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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Drawings
Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/26/2025, with respect to drawing objections have been fully considered and are moot in light of the recent amendments to the claims. The objection of 3/26/2025 has been withdrawn because the claims were amended.
Section 112 Rejection- Indefiniteness
Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/26/2025, with respect to 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are moot in light of the recent amendments to the claims. The rejections of 3/26/2025 have been withdrawn because the claims were amended.
Section 112 Rejection-Improper Dependent Claims
There are no rejections based upon an improper dependent claim.
Section 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/26/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C 103 for claims 15-26, 40-41, and 60-61 have been fully considered and are moot in light of the recent amendments to the claims. The rejections of 3/26/2025 have been withdrawn because the claims were amended.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/26/2025 regarding claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments that there is no suggestion or motivation to modify the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both pieces of art are laser processing devices and methods and are in the same filed of endeavor. It is therefore obvious to use Zediker in combination with Moon.
Further, the laser cutting assembly for performing laser operations on a target of claims 62 to 68 is a generic and broadly recited laser assembly with functional recitations that continues to be read on by the art of Zediker in view of Spriggs.
Regarding independent claims 70 and 74, the examiner respectfully believes that Zediker still reads on claims 70 and 74. Specifically, the applicant claims the nozzle of claim 70 generically which is met by Zediker.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-26, 25, 26, 66, 67, and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15, the recitation of whereby a section of the member is formed in a predetermined manner is unclear what a predetermined manner is meant to be as it is not defined in the claims nor specification what structure is required to meet the limitation of a predetermined manner.
Claims 16-26 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
The term “about” in claims 25 and 26 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner is unclear what range included or excluded to be about at least 10kw or at least 15kw is meant to be as it is not defined in the claims nor specification.
Regarding claims 66, 67, and 68, the examiner is unclear how a class I, Class IIa, and class II laser product are capable of performing a cutting operation because they are known in the art to now have enough power to perform cutting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 25 and 26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 40-41, and 60-61 are allowed.
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 9/26/2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 40, and 60 have been amended; no claims have been cancelled and no claims are added. Thus, claims 15, 40, and 60 are presently pending in this application.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
Claims 40-41, and 60-61 are being allowed.
The following is an examiners statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to independent claim 40, the present invention is allowed over the prior art of record because the prior art does not show the claimed method of removing a section of a member from an offshore structure which includes positioning a high power laser system proximate to the offshore structure in a body of water, the high power laser system comprising a high power laser for providing a high power laser beam, the high power laser optically associated by means of an umbilical with a high power laser cutter assembly… the nozzle comprises an annular opening adjacent to an outer coanda surface and the outer coanda surface extends distally from the annular opening to an end of the nozzle, and wherein the high power laser beam and the fluid jet are initially combined to form a high power laser beam within a fluid jet at a point distally removed from the end of the nozzle, whereby the high power laser beam and fluid jet are not combined within the nozzle…propagating the fluid jet and propagating the high power laser beam along the beam path to combine the high power laser beam within the fluid jet at a point distally from the end of the nozzle below the surface of the body of water.
With respect to the remaining independent claims, as somewhat similar recitations are present therein, the above comments presented with respect to independent claim 40, are applicable where appropriate to said claim 60, are applicable where appropriate to said claims.
The closest prior art of record is discussed hereafter:
US20140231085A1 Zediker
US20160129527A1 Moon
The prior art of record by itself or in combination does not disclose the structural and functional limitations as recited in the claims. Specifically, the prior art does not disclose a method comprising a step of positioning a laser with the nozzle as recited in independent claim 40.
While Zediker does disclose A method of cutting material associated with an offshore structure (abstract) comprising: a. positioning a high power laser system proximate to the offshore structure (par. 34) in a body of water, the high power laser system comprising a high power laser optically associated by means of an umbilical with a high power laser cutter assembly (par. 34); the high power laser cutting assembly comprising a high velocity laser jet nozzle (par. 34), configured to provide a high power laser beam within a fluid jet (in the embodiment of par. 156 this is taught as In operation the two fluids 4820, 4821 are pumped to the dual fluid jet nozzle 4826. The high power laser beam, along a beam path enters the optics 4824, is shaped to a predetermined profile, and delivered into the nozzle 4826), Zediker does not disclose the nozzle comprises an annular opening adjacent to an outer coanda surface and the outer coanda surface extends distally from the annular opening to an end of the nozzle, and wherein the high power laser beam and the fluid jet are initially combined to form a high power laser beam within a fluid jet at a point distally removed from the end of the nozzle, whereby the high power laser beam and fluid jet are not combined within the nozzle.
While Moon does teach wherein the nozzle (nozzle 412) is a coanda laser jet nozzle (par. 96 and 114 teach that the nozzle 412 takes advantage of the Coanda effect and is therefore considered by the examiner to be Coanda nozzle), Moon does not teach the nozzle comprises an annular opening adjacent to an outer coanda surface and the outer coanda surface extends distally from the annular opening to an end of the nozzle, and wherein the high power laser beam and the fluid jet are initially combined to form a high power laser beam within a fluid jet at a point distally removed from the end of the nozzle, whereby the high power laser beam and fluid jet are not combined within the nozzle.
Since none of the prior art references of record alone or in combination disclose all the limitations of the applicant's independent claim 40, and since the prior art of record does not teach and render obvious of positioning a high power laser system proximate to the offshore structure in a body of water, the high power laser system comprising a high power laser for providing a high power laser beam, the high power laser optically associated by means of an umbilical with a high power laser cutter assembly… the nozzle comprises an annular opening adjacent to an outer coanda surface and the outer coanda surface extends distally from the annular opening to an end of the nozzle, and wherein the high power laser beam and the fluid jet are initially combined to form a high power laser beam within a fluid jet at a point distally removed from the end of the nozzle, whereby the high power laser beam and fluid jet are not combined within the nozzle…propagating the fluid jet and propagating the high power laser beam along the beam path to combine the high power laser beam within the fluid jet at a point distally from the end of the nozzle below the surface of the body of water, thus independent claim 40reads over the prior art of record and is considered to have allowable subject matter. The claims in the application are deemed to be directed to an nonobvious improvement over the inventions of Zediker in combination with Moon. The claims comprise a specific nozzle design that optimizes the laser cutting method disclosed in the instant application.
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 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.
Claim(s) 62, 63, 64, 65, and 66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20140231085A1 Zediker (hereinafter “Zediker”) in view of US10732020B1 Spriggs.
Regarding claim 62 Zediker teaches, except where struck through,
A laser cutting assembly ( a tubular cutting station par. 161) for performing laser operations on a target (These two devices 9004, 9005 each have a laser cutting assembly 9006, 9007, which have laser cutting heads (not shown)), the system comprising: a. a base (platform 9000, laser cutting device 9004, 9005, and fig. 9 par. 161);
the base comprising an opening for receiving the target (par. 161 The platform has a locking and engaging device 9003, e.g., along the lines of a spider for use with risers or other large tubulars, or a hole and pin arrangement, that holds the lower section of the member 9002 and prevents it from falling once the cut has been made);
par. 161 teaches a laser beam dump);
and, the laser cutting head defining a laser beam path (par. 161 teach The laser head(s) then deliver a laser beam(s) to cut the tubular.);
d., the laser beam dump (par. 162 teaches with fiber 1070 and a beam dump (not shown)) is mechanically associated with the ring at a second location (par. 161 fig. 9, it would be obvious to associate a laser beam dump mechanically with a laser);
e. whereby the laser beam path extends from the laser cutting head to the laser beam dump (par. 161);
wherein the laser beam path is in contact with the laser beam dump (par. 161);
Zediker does not teach and an orbital cutting assembly; the orbital cutting assembly comprising a ring, a drive assembly, a laser cutting head…and… b. the drive assembly in mechanical association with the ring, whereby the ring is configured for orbital motion with respect to the base and around the target when the target is received within the opening; c. the laser cutting head is mechanically associated with the orbital ring at a first location; whereby the laser cutting head is configured for orbital motion with respect to the base and around the target when the target is received within the opening;…and... whereby the laser beam dump is configured for orbital motion with respect to the base and around the target when the target is received within the opening;.
Spriggs teaches, and an orbital cutting assembly (fig. 3 embodiment 300); the orbital cutting assembly comprising a ring (support ring 60 and collar 4), a drive assembly (column 8 lines 44 to 60 teach “In embodiment 300 and similar embodiments, bearing 46, 48, 50 is configured such that an operator will be able to rotate rotatable outer sidewall portion 42 of collar 4 manually without the aid of additional tools, although in certain other embodiments the use of specific tools may be required. Special tools may be desired in view of security or threat of malfeasance. In certain embodiments, rotatable outer sidewall 42 of collar 4 may be equipped with one or more handles installed thereon (not illustrated) to allow for ease of rotation thereof”), a laser cutting head (a laser assembly TOF sensor which is a laser apparatus per column 4 lines 62 to 67 is “In certain embodiments each of the TOF sensors of the array of TOF sensors is selected from the group consisting of an 3D TOF image scanner and a laser” and is obvious to use in the invention of Zediker to transport the tubular cutting station par. 161 around platform 9000) …and… b. the drive assembly in mechanical association with the ring , whereby the ring is configured for orbital motion with respect to the base and around the target when the target is received within the opening (column 8 lines 44 to 60 teach “In embodiment 300 and similar embodiments, bearing 46, 48, 50 is configured such that an operator will be able to rotate rotatable outer sidewall portion 42 of collar 4 manually without the aid of additional tools, although in certain other embodiments the use of specific tools may be required. Special tools may be desired in view of security or threat of malfeasance. In certain embodiments, rotatable outer sidewall 42 of collar 4 may be equipped with one or more handles installed thereon (not illustrated) to allow for ease of rotation thereof” which is mechanical association); c. the laser cutting head is mechanically associated with the orbital ring at a first location (fig. 3, a first location is interpreted very broadly in light of the claims and specification); whereby the laser cutting head is configured for orbital motion with respect to the base and around the target when the target is received within the opening (column 8 lines 51 to 52 teach orbital motion as “In these embodiments, rotation in the horizontal plane);…and... whereby the laser beam dump is configured for orbital motion with respect to the base and around the target when the target is received within the opening (A person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the embodiment 300 of Spriggs in combination with the beam dump of Zediker, would have recognized that combining the inventions of Zediker and Spriggs to make the beam dump of Zediker rotatable is one of a finite number of mounting methods known to be useful for positioning a beam dump such that it is operatively and optically associated with fiber 1070 and a beam dump (Zediker par. 162). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to try mounting a beam dump across from analogous laser of Zediker in combination with the embodiment 300 in the apparatus and/or method by Zediker in combination with Spriggs because a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but or ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).);.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Zediker reference, to include and an orbital cutting assembly; the orbital cutting assembly comprising a ring, a drive assembly, a laser cutting head…and… b. the drive assembly in mechanical association with the ring, whereby the ring is configured for orbital motion with respect to the base and around the target when the target is received within the opening; c. the laser cutting head is mechanically associated with the orbital ring at a first location; whereby the laser cutting head is configured for orbital motion with respect to the base and around the target when the target is received within the opening;…and... whereby the laser beam dump is configured for orbital motion with respect to the base and around the target when the target is received within the opening;, as suggested and taught by Spriggs, for the purpose of providing the advantage to create a rotatable laser cutting apparatus as is known in the art of Zediker in combination with Spriggs.
Regarding claims 63 and 64,
The primary combination teaches, the laser cutting assembly of claim 62 (as discussed above).
Zediker does not teach wherein the base is a split ring frame.
Zediker in combination with Spriggs discloses the claimed invention except for the embodiment 300 of Spriggs being split.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the embodiment 300 of Spriggs split, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination.
Further, one would have been motivated to select the shape of a split ring for the purpose of a shape adjustment. The examiner respectfully points out that the structure and criticality that makes the ring 801 of the instant application split is broadly recited.
Regarding claim 65,
The primary combination teaches, the laser cutting assembly of claim 62 (as discussed above).
Zediker further teaches wherein the assembly further comprises a housing (laser cutting shop 1053), wherein the housing is openable and closable around the orbital cutting assembly (par. 120, 121, 130 and 131 teach laser cutting shop being used in conjunction with heavy lifting crane 1052 where crane 1052 moves the removed material into and out of laser cutting shop 1053 so the laser of Zediker can further process the removed material, therefore, it is inherent that laser cutting shop 1053 is openable and closable to accommodate for the removed material moving in and out).
Regarding claim 66,
The primary combination teaches, the laser cutting assembly of claim 62 (as discussed above).
Zediker further teaches wherein the assembly further comprises a housing (laser cutting shop 1053), wherein the housing is openable and closable around the orbital cutting assembly , thereby defining a laser cutting system (par. 120, 121, 130 and 131 teach laser cutting shop being used in conjunction with heavy lifting crane 1052 where crane 1052 moves the removed material into and out of laser cutting shop 1053 so the laser of Zediker can further process the removed material, therefore, it is inherent that laser cutting shop 1053 is openable and closable to accommodate for the removed material moving in and out);
whereby the laser cutting system is a Class I product (par. 161 the examiner respectfully notes that the structure that makes the laser cutting system a class I product in the instant application is broadly recited such that Zediker reads on this limitation)
Claim(s) 67 and 68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20140231085A1 Zediker (hereinafter “Zediker”) in view of US10732020B1 Spriggs in view of US20170016299A1 Faircloth (hereinafter “Faircloth”).
Regarding claims 67 and 68,
The primary combination teaches, the laser cutting assembly of claim 62 (as discussed above).
Zediker teaches, wherein the assembly further comprises a housing (laser cutting shop 1053), wherein the housing is openable and closable around the orbital cutting assembly, thereby defining a laser cutting system (par. 120, 121, 130 and 131 teach laser cutting shop being used in conjunction with heavy lifting crane 1052 where crane 1052 moves the removed material into and out of laser cutting shop 1053 so the laser of Zediker can further process the removed material, therefore, it is inherent that laser cutting shop 1053 is openable and closable to accommodate for the removed material moving in and out);.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Zediker does not teach: whereby the laser cutting system is a Class IIa product.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Faircloth teaches methods, apparatus, and system for delivering high power laser system to cut or remove structures in the earth (abstract, par. 2), whereby the laser cutting system is a Class IIa product (par. 121; par. 125; par. 173 example 16).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Zediker with the laser of Faircloth for the purpose of for the purpose of providing the advantage that shielding and control system to direct the laser beam in a predetermined manner and contain the laser beam (par. 173).
Claim(s) 70 and 74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20140231085A1 Zediker (hereinafter “Zediker”)
Regarding claim 70, Zediker teaches,
A method of cutting material associated with an offshore structure (abstract and par. 2) comprising:
a. positioning a high power laser system proximate to the offshore structure in a body of water (claim 8; claim 43; par. 30; par. 35), the high power laser system comprising a high power laser optically associated by means of an umbilical (hoisting means 9001) with a high power laser cutter assembly (par. 29; par. 37);
the high power laser cutting assembly comprising a high velocity laser jet nozzle (par. 29), for providing a laser beam within a fluid jet (par. 29 and par. 37);
wherein the nozzle is a flow through window laser jet nozzle (in the embodiment of par. 156 this is taught as In operation the two fluids 4820, 4821 are pumped to the dual fluid jet nozzle 4826. The high power laser beam, along a beam path enters the optics 4824, is shaped to a predetermined profile, and delivered into the nozzle 4826; par. 37);
b. the high power laser cutter assembly defining a laser beam delivery path for delivery of a high power laser beam along the beam path (par. 29; par. 156);
c. positioning the beam path below the surface of the body of water (claim 2; par. 2);
3. propagating the fluid jet and propagating the high power laser beam along the beam path within the fluid jet below the surface of the body of water (par. 156);
and, e. changing a relative position of a member to be cut and the laser beam path, whereby the laser beam strikes the member below the surface of the body of water and thereby cuts the member below the surface of the body of water (par. 161 The entire laser cutting device 9004, 9005 or both, may for example slide toward the tubular on tracks, or the device may have a stationary base and movable arm, such a robotic arm, that moves the cutting assembly into position. The laser head(s) then deliver a laser beam(s) to cut the tubular).
Regarding claim 74, Zediker teaches,
A method of plugging and abandoning a well using a high power laser system (abstract par 2), the method comprising:
a. selecting a borehole in the surface of the earth forming a well, the borehole having a tubular contained therein, the tubular extending below the surface of the earth (par. 37);
b. placing a first plug within the borehole (par. 37);
c. cutting the tubular at a location within the borehole and removing at least a some of the cut tubular (par. 37);
placing a second plug within the borehole, the second plug being located closer to the surface of the earth than the first plug (par. 37);
d. delivering a high power laser beam along a beam path to cut all tubulars within the borehole at a second location above the second plug, wherein the laser beam is delivered from a high velocity laser jet nozzle, configured to provide the high power laser beam with a fluid jet, whereby the high power laser beam is contained within the fluid jet, wherein the nozzle is a flow through window laser jet nozzle (par. 37);
wherein the delivery of the laser beam completely severs all tubulars at the location within the borehole (par. 37);
and, e. removing all of the severed tubulars from the borehole above the second location, wherein the borehole above the second location is free from tubulars (par. 37).
Claim(s) 71 and 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20140231085A1 Zediker (hereinafter “Zediker”) in view of US20140090846A1 Deutch (hereinafter “Deutch”).
Regarding claims 71 and 75 ,
The primary combination teaches, the laser cutting assembly of claim 71 and 75 respectively (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Zediker does not teach: further comprising the laser beam cutting a control line.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Deutch teaches further comprising the laser beam cutting a control line (claims 64 to 71).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Zediker with the teachings of Deutch for the purpose of providing an advantage in crowded and tightly spaced conductor configurations, in that the precision and control of the laser cutting process permits the removal, or repair, of a single conductor, without damaging or effecting the adjacent conductors (Deutch par. 93).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761