DETAILED ACTION
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 6-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,279,999. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patent claims 1 and 7 teach all of the limitations of instant claims 1 and 15.
Similarly, instant claims 2 and 16 are met by patent claim 2,
instant claim 3 is met by patent claim 4,
instant claims 4 and 17 are met by patent claim 8,
instant claims 6 and 18 are met by patent claim 1,
instant claim 7 is met by patent claim 6,
instant claims 8 and 19 are met by patent claim 9,
instant claim 9 is met by patent claim 10,
instant claim 10 is met by patent claim 14,
instant claim 11 is met by patent claim 15,
instant claims 12 and 20 are met by patent claim 11,
instant claim 13 is met by patent claim 12,
instant claim 14 is met by patent claim 13.
The patent claims include all of the limitations of the instant application claims, respectively. The patent claims also include additional limitations. Hence, the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 12-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bodurka (US 20190183705 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Bodurka teaches system comprising a wall module (Bodurka, Fig. 2-4, First and second wall units 68 and 70 together form a headwall unit 66) including a first wireless transceiver (Bodurka, Fig. 4, headwall unit 66 includes a first wireless transceiver 86, a second wireless transceiver 88) and first circuitry configured to receive an audio feed and a data feed (Bodurka, Controller 92; Para. 79, Memory 94 (FIG. 4), in addition to storing instructions followed by controller 92, stores data received from patient support apparatus 20 and/or from other devices positioned within the room in which headwall unit 66 is positioned; Para. 166, audio signals are passed back and forth between the patient and the remote nurse. These audio signals pass through headwall unit 66 and headwall unit 66 forwards them back and forward between patient support apparatus 20 and nurse call system 60 as appropriate), and a patient bed (Bodurka, Fig. 2, Patient support apparatus 20) including a second wireless transceiver (Bodurka, Fig. 5, a first transceiver 138, a second transceiver 140), a speaker (Bodurka, Para. 56, A speaker and microphone are included in order to allow the patient to aurally communicate with the remotely positioned nurse), and second circuitry (Bodurka, Fig. 5, Controller 136) coupled to the speaker and the second wireless transceiver (Bodurka, Para. 68, communicating audio signals between a person supported on patient support apparatus 20 and a caregiver positioned remotely from patient support apparatus 20 (which is accomplished by headwall unit 66 forwarding the audio signals of the person on patient support apparatus 20 to nurse call system 60, and vice versa); Para. 110, a controller 136 in communication with a first transceiver 138, a second transceiver 140), the second wireless transceiver being configurable for wireless communication with the first wireless transceiver (Bodurka, Para. 114, First transceiver 138 of patient support apparatus 20 is adapted to communicate with first transceiver 86 of headwall unit 66. Thus, in some embodiments, first transceiver 138 is an infrared transceiver that communicates with headwall unit 66 only when patient support apparatus is within line-of-sight communication range of first transceiver 86 (e.g. within the corresponding bay 102). Second transceiver 140 of patient support apparatus 20 is adapted to communicate with second transceiver 88 of headwall unit 66. Thus, in some embodiments, second transceiver 140 is a Bluetooth transceiver), wherein the patient bed includes a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to receive inputs from a user to control functions of the patient bed (Bodurka, Para. 56, The controls of user interfaces 50 allow a user to control one or more of the following: change a height of support deck 30, raise or lower head section 42, activate and deactivate a brake for wheels 24, arm and disarm an exit detection system), the GUI being configured to receive a first user input which results in a mute command being transmitted from the second wireless transceiver of the patient bed to the first wireless transceiver of the wall module to command the first circuity of the wall module to mute the speaker of the patient bed (Bodurka, Para. 56, Inner siderail user interfaces 50c may also include a nurse call control that enables a patient to call a nurse; Para. 165, The nurse answer signal is forwarded through room interface board 58, cable port 56, and cable 72 to headwall unit 66. Headwall unit 66 forwards the nurse answer signal to patient support apparatus 20 at step 224 (e.g. via link 118, or in some embodiments, link 128). Headwall unit 66 also forwards a volume or mute command to TV/display 62 at step 226 at or near the time it carries out step 224), wherein in response to receipt of the mute command to mute the speaker of the patient bed, the first circuitry of the wall module communicates with the second wireless transceiver via the first wireless transceiver in a first manner that prevents the audio feed from being audibly played through the speaker of the patient bed (Bodurka, Para. 165, The nurse answer signal is forwarded through room interface board 58, cable port 56, and cable 72 to headwall unit 66. Headwall unit 66 forwards the nurse answer signal to patient support apparatus 20 at step 224 (e.g. via link 118, or in some embodiments, link 128). Headwall unit 66 also forwards a volume or mute command to TV/display 62 at step 226 at or near the time it carries out step 224. As with all the commands to TV/display 62, controller 92 of headwall unit 66 forwards these either via room interface board or, if TV/display 62 includes a wireless transceiver, via one of the wireless transceivers of headwall unit 66. TV/display 62 either completely turns its sound off, or drops the sound level to a suitable sound level in response to the volume command at step 226).
In regard to claim 2, Bodurka teaches the system of claim 1, wherein in response to receipt of the mute command to mute the speaker of the patient bed, the first circuitry commands the first wireless transceiver to transmit audio packets that correspond to silence (Bodurka, Para. 165, The nurse answer signal is forwarded through room interface board 58, cable port 56, and cable 72 to headwall unit 66. Headwall unit 66 forwards the nurse answer signal to patient support apparatus 20 at step 224 (e.g. via link 118, or in some embodiments, link 128). Headwall unit 66 also forwards a volume or mute command to TV/display 62 at step 226 at or near the time it carries out step 224).
In regard to claim 3, Bodurka, teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the audio packets that correspond to silence comprise all zeroes ((Bodurka, Para. 165, The nurse answer signal is forwarded through room interface board 58, cable port 56, and cable 72 to headwall unit 66. Headwall unit 66 forwards the nurse answer signal to patient support apparatus 20 at step 224 (e.g. via link 118, or in some embodiments, link 128). Headwall unit 66 also forwards a volume or mute command to TV/display 62 at step 226 at or near the time it carries out step 224).
In regard to claim 4, Bodurka teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the GUI is configured to receive a second user input to unmute the speaker of the patient bed, wherein receipt of the second user input results in an unmute command being transmitted from the second wireless transceiver of the patient bed to the first wireless transceiver of the wall module to command the first circuitry of the wall module to communicate with the second wireless transceiver via the first wireless transceiver in a second manner that allows the audio feed to be audibly played through the speaker of the patient bed (Bodurka, Para. 56, Inner siderail user interfaces 50c may also include a nurse call control that enables a patient to call a nurse; Para. 166, When the time comes for the patient and nurse to end their conversation, either the nurse of the patient hangs up and the audio connection is terminated. In the example of FIG. 11, this audio disconnection is shown as originating from the nurse (steps 230 and 232), but it will be understood that the audio connection can also be terminated by the patient from patient support apparatus 20. In either case, headwall unit 66 automatically sends another volume command to TV/display 62 at step 234 that unmutes the sound from TV/display 62, or that otherwise returns the volume level of the TV/display 62 to its volume level prior to the nurse-patient communications).
In regard to claim 6, Bodurka teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a mobile device configured to link temporarily with the first wireless transceiver for wireless communication for configuration of the circuitry of the wall module (Bodurka, Para. 79, Memory 94 (FIG. 4), in addition to storing instructions followed by controller 92, stores data received from patient support apparatus 20 and/or from other devices positioned within the room in which headwall unit 66 is positioned. As will be discussed in greater detail below, such data may include patient data, sensor data, device data, alerts, communication preferences, and other data. As will also be explained in greater detail, memory 94 contains a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) 108 that controller 92 transmits to mobile electronic devices 116, such as a smart phones, carried by caregivers and/or other authorized individuals associated with the healthcare facility. The URL enables the mobile electronic device 116 to easily access and retrieve data stored in memory 94 (or elsewhere) that relates to patient, patient support apparatus 20, and/or other medical devices 112 associated with headwall unit 66), the mobile device being configured to receive a third user input to command the first circuity of the wall module to mute the speaker of the patient bed (Bodurka, Para. 164, At any point in time while TV/display 62 is turned on, the patient may initiate a call to a remote caregiver via a nurse call control on patient support apparatus 20, or the caregiver may initiate a call to the patient remotely from the nurses' station. In either situation, headwall unit 66 detects this and automatically mutes or turns down the volume of TV/display 62).
In regard to claim 12, Bodurka teaches system of claim 1, further comprising a nurse call cord extending from the wall module, the nurse call cord terminating at a first nurse call connector configured for connection to a nurse call port of a nurse call system (Bodurka, Fig. 2, cable 72; Para. 62, Second wall unit 70 includes a cable 72 that is coupled to cable port 56 (FIG. 2). Cable 72 allows second wall unit 70 to communicate with cable port 56 and all of the components in communication with cable port 56 (e.g. nurse call system 60, room interface board 58, etc.). Cable 72 includes a connector 74 that is adapted to mate with cable port 56).
In regard to claim 13, Bodurka teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the nurse call cord includes an auxiliary cord branch terminating at a second nurse call connector, the second nurse call connector being coupleable to a third nurse call connector at an end of a bed nurse call cord extending from the patient bed (Bodurka, Para. 67, Headwall unit 66 (FIG. 4) is adapted to wirelessly receive signals from patient support apparatus 20 and deliver the signals to cable port 56 in a manner that matches the way the signals would otherwise be delivered to cable port 56 if a conventional nurse call cable were connected between patient support apparatus 20 and cable port 56. In other words, patient support apparatus 20 and headwall unit 66 cooperate to provide signals to cable port 56 in a manner that is transparent to cable port 56 and room interface board 58 such that these components cannot detect whether they are in communication with patient support apparatus 20 via wired or wireless communication. In this manner, a healthcare facility can utilize the wireless communication abilities of one or more patient support apparatuses 20 without having to make any changes to their existing cable ports 56 (or to their nurse call system 60 or room interface boards 58)).
In regard to claim 14, Bodurka teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the patient bed includes a first WiFi transceiver (Bodurka, Para. 114, Network transceiver 150 of patient support apparatus 20 is adapted to communicate with the wireless access points 110 of healthcare computer network 106 and, in some embodiments, is a WiFi transceiver) and the wall module includes a second WiFi transceiver Bodurka, Para. 80, Network transceiver 90 (FIG. 4) is adapted to communicate with one or more wireless access points 110 of healthcare facility network 106. In some embodiments, network transceiver 90 is a WiFi transceiver (IEEE 802.11) adapted to communicate with access points 110 using any of the various WiFi protocols), the first and second WiFi transceivers each being configured to send WiFi messages to, and receive WiFi messages from, at least one wireless access point of a network (Bodurka, This connection takes place at step 180 where the mobile electronic device 116 uses its network transceiver (e.g. WiFi) to communicate with healthcare facility computer network 106. Healthcare network 106 then forwards the connection message to headwall server 132 at step 182, which, in this embodiment, hosts the location specified in the URL. As noted earlier, in other embodiments, the URL may be hosted at other locations).
In regard to claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1 as stated above.
In regard to claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 2 as stated above.
In regard to claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 4 as stated above.
In regard to claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 6 as stated above.
In regard to claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 12 as stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodurka (US 20190183705 A1) In view of Reeves et al. (US 20120124245 A1).
In regard to claim 5, Bodurka does not specifically teach the system of claim 4, wherein the GUI is configured to display an On button and an Off button, the On button is selectable to cause the wall module to unmute the speaker of the patient bed, and the Off button is selectable to cause the wall module to mute the speaker of the patient bed.
However, the concept of having a volume on/off button on a display is well known in the art as also taught by Reeves. Reeves teaches upon the user selecting the desired peripheral device to be controlled, the universal remote control 100 dynamically outputs a customized user interface associated with the selected peripheral device. The user interface can include a dial, a slider, navigation buttons, a number pad, a volume controller, a peripheral device power button, a mute button, a menu button, and/or other virtual controllers for interacting with and controlling the peripheral device (Reeves, Para. 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a mute button (as taught by Reeves) resulting in predictable result of controlling the volume.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodurka (US 20190183705 A1) In view of REID et al. (US 20160321418 A1).
In regard to claim 7, Bodurka teaches the user interface allows the user to update any desired data, change the content and/or format of the displayed data, and/or control other aspects of headwall unit 66 and/or patient support apparatus 20; A virtually unlimited number of other configurations can be selected by the user of mobile electronic device 116 (Bodurka, Para. 143).
Bodurka does not specifically teach the system of claim 6, wherein the mobile device is configured to receive a firmware installation input from a user to upload firmware to the first circuitry of the wall module via the first transceiver.
However, the concept of uploading firmware to medical devices based on user input is well known in the art as also taught by REID. REID teaches the device dashboard service 332 may be an application configured to assist users with the management of their medical devices. The device dashboard service 332 may serve as a central location for a user to manage their medical devices. the device dashboard service 332 may, in embodiments, facilitate organizing and simplifying medical device management, remotely monitoring medical devices; remotely managing AED software; remotely configuring medical devices; viewing clinical event information; viewing device-readiness (self-test) information; and/or the like. the device dashboard service 332 may also include an update component 350 configured to provide software updates to the medical device 304. According to embodiments, the update component 352 may provide software updates that are transmitted over the network 306 to the medical device 304, downloaded to a storage medium (for example, a USB flash drive), and/or the like. Additionally, the update component 352 may be configured to enable scheduled software updates, periodic software updates, and/or the like (REID, Para. 103, 111). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remotely manage software updates (as taught by REID) resulting in predictable result of updating firmware of the medical devices as need it.
Claim(s) 8, 9, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodurka (US 20190183705 A1) In view of Loser et al. (US 20210118561 A1).
In regard to claim 8, Bodurka does not teach the system of claim 1, wherein the first circuitry of the wall module and the second circuitry of the patient bed implement a time-based pairing operation to pair the patient bed with the wall module.
However, the concept of having time based pairing is well known in the art as also taught by Loser. Loser teaches a medical apparatus and a remote control device perform a pairing procedure, in which the remote control device sends an identifier of the remote control device, the medical apparatus sends a time-referenced information, the remote control device receives the time-referenced information and generates a first hash key based on the identifier and the time-referenced information, and the medical apparatus receives the identifier and generates a second hash key based on the identifier and the time-referenced information. The second hash key corresponds to the first hash key, wherein, when the pairing has been successfully completed, the remote control device sends an instruction controlling the medical apparatus based on the first hash key, and the medical apparatus accepts the instruction if the first hash key corresponds to the second hash key (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a time-referenced information to perform a pairing procedure (as taught by Loser) in order to perform secure pairing procedure.
In regard to claim 9, Combination of Bodurka and Loser teach the system of claim 8, wherein the time-based pairing operation is initiated by plugging a power plug of the patient bed in to a power receptacle of the wall module (Bodurka, Para. 37-38, the device 301 has a Pairing Initiation Client software 321 pre-installed on it, which registers for notifications when the device 301 connects on Wi-Fi. When user Y receives the new device 301 she plugs it in to a power supply, e.g. the mains, or otherwise powers it up. The device Wi-Fi powers up and searches for networks for which it has valid configurations (i.e. it looks for BT-WiFi-with-FON SSIDs) and selects one with which to attempt association. The Pairing Initiation Client 321 listens for connection notifications and waits till it receives notification that the device has connected to a BT-WiFi-with-FON SSID: it doesn't need to be the one provided by customer Y's access point 303).
In regard to claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 8 as stated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and a terminal disclaimer is filed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 10, Loser et al. (US 20210118561 A1) teaches a medical apparatus and a remote control device perform a pairing procedure, in which the remote control device sends an identifier of the remote control device, the medical apparatus sends a time-referenced information, the remote control device receives the time-referenced information and generates a first hash key based on the identifier and the time-referenced information, and the medical apparatus receives the identifier and generates a second hash key based on the identifier and the time-referenced information. The second hash key corresponds to the first hash key, wherein, when the pairing has been successfully completed, the remote control device sends an instruction controlling the medical apparatus based on the first hash key, and the medical apparatus accepts the instruction if the first hash key corresponds to the second hash key (Abstract) but does not teach wherein plugging in the power cord to the power receptacle results in a first timer of the patient bed being started to measure a first uptime, wherein plugging in the power cord to the power receptacle results in a second timer of the wall module being started to measure a second uptime, wherein the wall module is configured to transmit to the patient bed from the first wireless transceiver an advertisement including the second uptime, wherein the patient bed compares the second uptime with the first uptime and, if the second uptime is within a predetermined tolerance range of the first uptime, the patient bed sends a pairing message to the wall module which results in the wall module and the patient bed becoming automatically paired for subsequent wireless communications. Therefore, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claim limitations.
With regard to claim 11, Loser et al. (US 20210118561 A1) teaches a medical apparatus and a remote control device perform a pairing procedure, in which the remote control device sends an identifier of the remote control device, the medical apparatus sends a time-referenced information, the remote control device receives the time-referenced information and generates a first hash key based on the identifier and the time-referenced information, and the medical apparatus receives the identifier and generates a second hash key based on the identifier and the time-referenced information. The second hash key corresponds to the first hash key, wherein, when the pairing has been successfully completed, the remote control device sends an instruction controlling the medical apparatus based on the first hash key, and the medical apparatus accepts the instruction if the first hash key corresponds to the second hash key (Abstract) but does not teach wherein plugging in the power cord to the power receptacle results in a first timer of the patient bed being started to measure a first uptime, wherein plugging in the power cord to the power receptacle results in a second timer of the wall module being started to measure a second uptime, wherein the patient bed is configured to transmit to the wall module from the second wireless transceiver a message including the first uptime, wherein the wall module compares the first uptime with the second uptime and, if the first uptime is within a predetermined tolerance range of the second uptime, the wall module sends a pairing message to the patient bed which results in the wall module and the patient bed becoming automatically paired for subsequent wireless communications. Therefore, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARMIN AKHTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9365. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Davetta W Goins can be reached on (571) 272.2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHARMIN AKHTER/
Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights