DETAIL ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice on Prior Art Rejections
2. 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.
Status of Claims
3. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant's application filed May 27, 2025. Claims 1-15 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Judicial Exception Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Regarding claims 15, under the broadest reasonable interpretation these claims are directed to a computer program only.
"Computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical 'things.' They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not 'acts' being performed." MPEP §2106.01 I. Because the claims recite only abstractions that are neither "things" nor "acts," the claims are not within one of the four statutory classes of invention. Because the claims are not within one of the four statutory classes of invention, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
"Since a computer program is merely a set of instructions capable of being executed by a computer, the computer program itself is not a process and USPTO personnel should treat a claim for a computer program, without the computer-readable medium needed to realize the computer program's functionality, as nonstatutory functional descriptive material." MPEP §2106.01 I.
"A general purpose computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm creates 'a new machine, because a general purpose computer in effect becomes a special purpose computer once it is programmed to perform particular functions pursuant to instructions from program software.'" WMS Gaming, Inc. v. International Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1348, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999) citing In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc).
In this case, claim 15 is a processing system for providing guidance information to a support vehicle for an agricultural vehicle, wherein the processing system is configured to: determine an orientation of the agricultural vehicle; and produce guidance information, responsive to the determined orientation of the agricultural vehicle, for the support vehicle, wherein the support vehicle is configured to interact with the agricultural vehicle; and provide the guidance information to the support vehicle. Because Applicant's specification does not lexicographically define said terms to be hardware, Examiner uses the broadest reasonable interpretation to interpret the claim elements as software. Thus, Examiner interprets claim 15 as directed to software alone.
Judicial Exception Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
7. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites “A computer-implemented method for providing guidance information to a support vehicle for an agricultural vehicle, the computer-implemented method comprising: determining an orientation of the agricultural vehicle; and producing guidance information, responsive to the determined orientation of the agricultural vehicle, for the support vehicle, wherein the support vehicle is configured to interact with the agricultural vehicle; and providing the guidance information to the support vehicle”.
The limitations of claim 1 presented above, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “A computer” nothing in the claims elements precludes the steps from practically being performed as part of human activities. For example, “determining an orientation of the agricultural vehicle”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind where a person is mentally or physically able to see where the vehicle id headed. Further, “producing guidance information”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind where a person is mentally or physically able to guide a vehicle. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For example, “providing the guidance information to the support vehicle” is not a practical application because it is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic elements. In particular, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim lack of additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. The independent claims 2-14 are also rejected for their dependency upon claim 1. Further, claim 15 is also rejected because they amount no more than the same mere instructions of the method of claim 1 in a system which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
8. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 is a system claim depending upon a claims 3 or 4. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 of this title, 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.
10. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Fjelstad et al, US 2023/0273614, in view of Horsch et al. US 2021/0037691, hereinafter referred to as Fjelstad and Horsch, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Fjelstad discloses a computer-implemented method for providing guidance information to a support vehicle for an agricultural vehicle, the computer-implemented method comprising:
determining an orientation of the agricultural vehicle (See at least fig 1-7, ¶ 27, 28, 31, 32, 38, 61, 67, 79, 91, 54, “The generated companion guidance line indicia are guidance locations, waypoints, line segments or the like that permit autonomous guidance of the companion (second) vehicle 104 in a manner that is based on the agricultural output of the first vehicle 102 ( e.g., its vehicle position, implement position, implement tool positions, kinematics or the like) and permits high resolution guidance of the companion vehicle 104 relative to the operation of the first vehicle 102”); and
producing guidance information, responsive to the determined orientation of the agricultural vehicle, for the support vehicle, wherein the support vehicle is configured to interact with the agricultural vehicle (See at least fig 1-7, ¶ 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 31, “The companion guidance line 40 is a representation of the course or path the first implement 20a travelled when operating or working in the field. The companion guidance controller 30 transmits the companion guidance line 40 to the second vehicle llb, or optionally, the second implement 20b. The second vehicle llb, or optionally the second implement 20b, follows a path in the field that corresponds to the companion guidance line 40”); and
providing the guidance information to the support vehicle (See at least fig 1-7, ¶ 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 31, 59, “The companion guidance line generator 130 of the companion guidance controller 120 optionally transmits, relays or otherwise communicates companion guidance line data to a companion vehicle control interface 140 associated with the companion vehicle 104. The companion vehicle control interface 140 includes, for example an automated driving interface”).
Fjelstad fails to explicitly discloses a support vehicle.
However, Horsch teaches a support vehicle (See at least fig 1-7, ¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 12, “The agricultural carrier vehicle according to the invention is used in particular for carrying at least one agricultural implement. In addition, the autonomous carrier vehicle may also be used to guide at least one agricultural implement over an agricultural area”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fjelstad and include a support vehicle as taught by Bryan because it would allow the method to guide at least one agricultural implement over an agricultural area (Horsch ¶ 12).
Regarding claim 2, Fjelstad discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein producing guidance information comprises determining a recommended orientation for the support vehicle responsive to the determined orientation of the agricultural vehicle (See at least fig 1-7, ¶ 24, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 31, 14, “As shown herein, in one example, the second vehicle follows the first vehicle in a same time fashion (e.g., real time or near real time) thereby permitting cooperate interaction between the vehicles and implements”).
Regarding claim 3, Fjelstad discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein: the agricultural vehicle comprises a first interaction zone, being a region of the agricultural vehicle with which the support vehicle is configured to interact; the determining the recommended orientation for the support vehicle comprises: obtaining first zonal information that indicates a relative position of the first interaction zone with respect to the orientation of the agricultural vehicle; and determining the recommended orientation comprises processing at least determined orientation of the agricultural vehicle and the first zonal information to determine the recommended orientation (See at least fig 1-7, ¶ 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 31, 14, 24, “The second, or companion, vehicle is equipped to conduct a second, or companion, agricultural operation (same or different as the first vehicle) such as planting, bailing, spraying, spreading or cultivating, crop transport or the like. The second vehicle follows signals, such as GPS indexed positions, from the first vehicle. The second vehicle performs the second agricultural operation in response to the signals (e.g., following the GPS indexed positions) from the first vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 4, Fjelstad discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein: the support vehicle comprises a second interaction zone of the support vehicle, wherein the second interaction zone is a region of the support vehicle capable of interacting with the first interaction zone; the determining the recommended orientation for the support vehicle comprises: obtaining second zonal information that indicates a relative position of the second interaction zone with respect to an orientation of the support vehicle; and determining the recommended orientation comprises processing at least the first zonal information and the second zonal information to identify a recommended orientation for the support vehicle at which the first interaction zone aligns with the second interaction zone such that, if the support vehicle is proximate to the first interaction zone, the second interaction zone is able to interact with the first interaction zone (See at least fig 1-7, ¶ 32, 33, 34, 36, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 31, 14, 24, 37, “the second tractor and the grain cart, at least one of the second tractor or the grain cart
receives data corresponding to the guidance line to properly align the grain cart with the unloader. The companion guidance line is transmitted, optionally, contemporaneously or
at a predetermined interval to the second tractor or the grain cart. In an example, the grain cart continues to travel through the field with the combine by following the guidance
line data transmitted from the first sensor to the guidance line controller”).
Regarding claim 5, Fjelstad discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the first interaction zone is a region via which the support vehicle is able to modify an amount of material or fluid carried by a storage chamber of the agricultural vehicle (See at least fig 1-7, ¶ 11, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 80, 83, 85, 91, 98, 31, 14, 24, 37, “the second vehicle cooperatively interacts with the first vehicle through the use of agricultural output characteristics from a preceding pass or swath of the first vehicle to permit offloading of crops to a grain cart from a combine. Optionally, the second vehicle (the grain cart in an example) is able to 'lead' the first vehicle ( a combine) the companion guidance controller”).
Regarding claim 6, Fjelstad discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein: the agricultural vehicle is a field sprayer; the storage chamber of the agricultural vehicle holds fluid for spraying by the agricultural vehicle; and the first interaction zone of the agricultural vehicle comprises an inlet for refilling the storage chamber of the agricultural vehicle (See at least fig 1-7, ¶ 11, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 80, 83, 85, 91, 98, 31, 14, 24, 37, “The second vehicle 704 having a second implement 708 performs a subsequent agricultural operation 714 including, but not limited to, planting (after mound building), spraying, harvesting, bailing, spreading, cultivating or the like. In this example, the first implement 706 includes at least a first sensor 710. The first sensor 710 includes one or more of a position sensor that monitors a location of at least one agricultural output characteristics 720 or an optical sensor that monitors profile or physical characteristics of the agricultural output characteristics”).
Regarding claim 7, Fjelstad discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising determining a position of the agricultural vehicle, wherein the guidance information is further responsive to the determined position of the agricultural vehicle (See at least fig 1-7, ¶ 11, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 80, 83, 85, 91, 31, 14, 24, 37, 98, “at least one or more of the positions or dimensions of the second vehicle 504 or the second implement 508 are included with the positions or dimensions of the first vehicle 502 or its first implement
506 to generate a guidance line 150 (see FIG. 2) comprised of the indicia 522 that is transmitted to a control interface 140 of the second vehicle 504 to guide the second vehicle
504 and the second implement 508 along the indicia 522, and at the same time also aligns the second implement 508 with the first implement 506 to permit the cooperative agricultural operation”).
Regarding claim 8, Fjelstad discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein: the agricultural vehicle comprises a first interaction zone, being a region of the agricultural vehicle with which the support vehicle is configured to interact; the step of producing guidance information comprises identifying a position of the first interaction zone of the agricultural vehicle by processing the determined position and the determined orientation; and the guidance information is responsive to the identified position of the first interaction zone (See at least fig 1-7, ¶ 11, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 80, 83, 85, 91, 31, 14, 24, 37, 98, 10, “a control system that guides one or more second (companion) vehicles. The system includes a
companion guidance controller that generates an ongoing guidance line for the companion vehicle or companion vehicles (e.g., multiple vehicles operating in cooperation), for instance as an agricultural output characteristic such as location of an agricultural output ( e.g., crop, implement, implement output) is progressively generated. For example, as a first vehicle and the associated first implement (including one or more first vehicles and implements) progress in conducting a first agricultural operation the agricultural output characteristic includes an updated location of the agricultural output, for instance as first vehicle and first implement
move in the field”).
Regarding claim 9, Fjelstad discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the step of identifying a position of the first interaction zone of the agricultural vehicle comprises: obtaining identifying information of the agricultural vehicle that indicates a position of the first interaction zone with respect to the position of the agricultural device and the orientation of the agricultural device; and processing the identifying information, the determined position and the determined orientation to identify the position of the first interaction zone (See at least fig 1-7, ¶ 11, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 80, 83, 85, 91, 31, 14, 24, 37, 98, 10, 55, “the companion guidance generator 130 receives at least progressing agricultural output characteristics 110 of the first vehicle 102 (including its implement, crop position
or the like). As companion guidance line indicia are generated from the progressing agricultural output characteristics 110 the indicia assembler 132 adds the newly generated companion guidance line indicia to the previously generated indicia, thereby effectively generating a guidance line in an ongoing manner. The indicia include, but are not limited to,
locations, points, segments or the like based on the agricultural output characteristics 110, second vehicle characteristic inputs 126 or the like”).
Regarding claim 10, Fjelstad discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein: the support vehicle comprises a second interaction zone of the support vehicle, wherein the second interaction zone is a region of the support vehicle capable of interacting with the first interaction zone; the producing guidance information comprises: obtaining third zonal information that indicates a relative position of the second interaction zone with respect to a position of the support vehicle; and determining a recommended position for the support vehicle by processing at least the identified position of the first interaction zone and the third zonal information to identify a recommended position for the support vehicle at which the first interaction zone aligns with the second interaction zone such that the second interaction zone is able to interact with the first interaction zone (See at least fig 1-7, ¶ 11, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 80, 83, 85, 91, 31, 14, 24, 37, 98, 10, 55, 54, “the companion guidance line indicia output 131 permit the accurate alignment of the companion implement 107 of the companion vehicle 104 with the agricultural output characteristic 110 from the first vehicle 102 (e.g., crop rows, mounds, cut crops, first implement position, implement tool positions of the first implement or the like). More specifically, the companion (second) vehicle 104 and its associated implement may in some ways 'track' or emulate the path or travel of the first vehicle 102, its implement, implement tools, cut crop or the like (agricultural output characteristics 110) while further refining guidance to account for the companion (second) vehicle characteristic inputs 126 (e.g., kinematics, dimensions of the second implement or the like).”).
Regarding claim 11, Fjelstad discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising determining a position of the support vehicle, wherein the guidance information is further responsive to the determined position of the support vehicle (See at least fig 1-7, ¶ 11, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 80, 83, 85, 91, 31, 14, 24, 37, 98, 10, 55, 54, 66, “One or more of the second vehicle 204 or the second implement 208 includes a second vehicle sensor 216, such as a position sensor (e.g., GPS, RTK or the like). In one example, the second vehicle sensor 216 provides position information for one or more of the second vehicle 204,
the second implement or the like to facilitate autonomous or semi-autonomous driving, for instance relative to the companion guidance line indicia based on the associated progressing
agricultural output characteristic generated with the companion guidance line generator 130”).
Regarding claim 12, Fjelstad discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein the producing guidance information comprises determining a recommended route for the support vehicle to move from the determined position to the recommended position (See at least fig 1-7, ¶ 11, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 80, 83, 85, 91, 31, 14, 24, 37, 98, 10, 55, 54, “the companion (second) vehicle 104 and its associated implement may in some ways 'track' or emulate the path or travel of the first vehicle 102, its implement, implement tools, cut crop or the like (agricultural output characteristics 110) while further refining guidance to account for the companion (second) vehicle characteristic inputs 126 (e.g., kinematics, dimensions of the second implement or the like).”).
Regarding claim 13, Fjelstad discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 12, when dependent upon any of claims 3 or 4, wherein the recommended route is for the support vehicle to move from the determined position to the recommended position at the recommended orientation (See at least fig 1-7, ¶ 11, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 80, 83, 85, 91, 31, 14, 24, 37, 98, 10, “a control system that guides one or more second (companion) vehicles. The system includes a companion guidance controller that generates an ongoing guidance line for the companion vehicle or companion vehicles (e.g., multiple vehicles operating in cooperation), for instance as an agricultural output characteristic such as location of an agricultural output ( e.g., crop, implement, implement output) is progressively generated. For example, as a first vehicle and the associated first implement (including one or more first vehicles and implements) progress in conducting a first agricultural operation the agricultural output characteristic includes an updated location of the agricultural output, for instance as first vehicle and first implement move in the field”).
Regarding claim 14, Fjelstad discloses a computer program product comprising computer program code means which, when executed on a computing device having a processing system, cause the processing system to perform all of the steps of the computer-implemented method according to claim 1 (See at least fig 1-7, ¶ 11, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 80, 83, 85, 91, 31, 14, 24, 37, 98, 10, 55, 54, 145, “Method aspects or examples described herein can
be machine or computer-implemented at least in part. Some aspects or examples can include a computer-readable medium or machine-readable medium encoded with instructions operable to configure an electronic device to perform methods as described in the above aspects or examples”).
Regarding claim 15, Fjelstad discloses a processing system for providing guidance information to a support vehicle for an agricultural vehicle, wherein the processing system is configured to:
determine an orientation of the agricultural vehicle (See at least fig 1-7, ¶ 27, 28, 31, 32, 38, 61, 67, 79, 91, 54, “The generated companion guidance line indicia are guidance locations, waypoints, line segments or the like that permit autonomous guidance of the companion (second) vehicle 104 in a manner that is based on the agricultural output of the first vehicle 102 ( e.g., its vehicle position, implement position, implement tool positions, kinematics or the like) and permits high resolution guidance of the companion vehicle 104 relative to the operation of the first vehicle 102”); and
produce guidance information, responsive to the determined orientation of the agricultural vehicle, for the support vehicle, wherein the support vehicle is configured to interact with the agricultural vehicle (See at least fig 1-7, ¶ 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 31, “The companion guidance line 40 is a representation of the course or path the first implement 20a travelled when operating or working in the field. The companion guidance controller 30 transmits the companion guidance line 40 to the second vehicle llb, or optionally, the second implement 20b. The second vehicle llb, or optionally the second implement 20b, follows a path in the field that corresponds to the companion guidance line 40”); and
provide the guidance information to the support vehicle (See at least fig 1-7, ¶ 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 31, 59, “The companion guidance line generator 130 of the companion guidance controller 120 optionally transmits, relays or otherwise communicates companion guidance line data to a companion vehicle control interface 140 associated with the companion vehicle 104. The companion vehicle control interface 140 includes, for example an automated driving interface”).
Fjelstad fails to explicitly discloses a support vehicle.
However, Horsch teaches a support vehicle (See at least fig 1-7, ¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 12, “The agricultural carrier vehicle according to the invention is used in particular for carrying at least one agricultural implement. In addition, the autonomous carrier vehicle may also be used to guide at least one agricultural implement over an agricultural area”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fjelstad and include a support vehicle as taught by Bryan because it would allow the method to guide at least one agricultural implement over an agricultural area (Horsch ¶ 12).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS A MARTINEZ BORRERO whose email is luis.martinezborrero@uspto.gov and telephone number is (571)272-4577. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, HUNTER LONSBERRY can be reached on (571)272-7298. 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.
/LUIS A MARTINEZ BORRERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights