DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/16/2025 and 04/13/2026 have been fully considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “lets the cleaning device to operate based on” is grammatically incorrect. The limitation should read “lets the cleaning device [[to]] operate”. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The title “VEHICLE CONTROL DEVICE AND VEHICLE” is not indicative of the invention.
The following title is suggested: “Controlling a vehicle’s exterior cleaning device”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Cleaning device in claims 1-5 and 7-9
A vehicle control device in claims 1-9
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. After further review of the specifications, the cleaning device is a wiper, see Para. 0045 of the specifications filed 09/16/2025, wherein “the wiper 80 wipes water droplets, dirt, or the like adhering to a to-be-wiped surface of the front windshield by moving in close contact with the front windshield.“ Therefore, it appears that the cleaning device recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. Furthermore, after further review of the specifications, the vehicle control device is “a computer that integrally controls the entire vehicle 2”(Para. 0035) and “the control device 30 is implemented by one electronic control unit (ECU) or by two or more ECUs working in cooperation with each other” (Para. 0036). Therefore, it appears that the vehicle control device recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa US20220017072A1 in view of Lee et al. US20220063516A1 (henceforth Lee).
Regarding claim 1,
Hayakawa discloses:
A vehicle control device that controls a vehicle configured to perform parking and exiting by a remote operation, (Para. 0025, “a system for performing the operation of entry into or exit from a parking space or a garage by the autonomous travel control when performing the operation. During the operation, the driver gets off the vehicle and continues to transmit an execution command from a remote operation device.” The vehicle is remotely controlled to perform parking and exiting.)
Hayakawa discloses reversing to park during the parking performed by the remote operation (see Fig. 9C and Para. 0060) for forwarding to exit the parking by the remote operation but does not specifically state wherein the vehicle includes a cleaning device configured to clean a predetermined portion of an exterior of the vehicle, and the vehicle control device enables an operation of the cleaning device during the parking. However, Lee teaches:
wherein the vehicle includes a cleaning device configured to clean a predetermined portion of an exterior of the vehicle, and the vehicle control device enables an operation of the cleaning device during the parking. (See at least Para. 0004, “reversing assistance and parking assistance systems for a vehicle”, “safely reverse-park the vehicle”, and Para. 0024, “camera 100 can serve to assist in parking the vehicle and serve to photograph a rear region behind the vehicle”. Further see Fig. 7, path S150-S156, wherein it is determined if traveling in reverse mode has ended and if it hasn’t, it is determined if foreign matter is detected such that the cleaning device is enabled. The reverse mode is used for parking, and therefore the vehicle control deice enables an operation of the cleaning device during the parking.)
restricts the operation of the cleaning device during the exiting. (See at least Para. 0028, “when the vehicle is traveling forward, the control unit may control the driving motor to close the opening and closing unit 140. Accordingly, the driving of the opening and closing driving unit 160 may be controlled by the control unit, and thus, the opening/closing of the opening and closing unit 140 and the movement of the camera 100 and the fluid injection unit 110 may be controlled by the control unit.” The cleaning device is restricted (i.e. since the closing unit 140 is closed which includes the fluid injection unit) during the forward operation (i.e. during exiting).)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayakawa to incorporate the teachings of Lee to include the limitations as recited above so that “the driver can safely reverse-park the vehicle” (Para. 0004, Lee) and “there is a need for a part for removing pollutants” (Para. 0006, Lee) from the camera on the vehicle. This would create a more robust vehicle that is remotely parked. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Hayakawa and Lee. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 7,
Hayakawa discloses parking performed by the remote operation (See Para. 0025), but not does specifically state wherein during the parking performed, the vehicle control device lets the cleaning device to operate based on an operation time of the cleaning device before the parking is started or whether the cleaning device operates or not before the parking is started.
However, Lee teaches:
wherein during the parking performed, the vehicle control device lets the cleaning device to operate based on an operation time of the cleaning device before the parking is started or whether the cleaning device operates or not before the parking is started. (See at least Fig. 7, path S150-S156,wherein the vehicle control device lets the cleaning device operate based on whether cleaning device operates or not before the parking is started.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayakawa to incorporate the teachings of Lee to include the limitations as recited above so that “the driver can safely reverse-park the vehicle” (Para. 0004, Lee) and “there is a need for a part for removing pollutants” (Para. 0006, Lee) from the camera on the vehicle. This would create a more robust vehicle that is remotely parked. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Hayakawa and Lee. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 9,
Hayakawa and Lee discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 1 above and is rejected under the same rejection and motivation rational.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa and Lee further in view of Lavoie et al. US20190308613A1 (henceforth Lavoie).
Regarding claim 2,
Hayakawa and Lee discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above, including operating a cleaning device.
Hayakawa and Lee do not specifically state wherein during the parking performed by the remote operation, the vehicle control device lets the device to operate based on a setting made before the parking is started.
However, Lavoie teaches:
wherein during the parking performed by the remote operation, the vehicle control device lets the device to operate based on a setting made before the parking is started. (See at least Para. 0041, “The RePA controller 140 is configured to manage input signal(s) received from the mobile device 104, the key fob 106, other mobile device(s), the keypad 114, the handle sensors 112, the liftgate sensor 118, the proximity sensors 120, the cameras 122, and/or other data source(s) for the vehicle 100 prior to and/or while the autonomy unit 138 is performing autonomous and/or semi-autonomous driving maneuvers for remote park-assist.” The device is operated base on a setting made before the remote parking is started during the remote parking.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayakawa and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Lavoie to include the limitations as recited above since “may be difficult to manage vehicle input sources from multiple sources without interrupting and/or preventing performance of a desired remote park-assist feature” (Para. 0021, Lavoie). This would create a more robust remote vehicle park-assisting system such that it doesn’t prevent or interrupt a desired remote park-assist feature. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Hayakawa, Lee, and Lavoie. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa and Lee further in view of Amagasa et al. US6087795A (henceforth Amagasa).
Regarding claim 3,
Hayakawa and Lee discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above, including a specific vehicle operation that comprises exiting performed by the remote operation.
Hayakawa and Lee do not specifically state wherein a mode related to the operation of the cleaning device includes an automatic mode in which the cleaning device operates based on a detection result of a sensor provided in the vehicle, and the vehicle control device does not let the cleaning device to operate during a specific vehicle operation regardless of the detection result when the mode related to the operation of the cleaning device is set to the automatic mode. However, Amagasa teaches:
wherein a mode related to the operation of the cleaning device includes an automatic mode in which the cleaning device operates based on a detection result of a sensor provided in the vehicle, and the vehicle control device does not let the cleaning device to operate during a specific vehicle operation regardless of the detection result when the mode related to the operation of the cleaning device is set to the automatic mode. (See at least Column 3, lines 17-23 “provided a wiper control method for use in an automatic wiper system which detects a climate condition by a rain drop detector to control automatically wiper operation of a vehicle, wherein in case where an ignition switch of the vehicle is ON and a mode of automatically controlling wiper operation is selected, a wiper is automatically controlled based on detection data from the rain drop detector” and Column 3 lines 36-38 “When the door mirror is folded, the wiper operation control made by the automatic wiper system is stopped and the wiper is prevented from being operated even if the rain drop sensor detects a rain drop.” An automatic mode is included that operates the cleaning device based on a detection result of a sensor and the control device does not let the cleaning device operate during a specific vehicle operation regardless of the detection result when the mode related to the operation of the cleaning device is set to automatic mode.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayakawa and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Amagasa to include the limitations as recited above since water removed by the wiper cleaning device may be splashed onto the operator/bystander and it is desirable that the wiper is stopped. This would create a more robust system for an automatic cleaning mode in a vehicle, by including reasonable exceptions to operate the cleaning device. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Hayakawa, Lee, and Amagasa. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa and Lee further in view of Kikuta et al. US20130255023A1 (henceforth Kikuta).
Regarding claim 4,
Hayakawa and Lee discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above.
Hayakawa and Lee do not specifically state wherein the vehicle control device stops restricting the operation of the cleaning device when a predetermined operation is performed inside the vehicle.
However, Kikuta teaches:
wherein the vehicle control device stops restricting the operation of the cleaning device when a predetermined operation is performed inside the vehicle.
(See at least Para. 0131, “activation of the wiper motor is enabled if the wiper actuating operation is executed even when the reverse state signal is being input, and then the driver is allowed to normally operate the wiper motor.” The vehicle control device stops restricting the operation of the cleaning device when a predetermined operation is performed inside the vehicle. The reverse state signal inhibits the actuation of the wiper motor (Para. 0016).)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayakawa and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Kikuta to include the limitations as recited above such that “driver performs the wiper actuating operation with his or her own intention” (Para. 0131, Kikuta).This would create a more robust system for an automatic cleaning mode in a vehicle, by including a driver override to actuate the wiper with their own intention. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Hayakawa, Lee, and Kikuta. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa and Lee further in view of Noguchi et al. US20200207350A1 (henceforth Noguchi)
Regarding claim 5,
Hayakawa and Lee discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above.
Hayakawa and Lee do not specifically state wherein the cleaning device is a wiper, and during the parking performed by the remote operation, the vehicle control device reduces a speed of the wiper at a time of moving and/or reduces a number of times the wiper moves per unit time as compared with in normal times.
However, Noguchi teaches:
wherein the cleaning device is a wiper, and during the parking performed by the remote operation, the vehicle control device reduces a speed of the wiper at a time of moving and/or reduces a number of times the wiper moves per unit time as compared with in normal times.
(See at least Para. 0089, “The wiper controller 170 decreases the wiper sensitivity Sw set at that time point according to the approach of the host vehicle M to the stopping area 310 when the drive-in parking controller 142 causes the host vehicle M to travel from the parking area PA to the stopping area 310 “ and Para. 0086, “he wiper sensitivity information 182 defines that the lowest speed and the highest speed of the wiper speed change according to the wiper sensitivity, the higher the wiper sensitivity, the higher becomes the wiper speed, and the lower the wiper sensitivity, the lower becomes the wiper speed”. The cleaning device is a wiper and during the parking performed, the speed of the wiper blade is reduced.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayakawa and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Noguchi to include the limitations as recited above such that raindrops that are splashed towards pedestrians is minimized (Para. 0005, Noguchi) and for “controlling a wiper to an appropriate degree depending on a situation of a vehicle” (Para. 0007, Noguchi). This would create a more robust windshield wiper control device. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Hayakawa, Lee, and Noguchi. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa, Lee, and Noguchi further in view of Sasaki Hideki JP2016150688A (henceforth Hideki). The English translation of Hideki has been provided by the examiner.
Regarding claim 6,
Hayakawa, Lee, and Noguchi discloses the limitations as recited in claim 5 above, including a driver who performs the remote operation.
Noguchi discloses wherein during the parking performed by the remote operation, the vehicle control device reduces the speed and/or the number of times (see Para. 0089) but does not specifically state reducing the speed and/or the number of times based on a distance between a driver and the vehicle. However, Hideki teaches:
reducing the speed and/or the number of times based on a distance between a driver and the vehicle. (See at least Para. 0041, “If the electronic key 3 is located outside the vehicle 2 in S23 (S23: YES), and if the calculated distance does not meet the threshold in S24 (if there is a person at the water splashing position) (S24: YES), the process proceeds to S25. , The driving of the wiper 9 is stopped” and Para. 0014, “it is possible to prevent the water from the wiper from scattering to the person (driver or the like)”. The speed of the wiper is reduced to 0 based on a distance between the vehicle and the driver.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayakawa, Lee, and Noguchi to incorporate the teachings of Hideki to include the limitations as recited above since “By stopping the wiper when the electronic key is located outside the vehicle, it is possible to prevent the water from the wiper from scattering to the person (driver or the like) who carries the electronic key” (Para. 0014, Hideki). This would create a more robust windshield wiper control device. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Hayakawa, Lee, Noguchi, and Hideki. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa, and Lee further in view of Urano et al. US20200148170A1 (henceforth Urano).
Regarding claim 8,
Hayakawa and Lee discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above, including the vehicle device restricts an operation of the rear wipers during exiting performed by the remote operation (See rejection of claim 1 above).
Hayakawa and Lee do not specifically state wherein the cleaning device is a wiper provided at each of a front and a rear of the vehicle.
However, Urano teaches:
wherein the cleaning device is a wiper provided at each of a front and a rear of the vehicle. (See at least Para. 0019, “Wiper devices may include windshield wipers, rear window wipers” and Fig. 5, Para. 0051, “he wiper device(s) may be deactivated at time 600.” The cleaning device is provided at each of a front and a rear of the vehicle.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayakawa, and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Urano to include the limitations as recited above since “ In scenarios where the vehicle is driven with little to no need of human driver supervision, wiper devices may not be utilized as visibility is not necessary for the vehicle to operate” (Para. 0015, Urano). This would create a more robust windshield wiper control device. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Hayakawa, Lee, and Urano. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sosa et al. US20240317213A1 discloses a vehicle includes a controller programmed to, responsive to receiving information for an appointment, schedule a valet event using the information in anticipation for a valet mode associated with the appointment, wherein the valet event includes one or more conditions, and responsive the one or more conditions being met, activate the valet mode to restrict at least one vehicle function without requiring a user authentication. (See abstract)
Khamis et al. US20240059252A1 discloses activate the windshield the wipers at a high speed in response to the current class being a heavy rain on a windshield class, activate the windshield wipers at a medium speed in response to the current class being a freezing rain on the windshield class, activate the windshield wipers at a low speed in response to the current class being a light rain on the windshield class, and deactivate the windshield wipers in response to the current class being a no rain class. (See abstract)
Weiss US20220306045A1 discloses a system designed to use a plurality of vents that are angled to blow out or direct warm air from the vehicle engine and heater of the vehicle towards the windshield and wiper blades for quickly melting ice and snow thereon. The plurality of vents can be disposed near, or proximal to, the base of the windshield and the vehicle hood. The system uses internal warm air generated from the vehicle engine, and the heater of the vehicle and control same with a deicing controller. The system can be controlled by a plurality of control buttons disposed on a dashboard of the vehicle. The system can also be controlled remotely by a key fob of the vehicle. (See abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4334. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am- 6:00 pm MDT.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/G.J.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights