DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Responsive to the communication dated 6/2/2026
Claims 6 and 14 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 9, 17 are amended.
Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 13, 15 - 20 are presented for examination.
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant has amended the independent claims to include the elements of cancelled claims 6 and 14. The independent claims now further recite: “… wherein validating comprises: calculating a sweep path of the tube; and validating consistency of circular cross-section of the tube…” The Applicant asserts that these elements are not made obvious by the previously cited prior art.
In response the Examiner notes the following teachings found in various prior art documents.
Zhe_2016 teaches a “means to create editable 3D parts quickly” (abstract). The method teaches “using the 3-Sweep modeling technique” that uses “a piecewise linear centerline to sweep a cross-section which is assumed to be perpendicular to the centerline at every location. One type of primitive uses a circular cross-section that can vary in radius along the sweep” where “such decomposition is both easy and intuitive for users, but provides the computer significant information for reconstructing a coherent 3D man-made objects from its parts projections” (page 122 section 3 overview par 1 – 2).
Shen_2016 further teaches “sweeps it along a curve that approximates the main axis of the 3D part.” And that “as the curve is drawn, copies of the profile are placed along the curve, and each of them is snapped to the object outline” and “at each sampled point Ai, a copy of the profile is created, centered around the curve. Its normal is aligned with the orientation of the curve at Ai, and its diameter is adjusted so that it’s projection on the image will fit the object’s outline. Together, the adjusted copies of the profile in 3D form a discrete set of slices along the generalized cylinder, as shown in Figure 3c.” (page 23 section 4 “sweeping” par 1 – 2)
PNG
media_image1.png
411
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Zhe_2016 teaches to “apply a post-snapping stage to better fit the primitive” by “search for small transformations (+- 10% of primitive size) and changes the vertical angle of view (+-10%) that create a better fit of the primitive’s projection to the edge curves” and explicitly teaches to do this for cylinders by teaching “we can also constrain the profile to be a square or a circle.” (page 124 post-processing par 1 – 2).
Therefore, Zhe_2016 teaches “calculating a sweep path of the tube; and validating consistency of circular cross-section of the tube” because the post processing step checks verifies that the circular cross section is within +- 10%,
Kerautrek_2015 teaches a B-spline “centerline extraction algorithm” (page 3 section 2) that “extracts an approximate centerline”
PNG
media_image2.png
425
834
media_image2.png
Greyscale
And then verifies the centerline by checking the circular cross section. Page 8 section 2.3 states:
Since the resulting tracking skeleton is embedded in a digital space, it suffers from digitization artefacts and is not perfectly centered within the input mesh. Moreover, depending on normal mesh quality, the tracking algorithm can potentially be influenced by perturbated normal directions, and may deviate from the expected centerline. Such perturbations can dramatically degrade the quality of upcoming geometric analysis, and hence impose some unwanted post processing tasks. To avoid such a difficulty, we propose to apply an optimization algorithm in order to obtain a perfectly centered spine line. The idea is to model the quality of the current fitting by an error Es(C), defined as the sum of the squared difference between the known tube radius R and the distance between the tube center C and its associated input mesh points Mi. We wish to find the best position for center C that minimizes this error. Otherwise said, we look for the circle of radius R that best fits the data points Mi in the least-square sense.
Therefore, Kerautrek_2015 teaches “calculating a sweep path of the tube; and validating consistency of circular cross-section of the tube.”
End Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 9, 17, 2, 10, 18, 3, 11, 19, 4, 12, 8, 16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-wswasi_2019 (A novel and smart interactive feature recognition system for rotational parts using a STEP file, The international Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2019) in view of Velden_2010 (Extracting Engineering Features from B-Rep Geometric Models, 27th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, ICAS 2010) in view of Requicha_1980 (Representations of Rigid Solids: Theory, Methods, and Systems, Production Automation Project, College of Engineering and Applied Science, The University of Rochester, Computing Surveys, Vol. No. 4 December 1980) in view of Garimella_2017 (US 2017/0032057 A1) in view of Kerautret_2015 (3D Geometric Analysis of Tubular Objects based on Surface Normal Accumulation, HAL open science, June 23, 2015).
Claim 1. Al-wswasi_2019 makes obvious “A method for automatically identifying tube elements in a[STEP] computer Aided Design (CAD) model of a tube (abstract: “… automatic feature recognition (AFR) is considered an indispensable concept for transferring product data between computer-aided design (CAD)… this paper presents a novel and smart interactive AFR (SI-AFR) methodology…”; Fig. 12 illustrates internal passages. Fig. 19 illustrates internal passage. Table 4 indicates that the internal passage of Fig 19 is a cylindrical through shape. Fig. 9 illustrates a tube with toroidal face/surface. EXAMINER NOTE: the object illustrated in FIG. 19 is a “tube” because there is an internal through hole. The thickness of the walls of the “tube” simply vary along the length of the tube. Further, the object of Fig. 9 illustrates a tube because it also has a through hole.), the method comprising: extracting, by an element recognition device, information corresponding to the [STEP] CAD model of the tube (abstract: “… extract the features’ geometrical and topological information from a STEP file…”; 265 section 3: “extracting geometrical and topological data from STEP files. STEP is an International Standard (ISO 10303) that is computer readable…”); classifying, by the element recognition device, each of a plurality of faces of the tube into one of a set of face types upon successful validation, wherein the set of face types comprises a top face, a bottom face, or a lateral face, wherein the top face is located on outer surface of the tube, the bottom face is located on inner surface of the tube, and the lateral face is located on cross-section of the tube” (page 266 section 3.1.2 surfaces: “a surface is an indicator of the face type which can take only one prospect, such as a plane, cylindrical, conical, and toroidal… a cylindrical surface… toroidal surface…” Fig. 3 illustrates a classification into top faces and lateral faces of a cylinder. FIG. 19 illustrates classification of top faces on the outside of the object. This is further shown in Table 3 “external features”. Feature number 1 “Facing”, in table 3, is a lateral facing classification. FIG. 19 also illustrates classification of bottom faces located on the inner surface of the tube. Table 4 “internal shape” shows the inner surface classifications. Also, FIG. 12 and associated paragraphs clearly teach the classification of faces into outer surfaces, inner surfaces, and lateral surfaces.); determining, by the element recognition device, one or more regions on the tube using a set of connected top faces on the tube wherein each of the one or more regions is a section of the tube with a consistent sweep path, and wherein each of the one or more regions is one of a length region, a bend region, or a spline region (FIG. 8, 9, 19 Table 3, Table 4);
While Al-wswasi_2019 teaches and ISO 10303 STEP file, and while this may be properly found to make obvious a “Boundary Representation (B-REP)-based” computer Aided Design (CAD) model because those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an ISO 10303 STEP file is a file format that is used for B-Rep models, nevertheless, Al-wswasi_2019 does not EXPLICITLY recite “Boundary Representation (B-REP)-based” nor “B-REP-based.”
Al-wswasi_2019 does not teach “validating, by the element recognition device, geometrical features of the B-REP based CAD model of the tube based on the extracted information wherein validating comprises: calculating a sweep path of the tube; and validating consistency of circular cross-section of the tube”
Al-wswasi_2019 does not teach “Generating, by the element recognition device, a plurality of primary tube elements based on shapes of the plurality of regions, wherein each of the plurality of primary tube elements is one of a bend element, a length element, or a spline element.”
Velden_2010; however, makes obvious “Boundary Representation (B-REP)-based” and “B-REP-based” CAD models (abstract: “… Automatic Feature Recognition (AFR)… this paper introduces a new AFR framework for extracting analysis features from B-Rep models (in STEP format)…” EXAMINER NOTE: this citation clearly teaches that B-Rep models are in STEP file format.).
Al-wswasi_2019 and Velden_2010 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called feature recognition/CAD tools. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Al-wswasi_2019 and Velden_2010. The rationale for doing so would have been that Al-wswasi_2019 teaches to extract data from STEP files in order to perform Automatic Feature Recognition, and Velden_2010 explicitly teaches that STEP files contain B-Rep models. Therefore, Velden_2010 makes clear that the ISO STEP files taught by Al-wswasi_2019 contain B-Rep models. Therefore, it would have been obvious to Al-wswasi_2019 and Velden_2010 for the benefit of having access to International Standard Organization formatted STEP files that provide a standard interoperable format that contain the B-Rep data needed to perform Automatic Feature Recognition to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Al-wswasi_2019 and Velden_2010 does not teach “validating, by the element recognition device, geometrical features of the B-REP based CAD model of the tube based on the extracted information wherein validating comprises: calculating a sweep path of the tube; and validating consistency of circular cross-section of the tube”
Requicha_1980, however, makes obvious “validating, by the element recognition device, geometrical features of the B-REP based CAD model of the tube based on the extracted information” (page 442 section 1.4.2: “… representational validity is of obvious importance in ensuring the integrity of databases, in that databases should not contain symbol structures which correspond to nonsense objects. Invoking a geometric algorithm on an invalid representation may produce a system crash, obviously suspect result, or, in the worst case, results which appear to be credible but are in fact meaningless… this may be done by providing algorithms to check the validity of representations after they have been constructed…”).
Al-wswasi_2019 and Requicha_1980 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called computer-based systems for modeling geometry. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Al-wswasi_2019 and Requicha_1980. The rationale for doing so would have been Al-wswasi_2019 teaches to extract geometric representational data from a STEP file (i.e., B-Rep based CAD model) and to use this information for sharing and collaboration with other downstream application (See abstract: “… transferring product data between computer-aided design (CAD) and automatic computer-aided process planning (ACAPP)…”). Requicha_1980 explicitly teaches that validation of geometric representations is “of obvious importance” because ensuring integrity of data prevents system crashes and erroneous results from the CAD tools. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Al-wswasi_2019 and Requicha_1980 for the benefit of preventing system crashes and erroneous results caused by incorrect geometrical features in the CAD model to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Al-wswasi_2019 and Velden_2010 and Requicha_1980 does not teach “wherein validating comprises: calculating a sweep path of the tube; and validating consistency of circular cross-section of the tube”
Al-wswasi_2019 and Velden_2010 and Requicha_1980 does not teach “Generating, by the element recognition device, a plurality of primary tube elements based on shapes of the plurality of regions, wherein each of the plurality of primary tube elements is one of a bend element, a length element, or a spline element.”
Garimella_2017, however, makes obvious “Generating, by the element recognition device, a plurality of primary tube elements based on shapes of the plurality of regions, wherein each of the plurality of primary tube elements is one of a bend element, a length element, or a spline element” (FIG. 1 block 108: Display Device 118: GUI 120 Pipe Routing Run; FIG. 3 illustrates straight and bend elements of a pipe. FIG. 4 406 Pipe 1, 408 Elbow; FIG. 8; FIG. 14 block 1406: “cause a display device to output a 3D representation of the routing run based at least in part on the distributed routing path stored in the data store…” par 29: “in example embodiments… the GUI may be used by a user to generate, modify, and display a three dimensional (3D) representation…”; par 33: “… CAD software may thus open the file and generate a rendering of the pipeline routing assembly…”).
Al-wswasi_2019 and Garimella_2017 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called computer-based systems for modeling geometry. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Al-wswasi_2019 and Garimella_2017. The rationale for doing so would have been Al-wswasi_2019 teaches a software application that extracts geometric representational data from a STEP file (i.e., B-Rep based CAD model) and to use this information for sharing and collaboration with other downstream application (See abstract: “… transferring product data between computer-aided design (CAD) and automatic computer-aided process planning (ACAPP)…”). Garimella_2017 teaches to have a “collaborative virtual mechanical routing development system and method” (title) that “facilitates collaborative development of virtual mechanical routing” (abstract) that takes as input CAD data and generates a graphical display of the mechanical objects/geometric representations. Indeed, Garimella_2017 explicitly teaches that “the described application software component 104 that carries out the features described herein may… be integrated into CAD/CAM/CAE… and/or any other type of software that may be used to develop a mechanical routing system…” (par 26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Al-wswasi_2019 and Garimella_2017 for the benefit of collaborating between upstream and downstream software in the mechanical product development process and also because Garimella_2017 explicitly teaches to combine features such as generating a graphical display of geometric objects with “any other type of software” to obtain the invention as specified in the claims. It would also simply be beneficial for a user to see a graphical image of the geometric object.
Kerautret_2015 makes obvious ““wherein validating comprises: calculating a sweep path of the tube; and validating consistency of circular cross-section of the tube” (
PNG
media_image3.png
299
823
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
142
825
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
694
848
media_image5.png
Greyscale
EXAMINER NOTE: Kerautret_2015 teaches to extract a B-spline centerline and then to verify the centerline by minimizing the circular cross section.)
Requicha_1980 and Kerautret_2015 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called geometric models and/or representations. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Requicha_1980 and Kerautret_2015.
The rationale for doing so would have been that Requicha_1980 teaches to “ensure that geometric algorithms and system operate on valid data (pag439) and teaches properties of geometric representation shcemes include “validity” and teaches “providing algorithms to check the validity of representations after they have been constructed” (page 442) and teaches to enforce “consistency” (page 445). Kerautret_2015 teaches digitization inaccuracies may result in geometric representations that can dramatically degrade the quality of geometric analysis (page 8 section 2.3 par 1) and then teaches to verify the location of geometric elements with an algorithms that compares the circular cross section to verify the sweep path of a tube for the purpose of ensuring the validity of the sweep path.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Requicha_1980 and Kerautret_2015 for the benefit of ensuring that geometric data used in geometric analysis is valid and does not degrade the analysis to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 9. The limitations of claim 9 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1. Further Garimella_2017 makes obvious the additional limitations of “A system… the system comprising: a processor; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory stores processor-executable instructions, which, on execution, cause the processor to:” (FIG. 1; FIG. 15; par 25: “… the system 100 may include at least one processor 102 that is configured to execute one or more application software components 104 from a memory 106 in order to carry out the various features described here…”).
Claim 17. The limitations of claim 17 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1. Further, Garimella_2017 makes obvious the additional limitations of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions… the computer-executable instructions configured for…” (par 5: “… non-transitory computer readable medium encoded with executable instructions (such as software component on a storage device) that when executed, causes at least one processor to carry out this described method…”).
Claim 2, 10, 18. Al-wswasi_2019 makes obvious “further comprising generating a set of secondary tube elements based on the plurality of primary tube elements” (FIG. 9 illustrates a secondary tube element d based on merging primary symmetrical toroidal elements illustrated in c.; Table 4: Through internal shape is a secondary tube element based on three primary tube elements: Right Axial Groove Element, Cylindrical Element, Two Side Tapered Groove Element.).
Garimella_2017 makes obvious “further comprising generating a set of secondary tube elements based on the plurality of primary tube elements” (FIG. 4 424 routing assembly is a secondary tube element based on, for example, a pipe 406 and elbow 408; FIG. 9 illustrates primary elements pipe 304 and elbow 306 that FIG 8 is based on.).
Claim 3, 11, 19. Al-wswasi_2019 illustrates a convex shape around a cylinder in Fig. 6 which may properly make obvious “wherein the set of secondary tube elements comprise a collar element” to those of ordinary skill in the art because a “collar” is simply a device or component that fits around a tube/pipe/etc. and Fig. 6 clearly illustrates a component that fits around a cylinder, nevertheless, Al-wswasi_2019 does not EXPLICITY recite “collar.”
Garimella_2017, however, teaches a pipe flange (FIG. 4 404 Flange/A; FIG. 9 304 Flange 1/A. par 31: “… pipeline routing runs may also include elements such as fittings 216 (e.g., flanges/elbows/tees)… that are used in the construction of these pipelines…” EXAMINER NOTE: In FIG 8 and 9 the pipe flanges are collars that connect pipes to other pipes and other equipment.
Therefore, it would be obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art to have a device or component that fits around a tube/pipe/etc. for the benefit of connecting elements in a mechanical assembly together.
Claim 4, 12, 20. Al-wswasi_2019 makes obvious “wherein extracting information further comprises identifying the plurality of faces from the B-Rep based CAD model of the tube” (page 267: “… the parser that was developed in this work imports a STEP AP 203 file and scans all of its lines to find many closed shells there are in the design as well as how many faces each contain. Then, each face is displayed with all of its geometrical and topological information…”).
Claim 8, 16. Al-wswasi_2019 makes obvious “further comprising: determining a plurality of element parameters of each of the plurality of tube elements of the tube; and determining a plurality of tube parameters of the tube based on the plurality of element parameters” (Fig. 20, Table 3, Table 4).
Claims 5, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-wswasi_2019 in view of Velden_2010 in view of Requicha_1980 in view of Garimella_2017 in view of Kerautret_2015 in view of Li_2015 (Hint-based generic shape feature recognition from three-dimensional B-rep models, Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 2015).
Claim 5, 13. Al-wswasi_2019 makes obvious “wherein validating geometrical features of the B-Rep based CAD model comprises: determining a tube type for the tube corresponding to the B-Rep based CAD model based on the extracted information, wherein the tube type is one of a hollow type, a solid type, or a mixed type (Fig. 3 is a solid cylinder type, Fig 8 and 9 are hollow, Fig. 11 is cylinder with a blind hole which mixes hollow and solid. Fig. 12 is also of type mixed. Fig. 19 as per Fig. 20 determines the tube to be a “closed shell” which is hollow) and wherein determining comprises: Identifying one or more faces from the plurality of faces in the B-Rep-based CAD model; and analyzing the one or more faces of the B-Rep-based CAD model to determine the tube type” (Fig. 20 illustrates that the closed shell is identified according to at least a plurality of faces 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. )
Li_2015, however, makes obvious “… one or more clue faces…” (abstract: “… meaningful shape features need to be recognized from the B-rep models… by analyzing the shape variation or hint for a Boolean operation in computer-aided design modeling…”; page 2: “… in this article, a novel hint-based generic shape feature recognition approach is proposed… a hint-based general shape feature recognition approach… such shape variations can be defined as hints…”).
Al-wswasi_2019 and Li_2015 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called recognition of B-rep models. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Al-wswasi_2019 and Li_2015. The rationale for doing so would have been Al-wswasi_2019 teaches to recognize parts from B-rep models (STEP) files and Li_2015 teaches a hint-based approach that is capable of recognizing intersecting features using hints about Boolean operations that allow the identification of generic shape features. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Al-wswasi_2019 and Li_2015 for the benefit of being able to recognize fundamental shape features when more complex intersecting features exist in the B-Rep model to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claims 7, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-wswasi_2019 in view of Velden_2010 in view of Requicha_1980 in view of Garimella_2017 in view of Kerautret_2015 in view of Li_2015 in view of Kang_2003 (An approach for interlinking design and process planning, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 139 (2003)).
Claim 7, 15. Kang_2003 makes obvious “further comprising: determining thickness of the tube based on the tube type using the extracted information; and Validating uniformity of the determined thickness of the tube” (section 2.3: “… STEP is aimed to define a standard file that includes all information necessary to describe a product from design to production… including materials, part geometry, dimensions and tolerances…”; section 3: “… a tolerance processor, a feature recognizer… the tolerance processor assigns the relevant technology information such as surface roughness, and dimensional and geometric tolerance. The outcome is a geometry model with tolerance assignments… once a physical STEP file of AP224 format is generated, any downstream activities… can be annotated. Page 592: “… tolerance information is to be attached to the Parasolid model… surface roughness, straightness, flatness, cylindricity, and so no… dimensional tolerance can be face to face, face to edge, face to vertex, edge to vertex of vertex to vertex…” Fig. 4 shows the data structure array”).
Al-wswasi_2019 and Kang_2003 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called B-Rep Models and geometric representations. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Al-wswasi_2019 and Kang_2003. The rationale for doing so would have been that Al-wswasi_2019 teaches to extract B-rep model data from STEP files and Kang_2003 explicitly teaches to have STEP files that include tolerancing information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Al-wswasi_2019 and Kang_2003 for the benefit of having tolerancing information to improve the quality of the mechanical system to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Additionally, Requicha_1980 and Kang_2003 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called geometric representations. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Requicha_1980 and Kang_2003. Kang_2003 explicitly teaches to have STEP files that include tolerancing information and Requicha_1980 teaches that it is important to verify geometric data to avoid system crashes and incorrect results when using the model data and also to perform consistency verification. Therefore, in combination, Kang_2003 teaches to include tolerancing information about the geometric parts into STEP files such as face-to-face tolerances. Al-wswasi_2019 teaches to read geometric information from STEP files and Requicha_1980 teaches to verify geometric information before using it. Therefore, it would be obvious to “determining thickness of the tube based on the tube type using the extracted information; and Validating uniformity of the determined thickness of the tube” because an inside face to outside face is a thickness tolerance defined by a face-to-face tolerance which would be verified when extracting it from a STEP file.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN S COOK whose telephone number is (571)272-4276. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/BRIAN S COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights