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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 23rd, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 23rd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5 and 9 have been amended. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11-17 remain pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome some of the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed April 8th, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, “from in the transport direction” should read “in the transport direction”
In claim 9, “in accordance the stored transport time” should read “in accordance with the stored transport time”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitations "the net product” and “the packaging box ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 14 is rejected as it is dependent upon claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinsen (US 11173522) in view of Takemoto et al. (JP 2010179969) and legal precedent. English translations of Takemoto et al. (JP 2010179969) have been provided herein.
Regarding claim 1, Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) teaches a rejection device (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-4) including a transport unit (Fig. 1 #10) that transports an article (Paragraph 0028 lines 1-3) and includes a rejection transport passage (Fig. 1 section of #10 adjacent #40), and a discharge mechanism unit (Fig. 1 #40) that responds to an input of a rejection command signal and discharges the article (Paragraph 0028 lines 8-9), which enters a specific discharge bias section (Fig. 1 #41a-41c) in the rejection transport passage (Fig. 1 #41a-41c in section of #10 adjacent #40), to an outside of the rejection transport passage by compressed air (Paragraph 0051 lines 3-6), the rejection device comprising:
a rejection article detection sensor (Fig. 1 #43) that is disposed on an entrance side of the rejection transport passage (Fig. 1 #43 on entrance side of section of #10 adjacent #40) and detects front and rear ends of the article (Paragraph 0088 lines 1-8, Paragraph 0098 lines 1-4) in a transport direction (Fig. 1 direction ‘D’); and
one or more processors (Fig. 4 #33e, 53) collectively configured to:
in a setting mode (Paragraph 0008 lines 1-5):
set an essential pressurization point of the article (Paragraph 0073 lines 1-12, Paragraph 0078 lines 1-3) at which a discharge force (Fig. 6 ‘F’) to the outside of the rejection transport passage is applied from the discharge mechanism unit (Fig. 1 #40) by the compressed air (Paragraph 0073 lines 7-12), based on a transport time corresponding to a length of the article (Paragraph 0078 lines 1-3, Paragraph 0103 lines 2-7) and a transport speed in the transport direction (Paragraph 0103 lines 2-7); and
store the transport time for each type of the article in a memory (Paragraph 0089 lines 1-4, Paragraph 0093 lines 1-4); and
in an inspection and rejection mode (Paragraph 0010 lines 1-4):
determine a rejection delay time based on the stored transport time and a delay time from a detection time point (Paragraph 0103 line 1-Paragraph 0104 line 8) when the front end of the article in the transport direction is detected by the rejection article detection sensor (Fig. 1 end of ‘P’ detected by #43, Paragraph 0103 lines 1-7) to a time when the essential pressurization point of the article (Fig. 6 point ‘G’ of ‘P’) enters the discharge bias section (Paragraph 0102 lines 1-16, Paragraph 0103 lines 1-7); and
input the rejection command signal to the discharge mechanism unit (Fig. 1 #40) for a predetermined command time from an expiration of the rejection delay time (Paragraph 0104 lines 1-8, Paragraph 0106 lines 1-4),
wherein the one or more processors (Fig. 4 #33e, 53) are further collectively configured to control the command time of the rejection command signal (Paragraph 0104 lines 1-8) in accordance with the stored transport time (Paragraph 0105 lines 1-7).
Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) lacks teaching one or more processors collectively configured to: in an inspection and rejection mode: determine a rejection delay time based on a delay time from a detection time point when the rear end of the article in the transport direction is detected by the rejection article detection sensor. Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) instead teaches a rejection delay time based on a delay time from a detection time point when the front end of the article in the transport direction is detected by the rejection article detection sensor.
Takemoto et al. (JP 2010179969) teaches a rejection device (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-3) comprising one or more processors (Paragraph 0008 lines 1-4) collectively configured to: in an inspection and rejection mode (Paragraph 0023 lines 1-4): determine a rejection delay time based on a delay time from a detection time point when the rear end of the article in the transport direction is detected by the rejection article detection sensor (Paragraph 0025 lines 1-Paragraph 0026 line 13, Paragraph 0029 line 1-Paragraph 0030 line 11).
Takemoto et al. (JP 2010179969) explains that the control unit determines if the products are transported at a significant tilt or if products in front of or behind each other come into contact during transport, since the boxing machine may not be able to pack these products properly (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-10), and explains that the front and rear ends of the article are detected to make these determinations (Paragraph 0025 lines 1-15, Paragraph 0027 lines 1-13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) to include one or more processors collectively configured to: in an inspection and rejection mode: determine a rejection delay time based on a delay time from a detection time point when the rear end of the article in the transport direction is detected by the rejection article detection sensor as taught by Takemoto et al. (JP 2010179969) in order to detect if products contact one another during transport or detect if products are transported at a significant tilt, such that these products are removed prior to packing.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) to include one or more processors collectively configured to: in an inspection and rejection mode: determine a rejection delay time based on a delay time from a detection time point when the rear end of the article in the transport direction is detected by the rejection article detection sensor, as this determination uses the same method of calculating the time it will take for a certain point on the object to move from one location to another location according to speed and distance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 3, Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) teaches the rejection device according to claim 1, wherein
the article stores a predetermined-shaped net product (Fig. 15 net product formed by each ‘P’) in a predetermined-shaped packaging box or other containers (Fig. 15 ‘A’), the net product having a weight greater than a weight of the container (Paragraph 0215 lines 1-9), and a centroid of the net product is deviated from a center position of the article in the transport direction (Paragraph 0215 lines 6-9), and
the one or more processors (Fig. 4 #33e, 53) are collectively configured to set the essential pressurization point (Fig. 15 ‘F’’’) of the article to be closer to a centroid position side of the net product in an article length than a center of the article length in the transport direction (Fig. 15 ‘F’’’ is set closer to a centroid of net product formed by combination of ‘P’ than a center position of length of ‘A’ in direction ‘D’, Paragraph 0078 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 5, Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) teaches the rejection device according to claim 1, wherein
a centroid of a combined shape of the net product and the packaging box (Fig. 15 centroid of ‘A’) as seen from the discharge mechanism unit (Fig. 1 view of ‘P’ from #40, Paragraph 0079 lines 5-10) is deviated from a center position of the article in the transport direction (Fig. 15 centroid of ‘A’ is deviated from a center position of ‘A’ in direction ‘D’ due to orientation of the irregular shape), and
the one or more processors (Fig. 4 #33e, 53) are collectively configured to set the essential pressurization point of the article to be closer to a diagram center position side of a projection plane shape as viewed in the discharge bias direction than a center of an article length in the transport direction (Fig. 15 ‘F’’’ set closer to centroid of ‘A’ than center of length of ‘A’ in direction ‘D’ due to orientation of irregular shape of ‘A’), the discharge bias direction being a direction of the discharge force (Fig. 15 direction of ‘F’’’).
Regarding claim 7, Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) teaches the rejection device according to claim 1, wherein
the one or more processors (Fig. 4 #33e, 53) have an encoder (Fig. 4 #13) that is configured to detect a rotational angle displacement of a transport driving motor (Fig. 4 #12, Paragraph 0091 lines 3-7) driving the transport unit (Fig. 1 #10) in a predetermined angle unit and output a detection pulse for each predetermined angle (Paragraph 0091 lines 5-6), and a count circuit that is configured to count an output pulse of the encoder (Paragraph 0091 lines 5-7) and input a detection signal of the rejection article detection sensor (Paragraph 0102 lines 5-12), and
the rejection delay time is determined based on a count value of the output pulse of the encoder after the detection time point when the one end of the article in the transport direction is detected by the rejection article detection sensor (Paragraph 0091 lines 3-7, Paragraph 0102 lines 5-12).
Regarding claim 9, Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) teaches an article inspection device (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-4) comprising:
a transport unit (Fig. 1 #10) that transports an article (Paragraph 0028 lines 1-3) and includes a predetermined transport passage (Fig. 1 section of #10 adjacent #20 and #40);
an inspection unit (Fig. 1 #20) that inspects a predetermined quality state of the article being transported in a predetermined inspection section (Fig. 1 section of #10 adjacent #20) in the transport passage (Paragraph 0069 lines 1-8);
an air jet type discharge mechanism unit (Fig. 1 #40) that responds to an input of a rejection command signal and discharges an article (Paragraph 0028 lines 8-9) which is inspected in a predetermined rejection section (Fig. 1 section of #10 adjacent #40) in the transport passage to an outside of the transport passage in accordance with an inspection result in the inspection unit (Paragraph 0070 lines 1-3); and
a control unit (Fig. 4 #30, 50) that includes an inspection control unit (Fig. 4 #30) controlling the inspection unit (Paragraph 0046 lines 1-2) and a rejection control unit (Fig. 4 #50) controlling the discharge mechanism unit (Paragraph 0047 lines 8-10), wherein
the discharge mechanism unit (Fig. 1 #40) includes:
a rejection article detection sensor (Fig. 1 #43) that is disposed on an entrance side of the predetermined rejection section (Fig. 1 #43 on entrance side of section of #10 adjacent #40) and that detects front and rear ends of the article (Paragraph 0088 lines 1-8, Paragraph 0098 lines 1-4) in a transport direction (Fig. 1 direction ‘D’); and
one or more processors (Fig. 4 #33e, 53) collectively configured to:
in a setting mode:
set an essential pressurization point of the article (Paragraph 0073 lines 1-12, Paragraph 0078 liens 1-3) at which a discharge force (Fig. 6 ‘F’) to the outside of the transport passage is applied from the discharge mechanism unit by compressed air (Paragraph 0073 lines 7-12), based on a transport time corresponding to a length of the article (Paragraph 0078 lines 1-3, Paragraph 0103 lines 2-7) and a transport speed from in the transport direction (Paragraph 0103 lines 2-7); and
store the transport time for each type of the article in a memory (Paragraph 0089 lines 1-4, Paragraph 0093 lines 1-4); and
in an inspection and rejection mode:
determine a rejection delay time based on the stored transport time and a delay time from a detection time point (Paragraph 0103 line 1-Paragraph 0104 line 8) when the front end of the article in the transport direction is detected by the rejection article detection sensor (Fig. 1 end of ‘P’ detected by #43, Paragraph 0103 lines 1-7) to a time when the essential pressurization point of the article (Fig. 6 point ‘G’ of ‘P’) enters a discharge bias section (Paragraph 0102 lines 1-16, Paragraph 0103 lines 1-7); and
input the rejection command signal to the discharge mechanism unit (Fig. 1 #40) for a predetermined command time from an expiration of the delay time in accordance with an inspection result in the inspection unit (Paragraph 0101 lines 1-8, Paragraph 0106 lines 1-4),
wherein the one or more processors (Fig. 4 #33e, 53) are further collectively configured to control the command time of the rejection command signal (Paragraph 0104 lines 1-8) in accordance the stored transport time (Paragraph 0105 lines 1-7).
Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) lacks teaching one or more processors collectively configured to: in an inspection and rejection mode: determine a rejection delay time based on a delay time from a detection time point when the rear end of the article in the transport direction is detected by the rejection article detection sensor. Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) instead teaches a rejection delay time based on a delay time from a detection time point when the front end of the article in the transport direction is detected by the rejection article detection sensor.
Takemoto et al. (JP 2010179969) teaches an article inspection device (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-3) comprising one or more processors (Paragraph 0008 lines 1-4) collectively configured to: in an inspection and rejection mode (Paragraph 0023 lines 1-4): determine a rejection delay time based on a delay time from a detection time point when the rear end of the article in the transport direction is detected by the rejection article detection sensor (Paragraph 0025 lines 1-Paragraph 0026 line 13, Paragraph 0029 line 1-Paragraph 0030 line 11).
Takemoto et al. (JP 2010179969) explains that the control unit determines if the products are transported at a significant tilt or if products in front of or behind each other come into contact during transport, since the boxing machine may not be able to pack the products properly (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-10), and explains that the front and rear ends of the article are detected to make these determinations (Paragraph 0025 lines 1-15, Paragraph 0027 lines 1-13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) to include one or more processors collectively configured to: in an inspection and rejection mode: determine a rejection delay time based on a delay time from a detection time point when the rear end of the article in the transport direction is detected by the rejection article detection sensor as taught by Takemoto et al. (JP 2010179969) in order to detect if products contact one another during transport or detect if products are transported at a significant tilt, such that these products are removed prior to packing.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) to include one or more processors collectively configured to: in an inspection and rejection mode: determine a rejection delay time based on a delay time from a detection time point when the rear end of the article in the transport direction is detected by the rejection article detection sensor, as this determination uses the same method of calculating the time it will take for a certain point on the object to move from one location to another location according to speed and distance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 12, Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) teaches a rejection device according to claim 1, wherein the rejection article detection sensor (Fig. 1 #43) is an optical sensor comprising a light emitting element (Fig. 1 #43a) and a light receiving element (Fig. 1 #43b), the rejection article detection sensor configured to detect the article when a light between the light emitting element and the light receiving element is shielded by the article (Paragraph 0088 lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 13, Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) teaches a rejection device according to claim 3, wherein the rejection article detection sensor (Fig. 1 #43) is an optical sensor comprising a light emitting element (Fig. 1 #43a) and a light receiving element (Fig. 1 #43b), the rejection article detection sensor configured to detect the article when a light between the light emitting element and the light receiving element is shielded by the article (Paragraph 0088 lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 14, Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) teaches a rejection device according to claim 5, wherein the rejection article detection sensor (Fig. 1 #43) is an optical sensor comprising a light emitting element (Fig. 1 #43a) and a light receiving element (Fig. 1 #43b), the rejection article detection sensor configured to detect the article when a light between the light emitting element and the light receiving element is shielded by the article (Paragraph 0088 lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 15, Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) teaches a rejection device according to claim 7, wherein the rejection article detection sensor (Fig. 1 #43) is an optical sensor comprising a light emitting element (Fig. 1 #43a) and a light receiving element (Fig. 1 #43b), the rejection article detection sensor configured to detect the article when a light between the light emitting element and the light receiving element is shielded by the article (Paragraph 0088 lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 16, Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) teaches an article inspection device according to claim 9, wherein the rejection article detection sensor (Fig. 1 #43) is an optical sensor comprising a light emitting element (Fig. 1 #43a) and a light receiving element (Fig. 1 #43b), the rejection article detection sensor configured to detect the article when a light between the light emitting element and the light receiving element is shielded by the article (Paragraph 0088 lines 4-8).
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinsen (US 11173522) in view of Takemoto et al. (JP 2010179969), legal precedent and further in view of Houghton et al. (US 11308689).
Regarding claim 11, Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) teaches an article inspection device according to claim 9, wherein the inspection unit (Fig. 1 #20) includes a weighing unit (Paragraph 0035 lines 1-6), and the inspection unit is configured to inspect an adequacy of a net weight of the article being transported in the predetermined inspection section (Paragraph 0069 lines 1-8).
Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) lacks teaching a weighing unit that measures a load applied by a scale.
Houghton et al. (US 11308689) teaches an article inspection device (Col. 1 lines 16-23) wherein the inspection unit (Fig. 1 #110) includes a weighing unit (Fig. 1 #122) that measures a load applied by a scale (Col. 5 lines 42-43).
Houghton et al. (US 11308689) explains that automation tools can use the weight and estimated center of gravity of products to determine how to manipulate products before beginning to manipulate those objects (Col. 15 lines 18-24).
Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) discloses the claimed invention except that the weighing unit includes an x-ray unit instead of a scale. Houghton et al. (US 11308689) shows that a scale is an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two weighing units were art-recognized- equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a weighing unit that measures a load applied by a scale for the x-ray weighing unit in order to use the weight and estimated center of gravity to determine how to manipulate products.
Regarding claim 17, Makino et al. (JP 2017176896) teaches an article inspection device according to claim 11, wherein the rejection article detection sensor (Fig. 1 #43) is an optical sensor comprising a light emitting element (Fig. 1 #43a) and a light receiving element (Fig. 1 #43b), the rejection article detection sensor configured to detect the article when a light between the light emitting element and the light receiving element is shielded by the article (Paragraph 0088 lines 4-8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 23rd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Makino does not teach setting an essential pressurization point and storing a transport time for each article in advance of inspection, the Examiner would like to clarify the following.
Makino explains that the reference position determination unit #33e sets a coordinate system in the X-ray image of the object P with the transport direction D of the object P as the X-axis direction and the direction perpendicular to the transport direction of the object P (the width of the conveyor belt) as the Y-axis direction, and identifies the coordinates of each pixel in the coordinate system (Paragraph 0075 lines 1-8), and explains that the reference position determination unit #33e determines the center of gravity (center of mass) taking into consideration the outer shape of the figure and the weight of each pixel (Paragraph 0078 lines 1-3). Therefore, the front end and rear end coordinates are identified along with the coordinates of the center of gravity of the object, and a reference position F for the distribution mechanism to exert a force on the test object toward the center of gravity is determined (Paragraph 0079 lines 1-14) (essential pressurization point). Makino explains that the reference position determination unit #33e generates information regarding the reference position F, which is the distance L in the transport direction from the downstream end E of the object in the transport direction D to the reference position F (Paragraph 0102). Makino further explains that the controller 50 includes a CPU for performing calculations and control, a ROM, a RAM, a hard disk, and the like for storing information (Paragraph 0089), and explains that the sorting information (stored in the controller 50) includes information regarding the rank of the object to be inspected, the reference position F at which the sorting mechanism sorts the object, and the injection time at which the sorting mechanism injects air onto the object (Paragraph 0093). Makino additionally teaches the system operating based on timing of the different elements (see Paragraphs 0102-0103). Specifically, the control unit 53 calculates the rejection delay time through the equation (B1+L)/V, wherein the component (L/V) corresponds to the transport time (Tw) as claimed.
The Examiner would like to clarify that the current application and the cited system taught by Makino utilize the same measurements and calculations to determine the timing. If the object being inspected has an essential pressurization point ‘G’ which is a distance ‘L’ from the front end of the object and a dimension ‘d’ from the front end of the object to the rear end of the object (see Figure 6 Modified below), and the system has a set distance ‘x’ between the article detection sensor and the discharge mechanism, the calculation performed by the current application may be re-written as follows:
T
d
=
T
w
+
T
x
=
d
V
+
x
-
d
+
L
V
=
d
V
+
x
V
-
d
V
+
L
V
=
x
V
+
L
V
PNG
media_image1.png
527
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 Modified
Makino teaches the calculation of the time at which the essential pressurization point (‘G’) will pass in front of the discharge mechanism as time = (B1+L)/V, where B1 is the distance between the article detection sensor and the discharge mechanism (B1 is the same as ‘x’), such that the equation may be re-written with the variables used in the previous example as:
t
i
m
e
=
B
1
V
+
L
V
=
x
V
+
L
V
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the means to determine the activation of the discharge mechanism at a time corresponding to passage of a specific point (‘G’) which is a distance (‘L’) from the front of an article which is traveling from a first point to a second point (distance ‘x’) using a combination of distance and velocity are essentially the same regardless of detecting the front end of the article or the rear end of the article.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Takemoto et al. (JP 2010179969), as Takemoto et al. (JP 2010179969) explicitly teaches the detection of the rear end of the article.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights