DETAILED ACTION
This is the final office action regarding application number 17/566203, filed on 12/30/2021.
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
The amendment filed on 12/31/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-11, 13-16, 18-19 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 10/01/2025.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed et al., “Induction welding of thermoplastic composites- an overview”, Composites: Part A 37 (2006), pages 1638-1651 (hereafter Ahmed), and further in view of Baltes wt al., US 20170087762 (hereafter Baltes), and Verhagen et al., US 20140231415 (hereafter Verhagen).
Regarding claim 1,
“A manufacturing method, comprising:” (Abstract in Ahmed teaches “a process of induction welding of thermoplastic composites”)
“providing an induction welder including a concentrator and a coil,” (Fig. 9)
PNG
media_image1.png
342
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 9 in Ahmed
“ the concentrator including a receptacle and a face surface,” (Fig. 9)
“the receptacle projecting vertically into the concentrator from the face surface to an end of the receptacle,” (Fig. 9)
“ the receptacle extending laterally within the concentrator between opposing sides of the receptacle,” (Fig. 9)
…..“providing a first thermoplastic body arranged with a second thermoplastic body,” ( Fig. 9 teaches a workpiece. Fig. 1 teaches that the workpiece comprises two bodies.
PNG
media_image2.png
286
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 in Ahmed
Abstract teaches welding of thermoplastic composites. It is understood that the workpiece in Figs. 9 and 1 is made of thermoplastic.)
“ the first thermoplastic body located vertically next to the face surface; and” (Fig. 9 teaches workpiece surface located vertically next to the face surface of concentrator.)
“induction welding the first thermoplastic body to the second thermoplastic body,” (Fig. 1 teaches induction welding of the workpiece to form a weld structure.)
“ the induction welding comprising generating an electromagnetic field with the coil; and” (Fig. 1)
“concentrating the electromagnetic field with the concentrator onto a region of the first thermoplastic body.” (Fig. 9)
Ahmed is silent about “the receptacle extending longitudinally within the concentrator along a centerline, and the coil seated and extending longitudinally along the centerline within the receptacle”, “and the coil thermally coupled to the concentrator through a conductive bonding material”.
Baltes teaches “ the receptacle extending longitudinally within the concentrator along a centerline,” (Paragraph [66] teaches “the two effective sections 24A, 24B of the inductor 20 are enclosed by a concentrator 28A, 28B.” It is understood from Fig. 2A and 2E that concentrators extend longitudinally along coils 24A, 24B in X direction. Thus, the receptacle also extends longitudinally within the concentrator along a centerline.)
PNG
media_image3.png
507
826
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Zoomed in portion of Fig 2E in Baltes
PNG
media_image4.png
434
666
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2A in Baltes
“ and the coil seated and extending longitudinally along the centerline within the receptacle;” (Fig. 2A and fig. 2E teach that coils are seated and extending longitudinally along the centerline within receptacle.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the receptacle and coil to extend longitudinally as taught in Baltes in the method of Ahmed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The advantage of the use of concentrators is that the magnetic field can be concentrated in a targeted way on the desired area” as taught in paragraph [23] in Baltes.
Primary combination of references is silent about “and the coil thermally coupled to the concentrator through a conductive bonding material”.
Verhagen teaches and the coil thermally coupled to the concentrator through a conductive bonding material (Verhagen teaches thermally conductive potting compound 304 secures the coil with respect to the flux concentrator in paragraph [43].)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add thermally conductive potting compound between coil and concentrator as taught in Verhagen in the method of Ahmed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The conductive coil is disposed in the potting compound, and the flux concentrator is disposed about the conductive coil and the potting compound such that the flux is concentrated toward the first face” as taught in paragraph [11] in Verhagen.
Regarding claim 2,
“The manufacturing method of claim 1, wherein an open space extends vertically between the first thermoplastic body and the coil.” (Annotated Fig. 9 in Ahmed)
Regarding claim 3,
“The manufacturing method of claim 1, wherein an open space extends vertically between the first thermoplastic body and the concentrator.” (Annotated Fig. 9 in Ahmed)
Regarding claim 4,
“ The manufacturing method of claim 1, wherein the coil is vertically flush with the face surface.” (Fig. 9 in Ahmed.)
Regarding claim 10,
“The manufacturing method of claim 1, wherein the concentrator further includes a receptacle surface at least partially forming one of the opposing sides of the receptacle; and” (Annotated Fig. 9 in Ahmed.)
“the receptacle surface extends along a trajectory to an edge between the receptacle surface and the face surface, and the trajectory consists essentially of a vertical component.” (Annotated Fig. 9 in Ahmed.)
Regarding claim 13,
“The manufacturing method of claim 1, further comprising cooling at least one of the coil or the concentrator using liquid coolant.” (Fig. 2E and paragraph [65] in Baltes teaches “the two effective sections 24A, 24B of the inductor 20 are formed as hollow profiles and have integrated cooling channels 27A, 27B. The cooling channels 27A, 27B can be flowed through by a cooling fluid, for example water or oil, in order to cool the effective sections 24A, 24B of the inductor 20.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of cooling the coil using fluid as taught in Baltes to the method in Ahmed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “This formation of the effective sections has the particular advantage that no separate cooling channels have to be provided next to the effective sections. Instead, the hollow space in the hollow profile, which is available anyway, is used to dissipate heat. The heat can be dissipated by air or—in order to obtain a higher cooling capability—by liquids such as water or oil” as taught in paragraph [22] in Baltes.)
Regarding claim 14,
“The manufacturing method of claim 13, wherein the cooling comprises directing the liquid coolant through a bore of the coil.” (Fig. 2E and paragraph [65] in Baltes teaches “the two effective sections 24A, 24B of the inductor 20 are formed as hollow profiles and have integrated cooling channels 27A, 27B. The cooling channels 27A, 27B can be flowed through by a cooling fluid, for example water or oil, in order to cool the effective sections 24A, 24B of the inductor 20.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of cooling the coil using fluid as taught in Baltes to the method in Ahmed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “This formation of the effective sections has the particular advantage that no separate cooling channels have to be provided next to the effective sections. Instead, the hollow space in the hollow profile, which is available anyway, is used to dissipate heat. The heat can be dissipated by air or—in order to obtain a higher cooling capability—by liquids such as water or oil” as taught in paragraph [22] in Baltes.)
Regarding claim 15,
“The manufacturing method of claim 1, wherein the coil has a polygonal cross-sectional geometry.” (Fig. 9 in Ahmed teaches a polygonal cross-section of inductor.)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed, Baltes, and Verhagen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Batista et al., US 20220240586 (hereafter Batista).
“The manufacturing method of claim 1, wherein the coil is recessed vertically into the receptacle from the face surface.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Batista teaches vertically recessed coil into the receptacle of concentrator in Fig. 1. Thus Batista is solving the same problem of designing concentrator and coil arrangement as the instant claim.
PNG
media_image5.png
290
635
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 in Batista
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the coil to be vertically recessed into the receptacle as taught in Batista in the method in Ahmed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The shape of the first flux concentrator 20, and in particular the first and second end portions 26, 28, distort the varying magnetic field so that the varying magnetic field is concentrated in a first portion of the susceptor 16 positioned within the first inductor coil 12” as taught in paragraph [119] in Batista.)
Claim(s) 6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed, Baltes, Verhagen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spatafora et al., US 5755907 (hereafter Spatafora).
Regarding claim 6,
“The manufacturing method of claim 1, wherein the opposing sides of the receptacle laterally flare out as the receptacle extends vertically within the concentrator to the face surface.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Spatafora teaches that opposing sides of the receptacle flare out in Fig. 2.
PNG
media_image6.png
561
677
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 in Spatafora
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the opposite ends of the receptacle to flare out as taught in Spatafora in the method in Ahmed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Flux concentrators can direct, control, and focus the magnetic fields into a specific area of the work coil while keeping it away from areas that do not need heat. The result is that almost all the current is drawn towards the open end of the concentrator and the coil area closest to the workpiece. The efficiency of the coil is increased and localized heating can be enforced” as taught in page 1646, column 1 in Ahmed.)
Regarding claim 9,
“The manufacturing method of claim 1, wherein the concentrator further includes a receptacle surface at least partially forming one of the opposing sides of the receptacle; and” (Annotated Fig. 9 in Ahmed.)
“the receptacle surface extends along a trajectory to an edge between the receptacle surface and the face surface, and the trajectory comprises a vertical component and a lateral component.” (The limitation is interpreted as the opposing sides of the receptacle flare out.
Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Spatafora teaches that opposing sides of the receptacle flare out in Fig. 2.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the opposite ends of the receptacle to flare out as taught in Spatafora in the method in Ahmed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Flux concentrators can direct, control, and focus the magnetic fields into a specific area of the work coil while keeping it away from areas that do not need heat. The result is that almost all the current is drawn towards the open end of the concentrator and the coil area closest to the workpiece. The efficiency of the coil is increased and localized heating can be enforced” as taught in page 1646, column 1 in Ahmed.)
Claim(s) 7, 8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed, Baltes, Verhagen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Loveless et al., US 20070246459(hereafter Loveless).
Regarding claim 7,
“The manufacturing method of claim 1, wherein the concentrator further includes a receptacle surface at least partially forming one of the opposing sides of the receptacle;” (Annotated Fig. 9 in Ahmed.)
“ and at least a portion of the receptacle surface, which extends to an edge between the receptacle surface and the face surface, is configured with a straight sectional geometry.” ( Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Loveless teaches concentrator 11 with leg element 11d between receptacle face and face surface in Fig. 6(b). Leg element 11d comprises straight sectional geometry. Thus, Loveless is solving the same problem of end of receptacle design as the instant claim.
PNG
media_image7.png
523
458
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6(b) in Loveless
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the end of the receptacle as straight sectional as taught in Loveless in the method in Ahmed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Depending on the application and process requirements, different designs of flux concentrators may be used” as taught in paragraph [51] in Loveless.)
Regarding claim 8,
“ The manufacturing method of claim 1, wherein the concentrator further includes a receptacle surface at least partially forming one of the opposing sides of the receptacle; and” (Annotated Fig. 9 in Ahmed.)
Primary combination of references is silent about “at least a portion of the receptacle surface, which extends to an edge between the receptacle surface and the face surface, is configured with a non-straight sectional geometry.”
Loveless teaches “at least a portion of the receptacle surface, which extends to an edge between the receptacle surface and the face surface,” (Loveless teaches concentrator 11 with leg element 11d between receptacle face and face surface in Fig. 6(b).)
“ is configured with a non-straight sectional geometry.” (Fig. 6(b) teaches leg elements with straight sectional geometry.
However, Fig. 8(a) teaches receptacle surface with curved geometry.
Even though Loveless is silent about leg element with non-straight geometry, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the end of the receptacle in Fig. 6(b) as curved as taught in Fig. 8(a) in Loveless. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to change the shape of leg element from straight to non-straight in the method in Ahmed because “Depending on the application and process requirements, different designs of flux concentrators may be used” as taught in paragraph [51] in Loveless. )
Regarding claim 11,
“The manufacturing method of claim 1, wherein the concentrator further includes a receptacle surface forming at least the end of the receptacle; and” (Annotated Fig. 9 in Ahmed.)
“the receptacle surface is configured with a non-straight sectional geometry.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Paragraph [51] in Loveless teaches a C-shaped concentrator. It is understood that a C-shaped concentrator has a non-straight sectional geometry.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the end of the receptacle as non-straight as taught in Loveless in the method in Ahmed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Depending on the application and process requirements, different designs of flux concentrators may be used” as taught in paragraph [51] in Loveless.)
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed, and further in view of Baltes, Verhagen, and Batista.
Regarding claim 16,
“An induction welder for induction welding thermoplastic material, comprising:” (Fig. 9 in Ahmed teaches an induction welder. Abstract teaches induction welding of thermoplastic materials.)
“a coil configured to generate an electromagnetic field; and” (Fig. 9)
“a concentrator configured to concentrate the electromagnetic field” (Fig. 9)
“onto a region of the thermoplastic material,” (This limitation is directed to a material or article worked upon by an apparatus. MPEP 2115 teaches “The courts have held that "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935), In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967).”)
“the concentrator comprising a face surface and a receptacle,” (Annotated Fig. 9)
“ the receptacle projecting vertically into the concentrator from an opening in the face surface to an end of the receptacle,” (Annotated Fig. 9)
“ the receptacle extending laterally within the concentrator between opposing sides of the receptacle,” (Annotated Fig. 9)
Ahmed is silent about “and the receptacle extending longitudinally within the concentrator along a centerline; the coil vertically recessed into and extending longitudinally along the centerline through the coil receptacle, wherein a thermally conductive bonding material bonds and thermally couples the coil with the concentrator.”
Baltes teaches “and the receptacle extending longitudinally within the concentrator along a centerline;” (Paragraph [66] teaches “the two effective sections 24A, 24B of the inductor 20 are enclosed by a concentrator 28A, 28B.” It is understood from Fig. 2A and 2E that concentrators extend longitudinally along coils 24A, 24B in X direction. Thus, the receptacle also extends longitudinally within the concentrator along a centerline.)
“the coil…..extending longitudinally along the centerline through the coil receptacle.” (Fig. 2A and fig. 2E teach that coils are seated and extending longitudinally along the centerline within receptacle.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the receptacle and coil to extend longitudinally along the centerline as taught in Baltes in the induction welder in Ahmed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The advantage of the use of concentrators is that the magnetic field can be concentrated in a targeted way on the desired area” as taught in paragraph [23] in Baltes.
Primary combination of references is silent about “the coil vertically recessed into…receptacle, wherein a thermally conductive bonding material bonds and thermally couples the coil with the concentrator.”
Batista teaches “the coil vertically recessed into…receptacle”( Batista teaches vertically recessed coil into the receptacle of concentrator in Fig. 1. Thus Batista is solving the same problem of designing concentrator and coil arrangement as the instant claim.
PNG
media_image5.png
290
635
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 in Batista
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the coil to be vertically recessed into the receptacle as taught in Batista in the welder in Ahmed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The shape of the first flux concentrator 20, and in particular the first and second end portions 26, 28, distort the varying magnetic field so that the varying magnetic field is concentrated in a first portion of the susceptor 16 positioned within the first inductor coil 12” as taught in paragraph [119] in Batista.)
Primary combination of references is silent about wherein a thermally conductive bonding material bonds and thermally couples the coil with the concentrator.
Verhagen teaches wherein a thermally conductive bonding material bonds and thermally couples the coil with the concentrator (Verhagen teaches thermally conductive potting compound 304 secures the coil with respect to the flux concentrator in paragraph [43].)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add thermally conductive potting compound between coil and concentrator as taught in Verhagen in the welder of Ahmed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The conductive coil is disposed in the potting compound, and the flux concentrator is disposed about the conductive coil and the potting compound such that the flux is concentrated toward the first face” as taught in paragraph [11] in Verhagen.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed, Baltes, Verhagen, and Batista as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Loveless.
“The induction welder of claim 16, wherein the concentrator further includes a receptacle surface; and at least a portion of the receptacle surface extends to an edge between the receptacle surface and the face surface, and the portion of the receptacle surface is configured with a straight sectional geometry.” (Similar scope to claim 7 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed, and further in view of Baltes, Batista, Verhagen, and Spatafora.
“An induction welder for induction welding thermoplastic material, comprising: a coil configured to generate an electromagnetic field; and a concentrator configured to concentrate the electromagnetic field onto a region of the thermoplastic material, the concentrator comprising a face surface and a receptacle, the receptacle projecting vertically into the concentrator from the face surface to an end of the receptacle, the receptacle extending laterally within the concentrator between opposing sides of the receptacle,” (Similar scope to claim 16 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
…“ and the receptacle extending longitudinally within the concentrator along a centerline;” (Similar scope to claim 16 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
“the coil disposed in and extending longitudinally along the centerline through the coil receptacle.” (Ahmed is silent about this limitation.
Fig. 2A and Fig. 2E in Baltes teach that coils are seated and extending longitudinally along the centerline within receptacle.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the coil to dispose and extend longitudinally along the centerline as taught in Baltes in the welder in Ahmed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The advantage of the use of concentrators is that the magnetic field can be concentrated in a targeted way on the desired area” as taught in paragraph [23] in Baltes.)
“the opposing sides of the receptacle flaring laterally out as the receptacle extends vertically to an opening in the face surface,” (Similar scope to claim 6 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
“the coil thermally bonded to the concentrator through a conductive interface.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Verhagen teaches thermally conductive potting compound 304 secures the coil with respect to the flux concentrator in paragraph [43].)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add thermally conductive potting compound between coil and concentrator as taught in Verhagen in the welder of Ahmed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The conductive coil is disposed in the potting compound, and the flux concentrator is disposed about the conductive coil and the potting compound such that the flux is concentrated toward the first face” as taught in paragraph [11] in Verhagen.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/31/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1-11, 13-16, 18-19 have been considered but are not persuasive. The applicant amended the independent claims and argued that this makes the claimed invention distinguishable from prior art. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of prior art as discussed above.
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 FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761