UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`16/010,441
`
`06/16/2018
`
`Shojiro KIDO
`
`NHPP0218US
`
`4716
`
`MARK D. SARALINO (PAN)
`RENNER, OTTO, BOIS SELLE & SKLAR, LLP
`1621 EUCLID AVENUE
`19TH FLOOR
`CLEVELAND, OH 44115
`
`BRANIFE CHRISTOPHER
`
`ART UNIT
`2484
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`07/29/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`ipdoeket@rennerotto.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`16/010,441
`Examiner
`Christopher Braniff
`
`Applicant(s)
`KIDO et al.
`Art Unit
`2484
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 16 Jun 2018.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)D This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)
`
`This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expa/ie Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s) _ is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) 1—5,7—11 and 15 is/are rejected.
`
`Claim(s) 6,12—14 and 16—19 is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[:1 Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined allowable. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.'sp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10):] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 16 Jun 2018 is/are: a). accepted or b)E] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12). Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a). All
`
`b)|:] Some**
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1.. Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`21:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3D Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail DateM.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190722
`
`

`

`Application/ Control Number: 16/010,441
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTIO N
`
`Notice ofPre-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.
`
`2.
`
`The following is a quotation of35 U.S.C. 112(f):
`
`Claim Intezpretation
`
`(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.
`
`3.
`
`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 1, 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;
`
`

`

`Application/ Control Number: 16/010,441
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 3
`
`(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.
`
`4.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/ Control Number: 16/010,441
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`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:
`
`Page 4
`
`77
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`“alight emitter... configured to be attached to a vehicle” (claim 1);
`
`“a light emission controller that divides a transmission target ID into packets of data...
`
`(claim 1);
`
`“alight emitter that is configured to be attached to a vehicle” (claim 11); and
`
`“a light emission controller that divides a transmission target ID into packets of data...
`
`(claim 11).
`
`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.
`
`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 U5C § 103
`
`5.
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/ Control Number: 16/010,441
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 5
`
`6.
`
`This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims
`
`the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is
`
`advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of
`
`each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in
`
`order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35
`
`U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
`
`7.
`
`The following is a quotation of35 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 erson havin ordina
`skill in the art to which the claimed invention
`ry
`,
`,
`,
`P
`g
`pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention w as made.
`
`8.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Gin/mm fife/m Deere Ca, 383 US. 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.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Jovicic et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015 /0372753, referred to
`
`herein as “Jovicic”) in View of Xu et al. (U.8. Patent Publication No. 2015 /0208475, referred
`
`to herein as “Xu”).
`
`

`

`Application/ Control Number: 16/010,441
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 6
`
`Regarding claim 1, Jovicic discloses: A lzg/ot ldentaleatlon (ID) trany/nlm'on denlee, eonnbrtslng:
`
`a lzg/ot ernltter Govicic: paragraph [0058], disclosing a light transmitting device such as a light
`
`emitting diode) t/oat l3". .. eonflgnred to [re attae/oed to a ne/n'ele Govicic: paragraph [0004], disclosing use of
`
`LED light transmitters with vehicles); and
`
`a lzg/ot ernlmlon eontroller Govicic: Fig. 1, element 105, disclosing a controller) t/oat dlnz'dey a
`
`tranyrnlm'on targetID lnto pat/éets of data Govicic: paragraph [0061], disclosing that the controller may
`
`provide the light transmitting device an identifier for transmission; paragraph [0070], disclosing that
`
`the identifier may include a sequence of symbols; paragraph [0069], disclosing that each symbol may
`
`be mapped to a unique time interval and the signal divided into pulses—e.g., packets—associated
`
`with the time intervals), and eanyes t/oe lzg/ot ernltter to ernlt inodnlated lzg/ot t/oat ls inodnlated aeeordlng to t/oe
`
`pat/éetr Govicic: paragraph [0055], disclosing modulation of transmitted light; paragraph [0071],
`
`disclosing modulation of the signal according to the pulses).
`
`Jovicic does not explicitly disclose a light emitter t/oat ls elongated ln a lateral dlreetlon.
`
`However, Xu discloses a light emitter t/oat ls elongated ln a lateral dlreetlon (Xu: paragraph [0040],
`
`disclosing LED chips on board (COB) arranged in an elongated array).
`
`At the time the application was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art to use the emitter of Xu in the light ID transmission device ofJovicic.
`
`One would have been motivated to modify]ovicic in this manner in order to better control
`
`the power output of light emitting diodes (Xu: paragraphs [0004] through [0006]).
`
`Regarding claim 2, Jovicic and Xu disclose: Tloe lzg/ot ID trany/nlm'on denlee aeeordlng to elalrn 7,
`
`n/loerez'n t/oe inodnlated lzg/ot ls lzg/ot t/oat ls sloort—pnlre inodnlated aeeordlng to t/oe paaéets Govicic: paragraph
`
`

`

`Application/ Control Number: 16/010,441
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 7
`
`[0024], disclosing modulation according to a pulse duty cycle, duration, spacing, amplitude, or
`
`slope—e.g., including short—pulse modulation).
`
`Regarding claim 3, Jovicic and Xu disclose: The light ID tranyiniyyion dehiee aeeording to elaiin 7,
`
`wherein the light emitter is eonjignred to he attaehed to a rearfate ofthe nehiele Govicic: paragraph [0004],
`
`disclosing use of LED emitters with vehicles).
`
`Regarding claim 4, Jovicic and Xu disclose: The light ID tranyiniyyion dehiee aeeording to elaiin 3,
`
`wherein a length ofthe light einitter in the lateral direetion is greater than a had of a length of the rearfate of the
`
`nehiele in the lateral direetion Govicic: paragraph [0004], disclosing use of LED emitters with vehicles;
`
`Xu: paragraph [0040], disclosing light emitters arranged in an elongated array—e.g., including a
`
`lateral direction greater than half a length of a near face of the vehicle).
`
`The motivation for combining Jovicic and Xu has been discussed in connection with claim
`
`1, above.
`
`Regarding claim 5, Jovicic and Xu disclose: The light ID tranyiniyyion dehiee aeeording to elaiin 7,
`
`wherein the light emitter inelndey a plnralitj/ oflight sonrees that are elongated in the lateral direetion, and the plnrality
`
`oflight sonrees are arranged ride h} ride in a nertieal direetion (Xu: paragraph [0040], disclosing light emitters
`
`arranged in an elongated array).
`
`The motivation for combining Jovicic and Xu has been discussed in connection with claim
`
`1, above.
`
`Regarding claim 7, Jovicic and Xu disclose: The light ID tranyiniyyion dehiee aeeording to elaiin 7,
`
`wherein the light einisyion eontroller yeleetineh/ perforinsflrst eontrolfor eansing the light emitter to einit the inodnlated
`
`

`

`Application/ Control Number: 16/010,441
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 8
`
`[ig/at, aaa’ yeeaaa’ eoatraifar eaasmg t/ae [ig/at emitter to emit [ig/at t/aat is big/yer m [ammame t/yaa t/ae maa’aiatea’ [ig/at
`
`Govicic: paragraph [0079], disclosing light modulation according to an illumination factor—e.g., by
`
`modulating the luminance; paragraph [0080], disclosing modulation of the illumination factor by an
`
`amplitude—e.g., that light maybe emitted that is higher in luminance).
`
`Regarding claim 9, Jovicic and Xu disclose: T/ye [ig/at ID trammiyyiaa a’eaiee aeeara’iag to claim 7,
`
`wherein t/ae [ig/at emitter is ear/jigarea’ t0 [7e attae/aea’ to a iateraifaee aft/9e ae/aieie Govicic: paragraph [0004],
`
`disclosing use of LED emitters with vehicles).
`
`Regarding claim 10, Jovicic and Xu disclose: T/ye [ig/at ID trammiyyiaa a’eaiee aeeara’iag to claim 7,
`
`wherein t/ae [ig/at emitter is ear/jigarea’ t0 [7e attae/aea’ to a tapfaee 0f t/ae ae/aieie Govicic: paragraph [0004],
`
`disclosing use of LED emitters with vehicles).
`
`Regarding claim 11,]ovicic and Xu disclose: A [ig/at ia’eataieatioa (ID) eommimieatiaa gyrtem,
`
`earmbrismg:
`
`a [ig/at emitter t/aat is ear/jigarea’ t0 [7e attae/aea’ to a ae/aieie Govicic: paragraph [0058], disclosing a
`
`light transmitting device such as a light emitting diode),‘
`
`a [ig/at emimiaa eoatraiier Govicic: Fig. 1, element 105, disclosing a controller) t/aat a’iaia’ey a
`
`trammimiaa targetID mto pat/éets of data Govicic: paragraph [0061], disclosing that the controller may
`
`provide the light transmitting device an identifier for transmission; paragraph [0070], disclosing that
`
`the identifier may include a sequence of symbols; paragraph [0069], disclosing that each symbol may
`
`be mapped to a unique time interval and the signal divided into pulses—e.g., packets—associated
`
`with the time intervals), and tamer t/ae [ig/at emitter to emit maa’aiatea’ [ig/at t/aat is maa’aiatea’ aeeara’iag t0 t/ae
`
`

`

`Application/ Control Number: 16/010,441
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 9
`
`paehets Govicic: paragraph [0055], disclosing modulation of transmitted light; paragraph [0071],
`
`disclosing modulation of the signal according to the pulses); and
`
`a eamera that inelna’es an image sensor and eaptnres the light emitter nn'th the image sensor Govicic:
`
`paragraph [0066], disclosing a camera with an image sensor for receiving visible light
`
`communication), wherein the light emitter is elongatea’ along an extension a’ireetion ofan exposnre line of the image
`
`sensor (Xu: paragraph [0040], disclosing LED chips on board (COB) arranged in an elongated array).
`
`The motivation for combining Jovicic and Xu has been discussed in connection with claim
`
`1, above.
`
`Regarding claim 15, Jovicic and Xu disclose: The light ID eommnnieation ystem aeeora’ing to claim
`
`77, wherein the light emitter transmits at least two of the paaéets a’nring a period eorrespona’ing to one frame ofthe
`
`nia’eo eaptnrea’ h} the eamera, h} emitting the moa’nlatea’ light Govicic: paragraph [0070], disclosing
`
`transmission of an interleaving signal—e.g., multiple packets that may be captured by a frame of the
`
`image sensor).
`
`10.
`
`Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable overJovicic in View of
`
`Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in View of Ryan et a1. (U.S. Patent Publication
`
`No. 2016 /0047890, referred to herein as “Ryan”).
`
`Regarding claim 8, Jovicic and Xu disclose: The light ID transmission a’ehiee aeeora’ing to claim 7,
`
`wherein the light emission eontroller a’ihia’es the transmission target ID into at least afirstpacket, a seeona’pae/éet,
`
`and a thira’pae/éet, thefirstpacket inelna’es information ina’ieating a transmission protoeol, and afirstportion of the
`
`transmission target ID, the seeona’pae/éet inelna’es a seeona’portion ofthe transmission target ID, and the thira’pae/éet
`
`inelna’es a thira’portion of the transmission target ID Govicic: paragraph [0069], disclosing that symbols of
`
`

`

`Applicatio n/Control Number: 16/010,441
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 10
`
`the identifier may be mapped to different time intervals and transmitted as puls es—e.g., first,
`
`second, and third packets)...
`
`Jovicic and Xu do not explicitly disclose: and Zflfomm‘z'm for W07" detecl‘z'm
`
`However, Ryan discloses: and Zflfomm‘zm for W07" daemon (Ryan: paragraph [0124], disclosing
`
`transmission of an error detection identifier).
`
`At the time the application was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art to use the error detection of Ryan in the light ID transmission device
`
`ofJovicic and Xu.
`
`One would have been motivated to modify]ovicic and Xu in this manner in order to better
`
`determine errors associated with transmission of information (Ryan: paragraphs [0124] and [0125]).
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`11.
`
`Claims 6, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19 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.
`
`Conclusion
`
`12.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
`
`should be directed to Christopher Braniff whose telephone number is (571) 270—5009. The
`
`examiner can normally be reached on M—F 7AM to 4PM.
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Applicatio n/Control Number: 16/010,441
`Art Unit: 2484
`
`Page 11
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful,
`
`the examiner’s supervisor,
`
`Thai Tran can be reached on (571) 272—7382. 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.
`
`CHRISTOPHER T. BRANIFF
`
`Primary Examiner
`Art Unit 2484
`
`/CHRISTOPPIER BRANIFF/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
`
`