and size; Aguglia – fig. 2 shows the parameter values are displayed in a larger font than the associated measurement unit).
However, the combination of Hyde, Russell, Aguglia and Vukosavljevic does not explicitly teach data displayed with larger font is readable by a user at a greater distance away from the display device than data displayed with smaller font.
Knoppert teaches data displayed with larger font is readable by a user at a greater distance away from the display device than data displayed with smaller font ([0058]: The visibility of the information may be controlled by the font size, contrast, color and/or hue of the text displayed, or by the angle at which the users may view the display. For example, a smaller font size is harder to read from a distance than a larger font size). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Knoppert’s knowledge of data with larger fonts is readable from a greater distance and apply it into the system of Hyde, Russell, Aguglia and Vukosavljevic because such a system ensures that important data is displayed in larger font to be easily readable from a distance.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Hyde, Russell, Aguglia and Vukosavljevic teaches the HLM of claim 1, wherein characteristics of the first font is configured to be large and characteristics of the second font is configured to be smaller (the parameter value display using a larger font while the measurement units are displayed using smaller font; Vukosavljevic - [0030]: The text of the first language 106 and/or the second language 110 can have graphical emphasis applied such as is related to font size and type, degrees of transparency (e.g., 50%), coloration, etc., that differentiate to the viewer the languages and which is on top (or underlying the other). This also includes graphical emphasis such as highlighting, italicization, and so on; Vukosavljevic - claim 3: the overlay algorithm enable application of graphical emphasis to visually differentiate the text of the second language from the text of the first language; in order to differentiate the text of first language from the text of second language, the first text and the second text can be displayed using fonts of different type and size; Aguglia – fig. 2 shows the parameter values are displayed in a larger font than the associated measurement unit).
However, the combination of Hyde, Russell, Aguglia and Vukosavljevic does not explicitly teach data displayed with larger font is readable by a user at a distance and data displayed with smaller font is only readable by the user at close-up position.
Knoppert teaches data displayed with larger font is readable by a user at a distance and data displayed with smaller font is only readable by the user at close-up position ([0058]: The visibility of the information may be controlled by the font size, contrast, color and/or hue of the text displayed, or by the angle at which the users may view the display. For example, a smaller font size is harder to read from a distance than a larger font size). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Knoppert’s knowledge of data with larger fonts is readable from a greater distance and apply it into the system of Hyde, Russell, Aguglia and Vukosavljevic because such a system ensures that important data is displayed in larger font to be easily readable from a distance and lesser important data can be read by the user when closer to the display.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JWALANT B AMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 630pm CST.
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, Said Broome can be reached at 571-272-2931. 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.
/JWALANT AMIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights