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 .
Status of the Claims
Applicant's submission filed on 2/4/26 (hereinafter Response) has been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1, 9, and 10 have been amended and claim 4 is cancelled. Claims 1-3 and 5-10 remain pending in the application with claim 9 withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,739,852 A to Stevens et al (hereinafter Stevens) in view of US 3,872,939 A to Eckert and further in view of US 2020/0406996 A1 to Kohigashi et al (hereinafter Kohigashi).
Regarding claim 1, Stevens discloses a crawler drive unit which is provided on a vehicle (10) including a vehicle body (12,14) and a running unit (18) including a crawler (28) for causing the vehicle body (12,14) to run, and configured to drive the running unit (18) to transmit a driving force to the crawler (28), the crawler drive unit (Figs. 1-3 & Abstract & col 3 lns 23-32) comprising:
a speed reduction mechanism (190) mounted on the running unit (18), the speed reduction mechanism (190) being configured to transmit the driving force to the crawler (28) provided on the running unit (18) (Figs. 1&2 and Abstract & col 3 lns 23-32); Figs. 1,3,&5 and col 3 ln 63- col 2 ln 2, col 6 lns 34-50, & col 7 lns 3-20);
a transmission mechanism (146, 154, 176) for transmitting the driving force to the speed reduction mechanism (190) (Figs. 1,3,&5 and col 3 ln 63- col 2 ln 2, col 5 ln 55-col 6 ln 34, and col 6 lns 53-63); and
an … motor (128) for applying a rotational force to the transmission mechanism (146, 154, 176) (Figs. 1,3,&5 and col 6 lns 34-64 discloses the motor outputs rotational force to the geartrain 62 which includes the reduction mechanism 190),
wherein the … motor (128) (Annotated Fig. 3) includes:
a motor case (A) (Annotated Fig. 3 – A depicts an exterior surface of the motor 128, which is interpreted as a motor case); and
a motor shaft (130), a part (130) of the motor shaft (130) protruding out of the motor case (A) (Annotated Fig. 3),
wherein the speed reduction mechanism (190) includes: an input part (180) for receiving the driving force input thereto from the transmission mechanism (146, 154, 176) (Figs. 3&5 and col 6 lns 22-51), and
a reduction-side housing (96,104) that rotatably supports the input part (180) (Figs. 3 and 7 & col 4 ln 67 – col 5 ln 29 and col 6 ln 34-50 disclose the housing 96, 104 rotatably support the input part via the ring gear 198),
wherein the motor shaft (130) of the … motor (128) is positioned higher in a direction of gravity than a rotational axis (42) of the input part (180) (Figs. 1,3,&5 depict the shaft 130 of the motor is higher than the axis 42 of the sun gear 180. Noting that although the output shaft 130 of the motor 128 is not labeled in Fig. 5, the shaft rotates about axis 133 which is higher than axis 42.),
PNG
media_image1.png
712
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the transmission mechanism (146, 154, 176) is connected to a tip end (B) of the part (130) of the motor shaft (130) protruding out of the motor case (A) (Annotated Fig. 3), and
wherein the motor case (A) is separated from the speed reduction mechanism (190) … in a width direction of the vehicle body (12,14) that is along a horizontal direction and orthogonal to a front-rear direction along a direction in which the vehicle body (12,14) runs (Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 3 depicts the motor case A is a separate structure, i.e., separated from, the planetary gearset 190, i.e., the speed reduction mechanism in a width direction as indicated by dotted line C.),
wherein the transmission mechanism (146, 154, 176) includes:
a transmission-side housing (98,l06) (Figs. 3 and 7 & col 4 ln 67 – col 5 ln 29 and col 6 ln 34-50), and
a plurality of gears (146, 154, 176) rotatably housed in the transmission-side housing (98,l06), meshing with each other, and arranged in the direction of gravity (Figs. 3&5 and col 6 lns 22-51 disclose the gears are mesh with each other and are interpreted as being arranged in the direction of gravity because the center of each of the gears are vertically spaced from each other, i.e., in the direction of gravity),
wherein … the reduction-side housing (96,104) is … connected to …a surface of the transmission-side housing (98,106) in the width direction of the vehicle body (12,14) (Figs. 1-3 & col 4 ln 67 – col 5 ln 29 and col 6 ln 34-50).
Stevens does not disclose that the motor 128 is an electric motor; and
a support case that protrudes from the motor case in a direction same as a direction in which the motor shaft protrudes out of the motor case and rotatably supports the motor shaft, and
wherein an end of the support case on a side opposite to the motor case is fixed to the transmission mechanism, and
wherein the motor case is separated from the speed reduction mechanism and the crawler in a width direction of the vehicle body that is along a horizontal direction and orthogonal to a front-rear direction along a direction in which the vehicle body runs,
wherein the support case and the reduction-side housing are respectively connected to two surfaces of the transmission-side housing in the width direction of the vehicle body, and
wherein the support case and the reduction-side housing do not overlap each other in the width direction of the vehicle body.
Eckert teaches that it was old and well known in the art of crawlers, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a support case (70) that protrudes from the motor case (60) in a direction same as a direction in which the motor shaft (64) protrudes out of the motor case (60) and rotatably supports the motor shaft (64) (Figs. 1-4 and 8 & col 3 ln 55 - col 4 ln 3), and
PNG
media_image2.png
519
734
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein an end (Z) of the support case (70) on a side opposite to the motor case (60) is fixed to the transmission mechanism (46) (Eckert Annotated Fig .8 and Figs. 1-4 generally & col 3 ln 55 - col 4 ln 3), and
wherein the motor case (60) is separated from the speed reduction mechanism (41,42,52,56,58) and the crawler (10) in a width direction of the vehicle body (1,2,4) that is along a horizontal direction and orthogonal to a front-rear direction along a direction in which the vehicle body (1,2,4) runs (Eckert Annotated Fig .8 and Figs. 1-4 generally).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of crawlers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the crawler disclosed by Stevens to incorporate the above disclosed features as taught by Eckert in order to protect not only the motor as disclosed by Stevens but also the brake (Stevens – 144) “from mud, rocks, or other foreign objects while the vehicle is in operation”, e.g., see Eckert col 3 ln 65 – col 4 ln 3, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
PNG
media_image3.png
736
726
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that by modifying Stevens in view of the teachings of Eckert by adding the support case 70 of Eckert between the motor case A of Stevens and the transmission mechanism 146, 154, 176 of Stevens, the resulting structure teaches wherein the support case (Eckert – 70) and the reduction-side housing (Stevens – 96, 104) are respectively connected to two surfaces of the transmission-side housing (Stevens – 98, 106) in the width direction of the vehicle body (Stevens 12,14) (Annotated Stevens/Eckert Fig. 3 and Stevens Figs. 1-2 and passages discussed above), and
wherein the support case (Eckert – 70) and the reduction-side housing (Stevens – 96, 104) do not overlap each other in the width direction of the vehicle body (Stevens 12,14) (Annotated Stevens/Eckert Fig. 3 and Stevens Figs. 1-2 and passages discussed above - noting that the vehicle width direction is from right to left across Annotated Stevens/Eckert Fig. 3).
Kohigashi teaches that it was old and well known in the art of crawlers used in construction, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the vehicle body of the crawler to be driven by an electric motor (2) driving a belt (17) (Fig. 4B & [0019]-[0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of crawlers used in construction before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive system of the crawler disclosed by the modified combination of Stevens/Eckert to incorporate for the motor to be an electric as taught by Kohigashi in order to utilize an alternative power source which would be known in the art as being quieter, lower cost, and/or lower maintenance and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, Stevens further discloses wherein a rotational axis (133) of the motor shaft (130) is parallel to the rotational axis (42) of the input part (180) (Figs. 3&5).
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Stevens/Eckert/Kohigashi further discloses wherein the electric motor (Stevens – 128/Kohigashi - 2) protrudes out of the speed reduction mechanism (Stevens –190) in the width direction of the vehicle body (Stevens –14) (Stevens - Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 3 depicts the motor protruding out in a width direction of the vehicle body. See also Kohigashi – Fig. 4B).
It would have been obvious to have modified Stevens in view of the teachings of Ecker/Kohigashi for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 5, depending on claim 1, Stevens further discloses wherein the transmission mechanism (146, 154, 176) reduces rotation of the motor shaft (130) and transmits the reduced rotation to the input part (180) (Figs. 3&5 and col 6 lns 22-51, 53-63 and col 7, lns 3-20).
Regarding claim 6, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Stevens/Eckert/Kohigashi further discloses wherein the electric motor (Stevens – 128/Eckert - 60/Kohigashi - 2) is entirely positioned higher than the rotational axis (Stevens – 42/Eckert - 41) of the input part (Stevens – 180/Eckert – 40/Kohigashi – 34B) (Stevens Fig. 1. Eckert Figs. 1-4 and 8 & col 3 ln 46 – col 4 ln 3. Kohigashi – Fig. 4B depicts a vertical alignment of the motor 2, the transmission 3, and the wheel W1 but it is unclear if the motor is higher than the axis of the input part 34B of wheel W1, however, Figs. 3A/B make it clear that that electric motor, if positioned in a vertical arrangement with the transmission 3 and the wheel W1 is entirely above the axis of the input part 180.).
It would have been obvious to have modified Stevens in view of the teachings of Eckert/Kohigashi for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 7, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Stevens/Eckert/Kohigashi further discloses wherein a bottom edge of the electric motor (Stevens – 128/Eckert – 60/Kohigashi - 2) is aligned with a bottom surface of the vehicle body (Stevens – 12,14/Eckert – 1,2,4), or the electric motor (Stevens – 128/Eckert - 60/Kohigashi - 2) is entirely positioned higher than the bottom surface of the vehicle body (Stevens – 12,14/Eckert – 1,2,4) (Stevens - Annotated Fig. 1 depicts the motor 128 is aligned with a bottom surface of the vehicle body 14. See also Figs. 2, 3, 5 and col 7 lns 37-57 to solidify point that box labeled motor in annotated Fig. 1 is motor 128 as the motor is part of final drive 50 which is represented as a square. Eckert – Figs. 1-4 and Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to have modified Stevens in view of the teachings of Eckert/Kohigashi for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 8, depending on claim 1, Stevens further discloses wherein the speed reduction mechanism (190) is housed such that at least part thereof is contained within the crawler (28) in the width direction of the vehicle body (14) (Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Stevens discloses a construction machine (Fig. 1 & Abstract) comprising:
a vehicle body (12,14) (Figs. 1&2 and col 3 lns 23-32);
a running unit (18) for causing the vehicle body (14) to run (Figs. 1&2 and Abstract & col 3 lns 23-32);
a speed reduction mechanism (190) provided in the running unit (18), the speed reduction mechanism (190) being configured to transmit a driving force to a crawler (28) provided on the running unit (18) (Figs. 1,3,&5 and col 3 ln 63- col 2 ln 2, col 6 lns 34-50, & col 7 lns 3-20);
a transmission mechanism (146, 154, 176) for transmitting the driving force to the speed reduction mechanism (190) (Figs. 1,3,&5 and col 3 ln 63- col 2 ln 2, col 5 ln 55-col 6 ln 34, and col 6 lns 53-63); and
an … motor (128) protruding out of the speed reduction mechanism (190) in a width direction of the vehicle body (14), the … motor (128) being configured to apply a rotational force to the speed reduction mechanism (190) (Fig. 2 depicts the motor protruding out in a width direction of the vehicle body. Figs. 1,3,&5 and col 6 lns 34-64 discloses the motor outputs rotational force to the geartrain 62 which includes the reduction mechanism 190),
wherein the … motor (128) (Annotated Fig. 3) includes:
a motor case (A) (Annotated Fig. 3 – A depicts an exterior surface of the motor 128, which is interpreted as a motor case); and
a motor shaft (130), a part (130) of the motor shaft (130) protruding out of the motor case (A) (Annotated Fig. 3),
wherein the transmission mechanism (146, 154, 176) reduces rotation of the motor shaft (130) of the … motor (128) and transmits the reduced rotation to the speed reduction mechanism (190) (Figs. 3&5 and col 5 lns 30-54 and col 6 lns 34-50 disclose the motor shaft is connected to the transmission mechanism which reduces rotation of the motor shaft and the transmission mechanism is connected to an additional speed reduction mechanism 190),
wherein a bottom edge of the … motor (128) is aligned with a bottom surface of the vehicle body (14), or the … motor (128) is entirely positioned higher than the bottom surface of the vehicle body (14) (Annotated Fig. 1 depicts the motor 128 is aligned with a bottom surface of the vehicle body 14. See also Figs. 2, 3, 5 and col 7 lns 37-57 to solidify point that box labeled motor in annotated Fig. 1 is motor 128 as the motor is part of final drive 50 which is represented as a square.),
wherein the transmission mechanism (146, 154, 176) is connected to a tip end (B) of the part (130) of the motor shaft (130) protruding out of the motor case (A) (Annotated Fig. 3), and
wherein the motor case (A) is separated from the speed reduction mechanism (190) … in a width direction of the vehicle body (12,14) that is along a horizontal direction and orthogonal to a front-rear direction along a direction in which the vehicle body (12,14) runs (Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 3 depicts the motor case A is a separate structure, i.e., separated from, the planetary gearset 190, i.e., the speed reduction mechanism in a width direction as indicated by dotted line C.),
wherein the speed reduction mechanism (190) includes: an input part (180) for receiving the driving force input thereto from the transmission mechanism (146, 154, 176) (Figs. 3&5 and col 6 lns 22-51), and
a reduction-side housing (96,104) that rotatably supports the input part (180) (Figs. 3 and 7 & col 4 ln 67 – col 5 ln 29 and col 6 ln 34-50 disclose the housing 96, 104 rotatably support the input part via the ring gear 198),
wherein the transmission mechanism (146, 154, 176) includes:
a transmission-side housing (98,l06) (Figs. 3 and 7 & col 4 ln 67 – col 5 ln 29 and col 6 ln 34-50), and
a plurality of gears (146, 154, 176) rotatably housed in the transmission-side housing (98,l06), meshing with each other, and arranged in the direction of gravity (Figs. 3&5 and col 6 lns 22-51 disclose the gears are mesh with each other and are interpreted as being arranged in the direction of gravity because the center of each of the gears are vertically spaced from each other, i.e., in the direction of gravity),
wherein … the reduction-side housing (96,104) is … connected to …a surface of the transmission-side housing (98,106) in the width direction of the vehicle body (12,14) (Figs. 1-3 & col 4 ln 67 – col 5 ln 29 and col 6 ln 34-50).
Stevens does not disclose that the motor 128 is an electric motor; and
a support case that protrudes from the motor case in a direction same as a direction in which the motor shaft protrudes out of the motor case and rotatably supports the motor shaft, and
wherein an end of the support case on a side opposite to the motor case is fixed to the transmission mechanism, and
wherein the motor case is separated from the speed reduction mechanism and the crawler in a width direction of the vehicle body that is along a horizontal direction and orthogonal to a front-rear direction along a direction in which the vehicle body runs,
wherein the motor case is separated from the speed reduction mechanism and the crawler in a width direction of the vehicle body that is along a horizontal direction and orthogonal to a front-rear direction along a direction in which the vehicle body runs,
wherein the support case and the reduction-side housing are respectively connected to two surfaces of the transmission-side housing in the width direction of the vehicle body, and
wherein the support case and the reduction-side housing do not overlap each other in the width direction of the vehicle body.
Eckert teaches that it was old and well known in the art of crawlers, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a support case (70) that protrudes from the motor case (60) in a direction same as a direction in which the motor shaft (64) protrudes out of the motor case (60) and rotatably supports the motor shaft (64) (Figs. 1-4 and 8 & col 3 ln 55 - col 4 ln 3), and
wherein an end (Z) of the support case (70) on a side opposite to the motor case (60) is fixed to the transmission mechanism (46) (Eckert Annotated Fig .8 and Figs. 1-4 generally & col 3 ln 55 - col 4 ln 3), and
wherein the motor case (60) is separated from the speed reduction mechanism (41,42,52,56,58) and the crawler (10) in a width direction of the vehicle body (1,2,4) that is along a horizontal direction and orthogonal to a front-rear direction along a direction in which the vehicle body (1,2,4) runs (Eckert Annotated Fig .8 and Figs. 1-4 generally).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of crawlers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the crawler disclosed by Stevens to incorporate the above disclosed features as taught by Eckert in order to protect not only the motor as disclosed by Stevens but also the brake (Stevens – 144) “from mud, rocks, or other foreign objects while the vehicle is in operation”, e.g., see Eckert col 3 ln 65 – col 4 ln 3, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Examiner notes that by modifying Stevens in view of the teachings of Eckert by adding the support case 70 of Eckert between the motor case A of Stevens and the transmission mechanism 146, 154, 176 of Stevens, the resulting structure teaches wherein the support case (Eckert – 70) and the reduction-side housing (Stevens – 96, 104) are respectively connected to two surfaces of the transmission-side housing (Stevens – 98, 106) in the width direction of the vehicle body (Stevens 12,14) (Annotated Stevens/Eckert Fig. 3 and Stevens Figs. 1-2 and passages discussed above), and
wherein the support case (Eckert – 70) and the reduction-side housing (Stevens – 96, 104) do not overlap each other in the width direction of the vehicle body (Stevens 12,14) (Annotated Stevens/Eckert Fig. 3 and Stevens Figs. 1-2 and passages discussed above - noting that the vehicle width direction is from right to left across Annotated Stevens/Eckert Fig. 3).
Kohigashi teaches that it was old and well known in the art of crawlers used in construction, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the vehicle body of the crawler to be driven by an electric motor (2) driving a belt (17) (Fig. 4B & [0019]-[0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of crawlers used in construction before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive system of the crawler disclosed by the modified combination of Stevens/Eckert to incorporate for the motor to be an electric as taught by Kohigashi in order to utilize an alternative power source which would be known in the art as being quieter, lower cost, and/or lower maintenance and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Response directed toward the 35 USC § 103 rejection of the claims under Stevens in view of Eckert and further in view of Kohigashi have been fully considered and they are not persuasive. See Response pp. 8-12.
On pp. 10-11 Applicant makes the merely conclusory statement that any combination of Stevens and Kohigashi does not disclose amended claim 1, and then goes on to argue that Eckert individually does not disclose the amended claim limitation. However, this argument is not persuasive because one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As discussed above, it is the modification of Stevens in view of the teachings of Eckert and Kohigashi that together disclose the amended claim limitations. Therefore this argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., visibility from the outside and high maintainability) are not recited in the rejected claims. See Response pp. 10-11. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
For at least the above reasons Applicants arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. 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 B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611