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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 1/26/2026. Claims 1, 16, 17-18 and 20 are amended, claims 7, 10, 12 are canceled, claim 21 is new, and claims 1-6, 8-9, 11, 13-21 are currently pending. It is noted that the status identifier on Claim 20 incorrectly identifies the claim as “previously presented”.
Claim Interpretation
A claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art apparatus on the basis of structure. Therefore, the patentability of an apparatus claim depends only on the claimed structure, not on the use or the purpose of that structure, Catalina Marketing Int’l., Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. See In re Schrieber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Gardiner, 171.F2d 313, 315-16 (CCPA 1948).
Language in an apparatus claim directed to the function, operation, intent of use, and materials upon which these apparatus components work that does not structurally limit the apparatus components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus from an otherwise identical prior art apparatus will not support patentability. See, e.g. In re Rishoi, 107 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 940 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660,663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973).
Installation of the vehicle trim on a vehicle exterior and orientation of an exterior facing surface relative to a vehicle are directed to intended use, function, and/or operation of the “vehicle trim”. The limitation does not structurally limit the claim. Since the applied reference(s) teach all of the structural limitations of the claim, the reference(s) is presumed to be capable of the intended use, function, and/or operation.
The burden shifts to the Applicant to rebut the presumption that the structure of the applied reference(s) is not capable of the intended use, function, and/or operation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11, 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 16, and 18 recite “a non-film self-supporting rigid molded article”. Applicant does not disclose implicit nor explicit characteristics of the molded article to evidence possession of a “non-film … article”. The original disclosure supports materials such as “a plastic resin, glass, or other clear or translucent material”, but no further specification of rigidity, thickness, nor other material property supporting the claimed invention as recited. In proximity to the claimed descriptions that the article is “non-film, “self-supporting” and “rigid”, the Specification states “the lens 10 may be machined or etched from a blank to define the microtexture 18”. The implied characteristics of a lens structure capable of being machine may differentiate over certain thin films and combination of material properties, though machinability of the material does not support the claimed characteristics of the molded article.
Claims 1, 16, and 18 recite “wherein the lens body retains the shape of the first and second protrusions relative to gravity at multiple orientations without adhesion”. In the original disclosure, Applicant depicts the lens body without adhesion (e.g. Figs. 3 & 5) and describes materials such as “a plastic resin, glass, or other clear or translucent material” ([0050]). Applicant neither depicts nor discloses that the lens body is configured to be retain the shape of the first and second protrusions relative to gravity at multiple orientations without adhesion” as neither gravity nor adhesion nor support of the lens body is disclosed whatsoever. There is neither an implicit nor an inherent configuration of the disclosure of the lens body that would support retaining protrusion shape at multiple orientations without adhesion as there is no disclosed thickness or rigidity in the originally-filed disclosure. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand there to be lenses and lens bodies that exhibit an optical effect, as disclosed by Applicant, and are composed of translucent materials, as disclosed by Applicant, and yet are not capable of retaining a shape independent of an additional backing structure. Examiner acknowledged that the shape of protrusions is retained based on the original disclosure though the use scenarios disclosed are devoid of specificity to evidence particular uses (i.e. relative to gravity, with adhesion, etc.). There is no disclosure at the time of the invention that would have been understood to evidence possession of the now-claimed invention.
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 1-6, 8-9, 11, 13-21 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.
Claims 1, 16, and 18 recite “a non-film self-supporting rigid molded article”. The metes and bounds of the invention cannot be determined as at least the phrase “non-film” has no known meaning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a “film” to be “a thin layer or sheet of tissue in an animal or plant, or in a product of an animal or plant; a pellicle; a membrane”, “a very thin sheet of any substance”. The plain meaning of the term “film” would not itself clear define the metes and bounds of a claim in which Applicant repeatedly argues a degree of thickness and/or rigidity required in the claim. Further, the original disclosure supports materials such as “a plastic resin, glass, or other clear or translucent material”, but no further specification of rigidity, thickness, nor other material property supporting the claimed invention as recited. In proximity to the claimed descriptions that the article is “non-film, “self-supporting” and “rigid”, the Specification states “the lens 10 may be machined or etched from a blank to define the microtexture 18”. The implied characteristics of a lens structure capable of being machine may differentiate over certain thin films and combination of material properties, though machinability of the material does not support the claimed characteristics of the molded article.
Claims 1, 16, and 18 recites “the exterior facing surface is exposed to an exterior of the vehicle and faces away from the vehicle”. In the 1/26/2026 Remarks, Applicant argues that this claim language excludes an embodiment such as Oh’s Fig. 35 as the texture structures “is an internal portion of the vehicle taillight structure”. In light of the specifications, Applicant’s embodiments of the trim component include an effect visible from the exterior of a vehicle and that protrusions may extend “outwardly” but there is no requirement that the protrusions, microstructures, or lens body is the external-most element upon installation to a vehicle. As such the metes and bounds of “is exposed to an exterior” will be commensurate in scope with projecting outwardly and capable of installation such that the exterior facing surface is projecting outwardly relative to a vehicle.
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 1-4, 8-9, 11, and 13-17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2014/0133128 to Oh and further in view of US Pat. No. 7,806,580 to Lin (hereinafter Lin).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Oh discloses a vehicle trim component for use with an automotive vehicle (Abstract), the vehicle trim component comprising: a clear or translucent lens body (the optical member 600 may include at least one plate 610, Figs. 1-14) constructed from a thermoplastic resin (“the plate 610 may be generally formed of acryl resin”, [0088]) and in the form of a non-film self-supporting rigid molded article formed of a one-piece monolithic plastic resin (Figs. 1-14, [0088]), the lens body defining a first surface (exterior or bottom surface of plate 610, “the optical member 600 may include a third pattern (not shown) disposed at the bottom surface 610b of the plate 610 to diffuse light incident from the light source module 100”, Figs. 1-14; [0097]) and a second surface (interior surface of plate 610 or top surface of plate 610, Figs. 1-14), wherein the first surface and the second surface are substantially planar with respective first and second faces having oppositely directed normal vectors disposed on opposite sides of the lens body that face opposite directions (Figs. 4, 6, 7, 9-12); a plurality of first protrusions molded into the first surface (second pattern 620, Figs. 13, 6-13); wherein the lens body retains the shape of the first and second protrusions relative to gravity at multiple orientations without adhesion to additional structure (Figs. 1-13; Abstract); wherein the first surface is an exterior facing surface and the second surface is an interior facing surface (Figs. 1-13); wherein the lens body includes a printed feature (“first pattern 630 may be at least one selected from among an embossed pattern, an engraved pattern, and a printed pattern”, Figs. 1-13 and 30A; [0094]) on the interior facing surface, wherein the printed feature is in the form of a molded shape formed in the interior facing surface and having a profile (“first pattern 630 may be at least one selected from among an embossed pattern, an engraved pattern, and a printed pattern”, Figs. 1-13 and 30A; [0094]), wherein the first and second textures overlap the profile of the printed feature and the profile of the molded shape is visible through the lens body at the exterior surface (Figs. 1-13), wherein the vehicle trim component is in the form of the one-piece lens body having the first and second textures molded thereon (Figs. 1-13), wherein the vehicle trim component in the form of the one-piece lens body is installed on a vehicle exterior of a vehicle (Figs. 36-37; [0007], [0577]-0597]), wherein the exterior facing surface is exposed to an exterior of the vehicle and faces away from the vehicle (Figs. 36-37; [0007], [0577]-0597]).
It is noted that “interior” and “exterior” relate to orientations for the intended use of the apparatus and are not defined relative to a reference frame in the claim.
In alternative embodiments, Oh discloses second protrusions on a same surface (e.g. Fig. 9A & 11B & 12; [0212]-[0217],[0237]-[0246]) and a plurality of second protrusions molded into the second surface (Fig. 13); wherein the first and second protrusions define a first and second texture on the first and second surface, respectively (Figs. 1 & 13); wherein the first and second textures combine to define a graphical representation on the lens having an enhanced depth and blending of the textures (Figs. 1 & 13); wherein the first and second protrusions and the lens body are a one- piece monolithic continuous structure (Fig. 1 & 13). Oh discloses that modifications of the disclosed embodiments would have been known to person having ordinary skill in the art ([0598]).
Oh discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a micrometer scaling of textures.
Lin discloses microtextures (col. 2, ll. 15-50).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide microtextures as taught by Lin with the system as disclosed by Oh. The motivation would have been to control light diffusion and brightness characteristics of an illuminated member (col. 1, ll. 15-29 & Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Oh discloses the first protrusions are arranged in a first pattern on the first surface and the second protrusions are arranged in a second pattern on the second surface (Fig. 9A & 11B & 12-14; [0212]-[0217],[0237]-[0246]). Whether on a same surface or opposite surfaces, Oh evidences that a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to vary diffusive structures on a same lens body for the purpose of controlling brightness, diffusion, and other illumination properties or effects ([0212]-[0217],[0237]-[0246]).
Regarding claim 3, Oh discloses the first protrusions are spaced apart a first distance and the second protrusions are spaced apart a second distance that is different than the first distance (Figs. 9A, 10, 11B, 13; [0212]-[0217],[0237]-[0246]). Whether on a same surface or opposite surfaces, Oh evidences that a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to vary diffusive structures on a same lens body for the purpose of controlling brightness, diffusion, and other illumination properties or effects ([0212]-[0217],[0237]-[0246]).
Regarding claim 4, Oh discloses the first and second pattern are different (Figs. 1, 9A, 10, 11B, 13; [0212]-[0217],[0237]-[0246]).
Regarding claim 8, Oh discloses a reflective panel disposed adjacent the second surface of the lens (Fig. 1; [0274]-[0275]).
Regarding claim 9, Oh discloses a light source disposed between the lens body and the reflective panel (Fig. 1; [0274]-[0275]).
Regarding claim 11, Oh discloses the second protrusions are larger than the first protrusions (Figs. 9A, 10, 11B, 13; [0212]-[0217],[0237]-[0246]). Whether on a same surface or opposite surfaces, Oh evidences that a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to vary diffusive structures on a same lens body for the purpose of controlling brightness, diffusion, and other illumination properties or effects ([0212]-[0217],[0237]-[0246]).
Regarding claim 13, Oh discloses a coating disposed on at least one of the first surface and the second surface (a ground pattern 640 surrounding the first pattern 630; [0092]-[0093]).
Regarding claim 14, Oh discloses the coating is a protective hardcoat (“the ground pattern 640 may be identical to the second pattern 620”; [0088],[0092]).
Regarding claim 15, Oh discloses the coating is clear or tinted (“the ground pattern 640 may be identical to the second pattern 620”; [0088],[0092]).
Regarding claim 16, Oh discloses a vehicle trim component for use in automotive applications, the vehicle trim component comprising: a clear or translucent body portion constructed of thermoplastic resin or glass and in the form of a non-film self-supporting molded article, the body portion having a first surface and a second surface, wherein the body portion is colored or tinted; a first microtexture disposed on the first surface; a second microtexture disposed on the second surface; wherein the first and second microtextures combine to define a graphical representation having an enhanced depth and blending of the microtextures; wherein the first and second protrusions and the translucent body portion are a one-piece monolithic continuous structure; wherein the lens body retains the shape of the first and second protrusions relative to gravity at multiple orientations without adhesion to an additional structure; wherein the first surface is an exterior facing surface and the second surface is an interior facing surface; wherein the lens body includes a printed feature on the interior facing surface, wherein the printed feature is in the form of a molded shape formed in the interior facing surface and having a profile, wherein the first and second microtextures overlap the profile of the printed feature and the profile of the molded shape is visible through the lens body at the exterior surface (see Claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 17, Oh discloses a light source (Fig. 1; [0274]-[0275]) disposed adjacent the lens body for transmitting light through the body portion and illuminating the microtextures, and a reflective surface (Fig. 1; [0274]-[0275]) disposed adjacent the second surface, wherein the reflective surface reflects ambient light or light provided by a light source through the lens body and the first and second microtextures (Fig. 1; [0274]-[0275]).
Regarding claim 21, Oh discloses wherein the vehicle trim component in the form of a lens body defines a vehicle grille or wheel cover (Fig. 1). This claim is drawn to the use of the vehicle trim component as an element of a vehicle grille or wheel cover. The illuminated device in Fig. 1 is capable of use as an element of a vehicle grille or wheel cover
Claims 5-6 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2014/0133128 to Oh and further in view of US Pat. No. 7,806,580 to Lin (hereinafter Lin), as applied to claim 1, and US PG Pub. 2011/0176325 to Sherman et al. (hereinafter Sherman).
Regarding claim 18, Oh discloses a vehicle trim component for an automobile (Abstract), the vehicle trim component comprising: a clear or translucent body portion (the optical member 600 may include at least one plate 610, Figs. 1-14) constructed of thermoplastic resin or glass (“the plate 610 may be generally formed of acryl resin”, [0088]) and in the form of a non-film self-supporting molded article having a top surface (exterior or bottom surface of plate 610, “the optical member 600 may include a third pattern (not shown) disposed at the bottom surface 610b of the plate 610 to diffuse light incident from the light source module 100”, Figs. 1-14; [0097]) and a bottom surface (interior surface of plate 610 or top surface of plate 610, Figs. 1-14); a top texture disposed on the top surface (Figs. 1-13; [0097]-[0098],[0103]); a bottom texture (Figs. 1-13; [0097]-[0098],[0103]) disposed on the bottom surface; wherein light passing through the body portion reflects off the top and bottom textures and defines a graphical representation (Figs. 1-13; Abstract); wherein the top and bottom textures and the body portion are a one-piece monolithic continuous structure (Figs. 1-13); wherein the body portion retains the shape of the top and bottom textures relative to gravity at multiple orientations without adhesion to its entire shape independent of additional backing structure (Fig. 1); wherein the top surface is an exterior facing surface (exterior or bottom surface of plate 610, “the optical member 600 may include a third pattern (not shown) disposed at the bottom surface 610b of the plate 610 to diffuse light incident from the light source module 100”, Figs. 1-14; [0097]) and the bottom surface is an interior facing surface (interior surface of plate 610 or top surface of plate 610, Figs. 1-14); wherein the top and bottom textures overlap (Figs. 1-13; [0097]-[0103]) the profile of the molded shape and the profile of the molded shape is visible through the lens body at the exterior surface (Figs. 1-13).
It is noted that “interior” and “exterior” relate to orientations for the intended use of the apparatus and are not defined relative to a reference frame in the claim.
In alternative embodiments, Oh discloses second protrusions on a same surface (e.g. Fig. 9A & 11B & 12; [0212]-[0217],[0237]-[0246]) and a plurality of second protrusions molded into the second surface (Fig. 13); wherein the first and second protrusions define a first and second texture on the first and second surface, respectively (Figs. 1 & 13); wherein the first and second textures combine to define a graphical representation on the lens having an enhanced depth and blending of the textures (Figs. 1 & 13); wherein the first and second protrusions and the lens body are a one- piece monolithic continuous structure (Fig. 1 & 13). Oh discloses that modifications of the disclosed embodiments would have been known to person having ordinary skill in the art ([0598]).
Oh discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a micrometer scaling of textures.
Lin discloses microtextures (col. 2, ll. 15-50).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide microtextures as taught by Lin with the system as disclosed by Oh. The motivation would have been to control light diffusion and brightness characteristics of an illuminated member (col. 1, ll. 15-29 & Abstract).
Oh discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose wherein the body portion is colored or tinted.
Sherman discloses the body portion is colored or tinted ([0113]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a colorant in the body as taught by Sherman with the system as disclosed by Oh. The motivation would have been to provide a design aesthetic ([0113]).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Oh discloses the first protrusions are positive and define projections from the first surface, and the second protrusions are negative and define recesses in the second surface (Figs. 11,13-14; [0236]-[0244],[0248]-[0259). Positions of positive and negative elements and spacings therebetween are obvious variants within the scope of combinable embodiments disclosed in Oh.
Regarding claim 6, Oh discloses at least one of the projections overlies at least one of the recesses (Figs. 11,13-14; [0236]-[0244],[0248]-[0259). Positions of positive and negative elements and spacings therebetween are obvious variants within the scope of combinable embodiments disclosed in Oh.
Regarding claim 20, Oh discloses a light source disposed adjacent the body portion for projecting light through the body portion (Fig. 1), wherein the light source is controllable automatically in response to sensor signals received at a controller (Fig. 1). The claim language does not further limit the vehicle trim, but rather the system in which the vehicle trim may be integrated.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 104768770, CN 102590904, JP 2015022984, and US 4977695 generally disclose optical elements having contrasting texturized patterns.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “Examiner acknowledges that the … examples mentioned in the specification (such as a grille, cladding, wheel cover, etc.) sufficiently define a non-film structure and retain their shape relative to gravity at multiple orientations”. Examiner partly agrees in that a grille and wheel cover are understood as having rigidity, are not themselves entirely films, and retain their shape under rotation and partly disagrees that the claimed vehicle trim component and lens body are commensurate in scope. The originally-filed disclosure includes vehicle grilles and external trim and wheel covers as examples of “decorative components” and then uses open transitional phrases to describe the constituents of the decorative component: “a decorative component for use with an automotive vehicle is provided, including: a lens body” [0007]. There is no evidence that the lens body provides the rigidity and retains its shape. Were the claim to be directed to a wheel cover comprising the claimed lens body, it would be understood that the wheel cover is not a film and retains its shape under varied orientations however it would not be necessary for the lens body to provide those operational features. Said another way, a rigid claimed apparatus could be openly comprising a lens body such that a further perhaps unrecited structure could provide rigidity to the overall apparatus but a rigid claimed apparatus could not consist only of the lens body as there is no support that the lens body itself provides rigidity. From the Specifications, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the lens body as providing an optical effect and would not understand the lens body to be embody a particular form factor or rigidity.
On page 13 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “[the surface having the texture in Oh] is not an exposed exterior surface of the vehicle trim component”. Examiner respectfully disagrees as a component of the taillight is necessarily an exterior surface and is depicted as exposed, i.e. not encapsulated by material but rather spaced from cover 70a. Additionally, it is noted that the claim is drawn to the vehicle trim component and the use thereof when it is installed on a vehicle. Examiner notes that the claimed apparatus is not structurally distinguished by the installation as the Oh structure is capable of the claimed function and/or operation as it is structurally identical to the claimed structure.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872