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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 10/28/2024 is acknowledged. Correction to the restriction requirement, the article claims 1-8 should be claims 1-9 and the process claims are claims 10-17. Claims 1-9 will be examined. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction takes the position that the restriction is proper because “Group I does not require a method of manufacturing the concrete construction wherein the reinforcing elements are fed simultaneously together with the cementitious material through the same printer head or nozzle”. Applicant argues that the restriction requirement merely provides conclusory statements and does not provide any citation or reference to relevant prior art. Applicant states that MPEP 1850 18.07.02 indicates that the Examiner should insert citation of prior art references demonstrating the shared technical feature does not make a contribution.
This is not found persuasive because the restriction under unity of invention was not made based on a special technical feature that shared in Group I and Group II, instead the restriction requirement is based on the fact that the inventions are not so linked as to from a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. As the article of claim 1 does not require the method of making the concrete construction via 3D printing, the two inventions are not so linked. There is no prior art reference cited because the restriction requirement is not based on the special technical feature providing a contribution over the prior art and therefore no citation required.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the positioning elements, polymer coating or stitches must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (WO2019092169) in view of Hubmann (US3744202) and Cornelus et al (EP 3201381).
Mayer is directed to reinforcement of 3D-printed concrete bodies (Title). Mayer teaches method for producing a component (1) from hardenable material, wherein, in a first method step, at least one layer (2, 3) of the material is printed in a 3D printing process in one direction, in a second method step at least one reinforcing element is introduced into the layer(s) (2, 3) and the two method steps are cyclically repeated until the component (1) is completed, characterized in that each reinforcing element is in the form of a strand (4) extending in the direction of the layers (2, 3) and having an oscillating, periodic pattern perpendicular to the layers (2, 3), and each reinforcing element extends over at least two layers (2, 3) (ABST).
Mayer teaches reinforcement strands, 4, extending in the direction of the layers can be steel [0018] and are equated with the at least two flexible longitudinal elongated steel elements.
Mayer differs and does not teach transverse strands.
Mayer differs and does not teach positioning elements.
Mayer differs and does not teach a polymer coating or stitches.
Hubmann is directed to a constructional element comprising two concrete shells which are reinforced by steel mats by parallel mat strips which are bent so as to connect the two shells. Hubmann teaches the mats comprise a plurality of elongated first steel mats projecting from said shell in spacedly parallel relationship, each mat including:
1. a plurality of substantially U-shaped rod members extending in respective planes transverse to the direction of mat elongation, each rod member having two leg portions partly embedded in said shell and a bight portion connecting respective ends of said leg portions, said bight portions defining a first plane substantially parallel to said wall shell and remote from the same, and
2. a plurality of longitudinal rod members elongated in the direction of mat elongation between said wall shell and said first plane and fixedly fastened to said leg portions so as to connect said U-shaped members; and
c. a substantially planar second mat of intersecting steel rods fixedly secured to said longitudinal members in a second plane substantially parallel to said first plane and to said wall shell and spacedly interposed between the same (claims 1 and 2).
Hubmann teaches longitudinal strands and transverse strands.
The wall shell 1 has additional elongated strips 6 of constructional steel mats or matting. The strips are parallel to each other and arranged with a spacing between them. The side edges or edge portions 7 are woven into the basic reinforcement 5 of this shell and concreted into the shell. Between the side edges 7 these strips 6 of mat are bent approximately in a U-shape out of the shell 1, through the intermediate concrete 3 and into the oppositely placed wall shell so as to form connecting loops, in such a manner that the loop heads 8 at the bight of the U-shape pass through the mesh openings of the mat 4 of this shell 2. Between this mat 4 and the loop heads passing through it dowel pins 9 are inserted in order to anchor the mat strips 6 on the mat 4. The dowel pins 9 are concreted in place in the wall shell 2.
The two wall shells 1 and 2 are so pre-fabricated and connected by means of the strips 6 of mat bent into an U-shape, to form a coherent assembly unit, that the whole can be transported to the building side and connected with similar assembly units. The constructional element then has concrete 3 filled into it in the space between the wall shells 1 and 2 to embed the longitudinal connecting members of the strips 6 and portions of the U-shaped members (col. 3, lines 35-67).
PNG
media_image1.png
192
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ longitudinal and transverse reinforcement elements in the concrete layers motivated to provide for strength in both directions.
Mayer and Hubmann differ and do not explicitly teach positioning elements.
Mayer and Hubmann differ and do not teach a polymer coating or stitches.
Cornelus is directed to a masonry reinforcement structure comprising assemblies of grouped metal filaments coated with a polymer coating. The invention also relates to a roll comprising such a masonry reinforcement structure. The invention further relates to masonry reinforced with such masonry reinforcement structure and to a method to apply such masonry reinforcement structure (ABST).
Cornelus teaches the assemblies of grouped metal filaments are steel alloys [0016]-[0021] and are flexible and can be rolled up and rolled out [0006].
Cornelus teaches a positioning element or elements can be any element suitable for positioning the at least two assemblies of grouped metal filaments in a predetermined position. The masonry reinforcement structure according to the present invention may comprise one positioning element or a number of positioning elements, for example 2, 3, 4 or more positioning elements. Examples of positioning elements comprise substrates or elongated elements or combinations thereof [0027].
Positioning elements can be substrates comprise for example films, foils, grids, woven structures, nonwoven structures or combinations thereof. The substrates comprise for example a polymer material, a metal or metal alloy or a composite material [0027].
In preferred embodiments the positioning element or elements comprise a yarn or a number of yarns. The yarn positions the assemblies of grouped metal filaments for example by forming stitches [0028].
Examples of elongated elements as positioning elements comprise yarns, rovings, filaments such as metal wires, cords or any combination thereof. The yarns comprise for example a polymer material, a metal or metal alloy or a composite material [0027].
Cornelus teaches the polymer coating holds the assemblies of grouped metal elements and the positioning element or positioning elements together for example during the demolishing of the reinforced masonry, the polymer coating may simplify the recycling process [0007].
The polymer coating has the advantage of corrosion resistance of the metal filaments. Cornelus teaches the strength of the assemblies of grouped metal elements and/or of the positioning element may be increased by the application of the polymer coating [0007], [0033]-[0039].
Cornelus teaches reinforcement filaments/cord for masonry which include positioning elements to position the subassemblies of grouped metal filaments in a predetermined position [0007]. Cornelus teaches the positioning elements can be stitches. Cornelus teaches a polymer coating to provide corrosion resistance as well as holding the grouped elements and positioning elements together.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ positioning elements, polymer coating and stitches motivated to hold the reinforcement filaments together in the desired predetermined positions.
As to claim 2, Mayer and Hubmann differ and do not teach a polymer coating and stitches.
Cornelus teaches a polymer coating and positioning elements in the form of stitches.
Cornelus teaches reinforcement filaments/cord for masonry which include positioning elements to position the subassemblies of grouped metal filaments in a predetermined position [0007]. Cornelus teaches the positioning elements can be stitches. Cornelus teaches a polymer coating to provide corrosion resistance as well as holding the grouped elements and positioning elements together.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ positioning elements, polymer coating and stitches motivated to hold the reinforcement filaments together in the desired predetermined positions.
As to claim 3, Mayer and Hubmann do not teach the diameter of the steel reinforcement.
Cornelus teaches the filaments have a diameter of ranging between 0.04 and 2.00 mm. Preferably, the diameter of the filaments ranges between 0.10 and 1 mm as for example between 0.2 and 0.5 mm, for example 0.25, 0.33, 0.37, 0.38 or 0.45 mm [0017].
Cornelus teaches an assembly of filaments can be steel cords [0006]. All filaments of a cord may have the same diameter. Alternatively, a cord may comprise filaments having different diameters [0018].
Figure 1 is an illustration of a masonry reinforcement structure 100 comprising parallel cords 102 glued to a substrate 110. A preferred steel cord 102 comprises between 2 and 12 filaments, a cord having one core filament having a diameter of 0.37 mm and 6 filaments having a diameter of 0.33 mm around this core filament (0.37 +6x0.33) [0062]. This example is a cord with a diameter of 0.33mm plus the 0.33 filaments wrapped around it which is less than 2 mm. The filaments are 0.33 mm and less than 0.6mm.
Figure 2 is an illustration of a masonry reinforcement structure 200 comprising parallel cords 202 stitched to a substrate 210 by means of yarn 204. The cords 202 are for example steel cords comprising 3 filaments having a diameter of 0.48 mm twisted together (3x0.48 mm). The yarn 204 forms stitches to hold the cords 202 in their mutual parallel or mutual substantially parallel position [0063].
Cornelus teaches the steel cords have a strength of higher than 1000 MPa, higher than 1500 mPa or higher than 2000 MPa [0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ steel cords with steel filaments of the claimed diameter range motivated to provide for the desired reinforcement strength of greater than 1000 MPa in the concrete.
As to claim 4, Mayer teaches the longitudinal cords can be sinusoidal [0021], [0022].
As to claims 5 and 6, Mayer does not specifically teach transverse elements.
Hubmann teaches transverse elements and the transverse elements are throughout the entire length of the structure and the reinforcing elements are discrete and made from steel. Discrete because the steel elements run from side to side and end at each side and are not continuous. Hubmann teaches the reinforcing elements are spaced apart (col. 1, lines 44-50; claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ longitudinal and transverse reinforcement elements in the concrete layers motivated to provide for strength in both directions.
As to claims 7 and 8, Mayer does not teach anchors.
Hubmann teaches the constructional steel mat or matting which are bent out of one shell into the other shell in a U-shape for the formation of connecting loops have the heads of their loops passing through the mesh openings in the matting of constructional steel of the other shell and are anchored in it by means of dowel pins which extend between the matting and the loop heads, of the curved or bent strips of matting, which extend through the matting, and are passed into the concrete of the other shell (col. 2, lines 13-24).
Between this mat 4 and the loop heads passing through it dowel pins 9 are inserted in order to anchor the mat strips 6 on the mat 4. The dowel pins 9 are concreted in place in the wall shell 2 (col. 3, lines 55-58). The anchors are curved or bent strips.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to anchor the steel elements together motivated to anchor the layers of steel reinforcing elements to each other.
As to claim 9, Mayer and Hubmann differ and do not teach a positioning element and further a positioning element of a substrate.
Cornelus teaches a positioning element can be a substrate that functions as a carrier. Positioning elements can be substrates comprise for example films, foils, grids, woven structures, non woven structures or combinations thereof. The substrates comprise for example a polymer material, a metal or metal alloy or a composite material [0027]. The grouped metal filaments (reinforcement steel elements) are stitched or coupled to a substrate [0028]. The positioning element can be glass rovings [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ an open substrate motivated to secure and position the steel reinforcement cords in the desired position for the reinforcement structure within the concrete structure.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-7 of copending Application No. 17796942 in view of Cornelus et al (EP 3201381). The instant application is obvious over the copending application because both are directed to 3D printed concrete layers with steel reinforcement. The steel reinforcement of the copending application having steel elements in the two or more layers of cementitious material (claim 1 of the instant invention) an amplitude (claim 4 of instant invention); with a wire diameter of 0.2 mm to 2.0 mm (claim 3 of the instant invention). Wherein the copending application does not require a postioning element, polymer coating and stitches, Cornelus teaches these are known features and it would have been obvious to combine the known features motivated to produce a 3D concrete with steel reinforcement that is positioned and stabilized for adequate reinforcement.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 6/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the Objection to the Drawings and states that the positioning elements are shown in Fig. 1b as 104, 108, 112, 116, 124, 126.
Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The specification describes the figure 1b details as flexible tapes. The specification does not describe the flexible tapes are one and the same as the positioning elements. Clarification is required either by describing the Fig. 1b elements 104, 108, 112, 116, 124, 126 as positioning elements or providing clarification that positioning elements are flexible tapes either in the specification or an amendment in the claims to recite flexible tapes. The specification does not describe the positioning elements can be flexible tapes.
Applicant states that the drawing objection indicates that the polymer coating or stitches are not sufficiently depicted. Applicant notes the specification [0013] that the polymer coating or stitches or both….are applied on the at least two flexible longitudinal elongated steel elements….and on the positioning element thereby making a bond…
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. It is not clear from the drawings where the coating and/or stitches are placed. Stitches and or coating could be equivalent to positioning elements. It is not clear what the scope of the positioning elements are and whether stitches and or coating are also positioning elements.
Applicant argues the 35 USC 103 rejection over claims 1-9 over Mayer, Hubmann and Cornelus. Applicant states that the rejection is improperly based on hindsight the combination does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness and the teaches of the prior art lead the skilled artisan away from the claimed subject matter.
Applicant states the present claims are generally directed to a concrete construction made by 3D concrete printing and comprises
-two or more layers of cementitious material extruded one above the other and
-a reinforcing structure reinforcing said two or more layers.
In the claimed constructure the reinforcing structure has a length and a height and comprises the two flexible longitudinal elongated steel elements and one or more flexible transverse element, a positioned element and a polymer coating or stitches.
Applicant states that Mayer concerns construction of 3D printed concrete. Hubmann and Cornelus do not even mention 3D printed concrete but rather concern conventional concrete constructions. Applicant states that Hubmann disclosed conventional pre-formed concrete wall shells. Cornelus is about reinforcing conventional masonry works.
Applicant states that the skilled artisan would have no reason whatsoever to consider Hubman and Cornelus as reasonable references to modify the teachings of Mayer. Applicant states that “A patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its element was, independently, known in the prior art”.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims are directed to a concrete construction and the recitation of “made by 3D printing” is a product by process limitation. For product by process limitations, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. While Mayer is made by 3D printing and the reinforcement is inserted after printing of the concrete and Hubmann and Cornelus are made by conventional methods such as assembling the reinforcement and then pouring the concrete, one of ordinary skill in the art of making concrete structures would know to look to any of the three references to find features for producing a concrete structure and the reinforcement structures. In the absence of evidence that the concrete structure made by 3D concrete printing is distinct from the conventional concrete structures, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art cited in the office action.
Applicant argues that the rejection emphasizes the reliance upon Hubmann and Cornelus to achieve reinforcement. The present claims are actually about a constructure of concrete by 3D concrete printing and the corresponding construction process.
As noted above, the claims are directed to a concrete construction and the recitation of “made by 3D printing’ is a product by process limitation and for product by process limitation, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In the instant case the references can be combined as the prior art provides teaching, suggestion or motivation to combine in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Hubmann and Cornelus teach known features of reinforcement for concrete structures and it would have been obvious to employ the known reinforcement features.
Applicant argues even if the combination of Mayer, Hubmann and Cornelus were considered, the combination would not achieve the claimed subject matter. The skilled artisan could not achieve the claimed subject matter because Mayer explicitly discloses that its strands are rigid metal strand (or alternately flexible synthetic strands). In contrast the present claims recite at least two flexible longitudinal elongated elements and flexible transverse steel element. Applicant states that Hubmann described the use of constructional steel mats which can be bent in shape and these mats are not flexible in the sense of the present claims wherein the reinforcement is introduced together with the concrete through a printing nozzle.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Flexible is a relative term and the argument that the present claims require the reinforcement is introduced together with the concrete through a printing nozzle is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Mayer suggests the flexible longitudinal elements however the flexible elements are made from polymer materials such as Kevlar. Mayer does not teach the transverse elements. Evidence in the art that transverse elements are known is found in Hubmann and Cornelus. Hubmann and Cornelus teaches steel elements. Hubman teaches the elements can be bent which means there is a relative amount of flexibility. Cornelus teaches metal filaments and a flexible mesh structure that can be rolled up and rolled out. Applicant claims steel filaments and Cornelus teaches the same size metal filaments as claimed (claim 3) and therefore Applicant is equating metal filaments with a flexible steel element. The claimed term flexible is a relative term and the prior art reinforcement is equated with flexible reinforcement. In the absence of further structural limitations to differentiate the reinforcement materials, the prior art teaches the reinforcement of flexible longitudinal and transverse steel elements.
With regard to Applicant’s argument that the process of introducing the reinforcing elements together with respect to 3D printing, if the process was claimed, the claims would be interpreted as product by process limitation and evidence that the resulting structure or properties of the structure are different is required to overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues the obviousness double patenting rejection over copending application 17/796942 in view of Cornelus. Applicant states that the copending application does not claim the positioning element, polymer coating and stitches.
The copending application claims is broader in scope and would encompass the claimed invention. While the copending application does not require the positioning elements and coating/stitches, Cornelus is evidence that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the known elements in a concrete reinforcing structure. The ODP is maintained at this time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fazzini et al (WO 2014019015)
Gouwy (WO 2021175580)
Gouwy (US 20230094390)
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 JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789