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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is responsive to claims filed on 09/12/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 15-16, and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Dey, IV et al. (US 20200171632 A1; Hereinafter Dey).
Regarding Claim 1, Dey discloses an impact driver (10, 300; Figs. 1 and 18-24) comprising:
a motor (15) configured to output rotational movement ([0052]; Fig. 1);
control circuitry (135) configured to control delivery of power to the motor (15) from a power source (115; [0058]-[0059]);
a spindle (77) operably coupled to the motor (15) to generate rotational movement of the spindle about an axis of rotation ([0053]);
a hammer (75, 375) operably coupled to the spindle (77) and configured to move axially along the axis of rotation (Fig. 2, Fig. 21A); and
an anvil (70) configured to operably couple to an end effector for acting upon a work piece ([0053] and [0081]));
wherein the control circuitry (135) is configured to measure a parametric proxy for torque (see at least [0065]-[0067] “The controller 135 determines the stiffness of the joint based on the rotational distance traveled by the anvil 70 in response to a received impact from the hammer 75. The controller 135 determines a low stiffness when the rotational distance traveled by the anvil 70 is relatively high. As the rotational distance traveled by the anvil 70 decreases, the stiffness calculated by the controller 135 increase” see also [0056]-[0059], [0115]-[0116], [0126]-[0127]- Controller uses signals from detectors and output sensors to determine count, rotational angle per impact, and anvil position change as torque proxies), and
wherein the control circuitry (135) estimates an amount of torque applied to the end effector as a function of the parametric proxy ([0072]; “the controller 135 may calculate a fastener tension and change operation of the motor 15 once a particular fastener tension is reached. For example, the controller 135 may calculate the fastener tension based on the rotational displacement of the anvil 70 and may compare the calculated fastener tension to a predetermined tension threshold”. Also the bow counting mode, angular distance mode, yield control mode and torque control mode in which the motor operation is adjusted or terminated based on these measured parameters reaching predetermined thresholds; [0065]-[0066], [0112]-[0118], [0120-[0123]; Figs. 4 and 29-40).
Dey further discloses:
Regarding Claim 2, wherein a distance sensor (500, 600, 640, 645) measures a distance between the hammer and a reference point (hammer 375 and sensor 645), wherein the hammer (75, 375) alternates between rebounding away from the anvil (70, 370) and delivering an impact on the anvil ([0097]; Fig. 23), and wherein the parametric proxy is a rebound distance defined by a change in the distance between the hammer and the reference point measured by the distance sensor ([0097]; “the inductive sensor 645 of the hammer detector 640 includes a circular inductive sensor 645 that generates an output according to the distance between the inductive sensor 645 and the hammer 375. Because the hammer 375 oscillates between distancing itself from the anvil 370 and impacting the anvil 370, the inductive sensor 645 generates a sine waveform output, in which the peaks (i.e., maximums or minimums of the wave) represent the hammer 375 impacting the anvil 370. The sine waveform output is received by the controller 135. The controller 135 then implements a peak detector to determine when or if the hammer 375 impacts the anvil 370”).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the control circuitry (135) comprises a shut-off mode in which the control circuitry powers off the motor (15) responsive to the amount of torque applied to the end effector reaching a predetermined set point ([0139]; “When the desired torque level is reached, the controller terminates the operation of the power tool 10” see also [0112], [0115]-[0116], and [0123]-[0127] [0112], [0115]-[0116], and [0123]-[0127]).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the control circuitry (135) counts a total number of rebounds required to reach the predetermined set point, and wherein the control circuitry (135) determines that the amount of torque applied to the end effector in subsequent operations of the impact driver has reached the predetermined set point by counting the total number of rebounds in each subsequent operation ([0059], [0065] [0081] and [0099]).
Regarding claim 15, wherein an impact assembly of a hand tool (10, 300; Figs. 1 and 18-24), the impact assembly (67, 300) comprising: a spindle (77) operably coupled to a motor (15) to generate rotational movement of the spindle (77) about an axis of rotation ([0053]); a hammer (75, 375) operably coupled to the spindle and configured to move axially along the axis of rotation; an anvil (70) configured to operably couple to an end effector for acting upon a work piece ([0053]); and control circuitry (135) configured to control operation of the impact assembly, wherein the control circuitry (135) is configured to measure a parametric proxy for torque, and wherein the control circuitry estimates an amount of torque applied to the end effector as a function of the parametric proxy ([0065]-[0067], [0056]-[0059], [0065]-[0067], and [0115]-[0116], [0126]-[0127]).
Regarding Claim 16, wherein a distance sensor (500, 600, 640, 645) measures a distance between the hammer and a reference point (hammer 375 and sensor 645), wherein the hammer (75, 375) alternates between rebounding away from the anvil (70, 370) and delivering an impact on the anvil ([0097]; Fig. 23; see also [0086]-[0093] and [0100]-[0106]), and wherein the parametric proxy is a rebound distance defined by a change in the distance between the hammer and the reference point measured by the distance sensor ([0097]; “the inductive sensor 645 of the hammer detector 640 includes a circular inductive sensor 645 that generates an output according to the distance between the inductive sensor 645 and the hammer 375. Because the hammer 375 oscillates between distancing itself from the anvil 370 and impacting the anvil 370, the inductive sensor 645 generates a sine waveform output, in which the peaks (i.e., maximums or minimums of the wave) represent the hammer 375 impacting the anvil 370. The sine waveform output is received by the controller 135. The controller 135 then implements a peak detector to determine when or if the hammer 375 impacts the anvil 370”…see also [0086]-[0093] and [0100]-[0106]).
Regarding claim 19, wherein the control circuitry (135) comprises a shut-off mode in which the control circuitry powers off the motor (15) responsive to the amount of torque applied to the end effector reaching a predetermined set point ([0139]; “When the desired torque level is reached, the controller terminates the operation of the power tool 10” see also [0112], [0115]-[0116], and [0123]-[0127]).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dey, IV et al. (US 20200171632 A1; Hereinafter Dey) in view of Soshin et al. (US 5154242 A).
Regarding claim 3, Dey discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 2 including the control circuitry (135) for the impact driver, but is silent with regards to a duplicate mode for operating the impact driver, wherein in the duplicate mode the control circuitry determines the amount of torque applied to the end effector during a calibration period and allows the impact driver to replicate the amount of torque for subsequent operations of the impact driver while in the duplicate mode.
Soshin in a related invention teaches aa duplicate mode for operating the impact driver, wherein in the duplicate mode the control circuitry determines the amount of torque applied to the end effector during a calibration period and allows the impact driver to replicate the amount of torque for subsequent operations of the impact driver while in the duplicate mode (Soshin teaches a learn-and-work mode directly reading on the claimed duplicate mode; Col 8 lines 14-40; “When the learn-mode is designated [step 104], the central controller 30 sets an internal counter to be ready for counting the number of revolutions of the bit [step 105]and causes the motor 10 to start rotating for tightening the sample fastener 1 into the work surface [step 106]. The tightening is made until the seat-signal is received from the seat-condition detector 61 as a result of that the motor speed is sensed to decrease below the predetermined value [step 107]. When the seat-signal is received, the controller 30 recognizes that the fastener is seated and stops the motor 10 [step 108]. At this occurrence, the controller 30 responds to read the number of the revolutions Of the bit as accumulated in the counter [step 109] and determines the pre-seating revolution number”…The calibrated value is used during subsequent “work mode” operations on identical fasteners)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool and control circuitry of Dey by incorporating a controller capable of a learn then replicate torque control mode process as taught by Soshin in order to consistently tighten a batch of same-size fasteners without requiring the operator to recalibrate and re-specify torque for every fastener.
Regarding claim 17, Dey discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 16 including the control circuitry (135) for the impact driver, but is silent with regards to a duplicate mode for operating the impact driver, wherein in the duplicate mode the control circuitry determines the amount of torque applied to the end effector during a calibration period and allows the impact driver to replicate the amount of torque for subsequent operations of the impact driver while in the duplicate mode.
Soshin in a related invention teaches aa duplicate mode for operating the impact driver, wherein in the duplicate mode the control circuitry determines the amount of torque applied to the end effector during a calibration period and allows the impact driver to replicate the amount of torque for subsequent operations of the impact driver while in the duplicate mode (Soshin teaches a learn-and-work mode directly reading on the claimed duplicate mode; Col 8 lines 14-40; “When the learn-mode is designated [step 104], the central controller 30 sets an internal counter to be ready for counting the number of revolutions of the bit [step 105]and causes the motor 10 to start rotating for tightening the sample fastener 1 into the work surface [step 106]. The tightening is made until the seat-signal is received from the seat-condition detector 61 as a result of that the motor speed is sensed to decrease below the predetermined value [step 107]. When the seat-signal is received, the controller 30 recognizes that the fastener is seated and stops the motor 10 [step 108]. At this occurrence, the controller 30 responds to read the number of the revolutions Of the bit as accumulated in the counter [step 109] and determines the pre-seating revolution number”…The calibrated value is used during subsequent “work mode” operations on identical fasteners)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool and control circuitry of Dey by incorporating a controller capable of a learn then replicate torque control mode process as taught by Soshin in order to consistently tighten a batch of same-size fasteners without requiring the operator to recalibrate and re-specify torque for every fastener.
Claims 4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dey, IV et al. (US 20200171632 A1; Hereinafter Dey) in view of Soshin et al. (US 5154242 A), and inf further view of Tokunaga et al. (US 6968908 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Dey as modified discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 3 including the control circuitry (135) for the impact driver, the rebounding of the hammer and the calibration period as explained above, but is silent with regards to wherein a duration of the calibration period is two rebounds of the hammer.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calibration period of Dey as modified to select from finite, predictable set of option (for example 1, 2, 3…consecutive readings) as a matter of routine design choice. Tokunaga further exemplies this possibility as well-known practice of requiring two confirmatory readings before acting on a detected condition, to filter noise (Col 12 lines 43-46; “When step S76 is YES, `1` is added to the seating detecting counter C (step S78), and it is determined whether the seating detecting counter C has reached `2` (step S80)…”)
Therefore, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool and control circuitry of Dey as modified by incorporating a duration of the calibration period of two rebounds as taught and evidenced by Tokunaga as this is a known noise-filtering technique to improve reliability.
Regarding claim 18, Dey as modified discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 17 including the control circuitry (135) for the impact driver, the rebounding of the hammer and the calibration period as explained above, but is silent with regards to wherein a duration of the calibration period is two rebounds of the hammer.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calibration period of Dey as modified to select from finite, predictable set of option (for example 1, 2, 3…consecutive readings) as a matter of routine design choice. Tokunaga further exemplies this possibility as well-known practice of requiring two confirmatory readings before acting on a detected condition, to filter noise (Col 12 lines 43-46; “When step S76 is YES, `1` is added to the seating detecting counter C (step S78), and it is determined whether the seating detecting counter C has reached `2` (step S80)…”)
Therefore, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool and control circuitry of Dey as modified by incorporating a duration of the calibration period of two rebounds as taught and evidenced by Tokunaga as this is a known noise-filtering technique to improve reliability.
Claims 6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dey, IV et al. (US 20200171632 A1; Hereinafter Dey) in view of Tokunaga et al. (US 6968908 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Dey discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 5 including the control circuitry (135) for the impact driver, a shut-off mode in which the control circuitry powers off the motor. Dey further teaches detecting multiple consecutive impacts using hammer detector and output position sensors, and debouncer timer averaging multiple sensor readings after the hammer leaves the proximity threshold to ensure reliable detection and filter noise/signal errors ([0086]-[0088]), but is silent with regards to requiring at least two consecutive rebounds detection of the target rebound distance.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control circuitry of Dey to select from finite, predictable set of option (for example 1, 2, 3…consecutive readings) as a matter of routine design choice before powering off the motor. Tokunaga further exemplies this possibility as well-known practice of requiring two confirmatory detections at a target before stopping the motor, to filter noise (Col 12 lines 43-50; “When step S76 is YES, `1` is added to the seating detecting counter C (step S78), and it is determined whether the seating detecting counter C has reached `2` (step S80). If the seating detecting counter C has not reached `2` (NO in step S80), the process proceeds to step S84 so that a second seating detection is performed. If the seating detecting counter C has reached `2` (YES in step S80), microcomputer 60 starts the auto stop timer (step S86)….stops the motor”)
Furthermore, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool and control circuitry of Dey by incorporating requiring two confirmatory detections at a target before stopping the motor as taught and evidenced by Tokunaga as this is a known noise-filtering technique to improve reliability in measurement and avoid false flags.
Regarding claim 20, Dey discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 5 including the control circuitry (135) for the impact driver, a shut-off mode in which the control circuitry powers off the motor. Dey further teaches detecting multiple consecutive impacts using hammer detector and output position sensors, and debouncer timer averaging multiple sensor readings after the hammer leaves the proximity threshold to ensure reliable detection and filter noise/signal errors ([0086]-[0088]), but is silent with regards to requiring at least two consecutive rebounds detection of the target rebound distance.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control circuitry of Dey to select from finite, predictable set of option (for example 1, 2, 3…consecutive readings) as a matter of routine design choice before powering off the motor. Tokunaga further exemplies this possibility as well-known practice of requiring two confirmatory detections at a target before stopping the motor, to filter noise (Col 12 lines 43-50; “When step S76 is YES, `1` is added to the seating detecting counter C (step S78), and it is determined whether the seating detecting counter C has reached `2` (step S80). If the seating detecting counter C has not reached `2` (NO in step S80), the process proceeds to step S84 so that a second seating detection is performed. If the seating detecting counter C has reached `2` (YES in step S80), microcomputer 60 starts the auto stop timer (step S86)….stops the motor”)
Furthermore, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool and control circuitry of Dey by incorporating requiring two confirmatory detections at a target before stopping the motor as taught and evidenced by Tokunaga as this is a known noise-filtering technique to improve reliability in measurement and avoid false flags.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dey, IV et al. (US 20200171632 A1; Hereinafter Dey) in view of Larson et al. (US 8981280 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Dey discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 2 including the control circuitry (135) and distance sensor (see at least 500, 600, 640, 645) and wherein the reference point is disposed a known distance away from the hammer, wherein the sensor alternates between an on state and an off state based on a position of the hammer ([0086]-[0093], [0100]-[0106], and [0123]-[0127]; the sensors are fixed relative to the housing/impact case and therefore define a known reference location. The movement of the hammer in and past the sensing zone creates an output change in the sensor state, and the controller controls the motor, including shut-off when a target condition is reached), but is silent with regards to the distance sensor is a light switch.
Larson in a related invention teaches a distance sensor is a light switch (Abstract; “optical interrupter provides a mechanically integrated electric light source and electric light sensor…... The optical interrupter uses conventional LEDs for both the light source and a light receiver.” See also Col 4 lines 10-18 and Col 5 lines 40-50; the gap between the transmitter and receiver defines a precise known reference location at which the presence or absence of the interrupting object is detected)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool and sensor of Dey by substituting with light switch sensor as taught by Larson, as it provides a low-cost, and easily manufacturable alternative (Col 1lines 45-67). Substituting one well known proximity sensing technique for another that produces the same type of signal is involves no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, and that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 9, wherein a plurality of distance sensors are disposed at different reference points (Figs. 25-26), and wherein the control circuitry (135) determines the rebound distance of the hammer responsive to determining which distance sensors of the plurality of distance sensors are in the on state and which are in the off state ([0104] and [0111] of Dey as modified).
Claim 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dey, IV et al. (US 20200171632 A1; Hereinafter Dey) in view of Mitani et al. (US 3434547 A).
Regarding claim 12, Dey discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 1 including the electronic architecture and the use of parametric proxy for torque control for an impact driver but is silent regarding wherein the impact driver is pneumatically operated, wherein a valve controls airflow between a source of pressurized air and the motor of the impact driver, and wherein the parametric proxy is a duration or degree of the valve opening.
Mitani in a related invention teaches a pneumatic impact wrench (2) whose torque is controlled by regulating air supply through a valve and timer (Fig. 2 and Abstract; A torque control device for a pneumatic wrench with a pressure reducing valve for regulating the pressure of air to be supplied to the wrench, a changeover valve provided in a passage for the air, and a timer .adapted to actuate the changeover valve in response to a pressure variation in the passage and to return the changeover valve to its original position after expiration of a predetermined period of time, so that the pneumatic wrench operates under a certain pressure of the air supplied for a predetermined period of time” see also Col 2 lines 15-34 and Col 3 lines 15-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the impact driver and control mechanism of Dey by incorporating to an impact driver that is pneumatically driven as taught by Mitani. Electric and pneumatic motors were both well-known, art-recognized, interchangeable prime movers for impact wrenches. The combination merely replaces the electric motor with an air motor and solenoid/change-over valve of Mitani while retaining the sensor based and time-based control intelligence. The result is Simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve a predictable result and yield a pneumatic impact tool that automatically cuts off airflow at a predetermined torque-related condition.
Regarding claim 14, wherein the control circuitry comprises a shut-off mode in which the control circuitry cuts off airflow to the motor responsive to the amount of torque applied to the end effector reaching a predetermined set point ([0112], [0115]-[0116], and [0123]-[0127] of Dey as modified).
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dey, IV et al. (US 20200171632 A1; Hereinafter Dey) in view of Mitani et al. (US 3434547 A), and in further view of Soshin et al. (US 5154242 A).
Regarding claim 13, Dey as modified discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 12 including the control circuitry (135) for the pneumatically operated impact driver of claim 12, but is silent with regards to a duplicate mode for operating the impact driver, wherein in the duplicate mode the control circuitry determines the amount of torque applied to the end effector during a calibration period and allows the impact driver to replicate the amount of torque for subsequent operations of the impact driver while in the duplicate mode.
Soshin in a related invention teaches aa duplicate mode for operating the impact driver, wherein in the duplicate mode the control circuitry determines the amount of torque applied to the end effector during a calibration period and allows the impact driver to replicate the amount of torque for subsequent operations of the impact driver while in the duplicate mode (Soshin teaches a learn-and-work mode directly reading on the claimed duplicate mode; Col 8 lines 14-40; “When the learn-mode is designated [step 104], the central controller 30 sets an internal counter to be ready for counting the number of revolutions of the bit [step 105]and causes the motor 10 to start rotating for tightening the sample fastener 1 into the work surface [step 106]. The tightening is made until the seat-signal is received from the seat-condition detector 61 as a result of that the motor speed is sensed to decrease below the predetermined value [step 107]. When the seat-signal is received, the controller 30 recognizes that the fastener is seated and stops the motor 10 [step 108]. At this occurrence, the controller 30 responds to read the number of the revolutions Of the bit as accumulated in the counter [step 109] and determines the pre-seating revolution number”…The calibrated value is used during subsequent “work mode” operations on identical fasteners)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool and control circuitry of Dey as modified by incorporating a controller capable of a learn then replicate torque control mode process as taught by Soshin in order to consistently tighten a batch of same-size fasteners without requiring the operator to recalibrate and re-specify torque for every fastener.
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. The prior arts on record doesn’t disclose an impact driver in which the physical position of the distance sensor that measures the hammer rebound is itself disposed on a slider and adjustable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached on (571) 270-1926. 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.
/NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights