DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to an amendment/response filed on 9/2/2025.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 14, 16-17, 19, and 53-56 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 15 have been cancelled. Claims 8-9, 11, 13, 20-22, and 24-52 were cancelled previously.
No new claims have been added.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 12, 14, 16-19, 23, and 53-56 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1, 14, and 53-56, Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to address the indefiniteness issues. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Applicant’s amendments have resolved the previous indefiniteness issues, Applicant’s amendments have also introduced additional indefiniteness issues. Please see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1, 14, and 53-56 below for a detailed description of such issues. Regarding claims 1, 14, and 53-56, Applicant argues that Guo does not teach “at least one beam in the at least one beam group corresponds to a neighbor cell of the terminal; wherein at least two beams within one beam group in the at least one beam group are simultaneous transmission beams supported by the terminal.” Applicant asserts that the TRPs in Guo do not represent distinct cells and that therefore Guo does not disclose that the at least one beam in the at least one beam group corresponds to a neighbor cell of the terminal. Applicant also asserts that Guo does not disclose the ability to measure beams transmitted simultaneously by the serving cell. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s interpretation of the prior art. With regard to the argued claim language “at least one beam in the at least one beam group corresponds to a neighbor cell of the terminal,” the Examiner would like to note that the UE is described as potentially monitoring several neighboring cells (Guo; [0011]), and the term “TRP” is also described as being used interchangeably with the term “base station” (Guo; [0066]). The separately depicted TRPs in at least Fig. 24 may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as separate cells (Guo; Fig. 24; [0066], [0388]-[0391]). The Examiner would also like to note that the TRPs in Fig. 24 are not depicted or described as belonging to the same base station and/or cell, and that a person having ordinary skill in the art using a broadest reasonable interpretation would consider such separately depicted TRPs as being neighboring cells (Guo; Fig. 24; [0066], [0388]-[0391]). Beam(s) from both TRP 1 and TRP 2 may be broadly reasonably interpreted as having at least one beam in at least one beam group that corresponds to a neighbor cell of a terminal (Guo; Fig. 24; [0066], [0388]-[0391]). Guo may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as teaching “at least one beam in the at least one beam group corresponds to a neighbor cell of the terminal.” With regard to the argued claim language “wherein at least two beams within one beam group in the at least one beam group are simultaneous transmission beams supported by the terminal,” 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., “Guo does not disclose the ability to measure beams transmitted simultaneously by the serving cell”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). The Examiner would like to note that the claims as amended recite “simultaneous transmission beams supported by the terminal” and not “the ability to measure beams transmitted simultaneously by the serving cell.” Additionally, the limitation “serving cell” is not present in the independent claims. As is also discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection below, the claims recite sending/receiving “the beam measurement result report, wherein the beam measurement result report comprises a beam measurement result report of at least one beam group, and at least one beam in the at least one beam group corresponds to a neighbor cell of the terminal; wherein at least two beams within one beam group in the at least one beam group are simultaneous transmission beams supported by the terminal.” Such claim language does not appear to explicitly require that the separately recited “one beam group in the at least one beam group” be measured; such claim language instead simply requires measurement of “at least one beam group.” With regard to the teachings of the prior art, Guo teaches that the UE may have a transmit RF chain that can be connected to two transmit panels such that multiple beams may be transmitted simultaneously by the terminal (Guo; Figs. 17-18C and 24; [0221]-[0222], [0225], [0228], [0232]-[0234]). In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner would like to note that Fig. 24 does appear to discuss simultaneous measurement of beams transmitted by the TRPs (Guo; Fig. 24; [0388]-[0391]). At least two beams within one beam group in the at least one beam group may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as being supported to be simultaneously transmitted by the terminal. Guo may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as teaching “wherein at least two beams within one beam group in the at least one beam group are simultaneous transmission beams supported by the terminal.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 12, 14, 16-19, 23, and 53-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claims 1, 53, and 55, the claims have been amended to recite “wherein at least two beams within one beam group in the at least one beam group are simultaneous transmission beams supported by the terminal.” Applicant also appears to characterize such claim language (see the first full paragraph on page 9 of Applicant’s arguments filed on 9/2/2025) as “the ability to measure beams transmitted simultaneously by the serving cell.” However, the claims recite “sending, by a terminal, the beam measurement result report, wherein the beam measurement result report comprises a beam measurement result report of at least one beam group, and at least one beam in the at least one beam group corresponds to a neighbor cell of the terminal,” and such claim language does not appear to explicitly require that the beam measurement result report pertain specifically to the amended language “one beam group in the at least one beam group.” It is therefore unclear if “one beam group in the at least one beam group” is intended to be required to be measured for the beam measurement result report (e.g., in line with Applicant’s arguments), or if “one beam group in the at least one beam group” may instead be broadly reasonably interpreted as another beam group of multiple beam groups in “at least one beam group” that is not measured for the beam measurement result report. Said differently, when using an interpretation wherein “at least one beam group” comprises at least two beam groups, at least the “one beam group in the at least one beam group” may be broadly reasonably interpreted as not being required to be measured because at least one other beam group may be broadly reasonably interpreted as being measured instead. Claims 1, 53, and 55 are thus indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret “one beam group in the at least one beam group” as potentially being an additional beam group that is not measured for the beam measurement result report because the beam measurement result report is recited as “compris[ing] a beam measurement result report of at least one beam group” and not “one beam group in the at least one beam group.” Regarding claims 14, 54, and 56, the claims have been amended to recite “wherein at least two beams within one beam group in the at least one beam group are simultaneous transmission beams supported by the terminal.” Applicant also appears to characterize such claim language (see the first full paragraph on page 9 of Applicant’s arguments filed on 9/2/2025) as “the ability to measure beams transmitted simultaneously by the serving cell.” However, the claims recite “receiving, by a network device, the beam measurement result report, wherein the beam measurement result report comprises a beam measurement result report of at least one beam group, and at least one beam in the at least one beam group corresponds to a neighbor cell of the terminal,” and such claim language does not appear to explicitly require that the beam measurement result report pertain specifically to the amended language “one beam group in the at least one beam group.” It is therefore unclear if “one beam group in the at least one beam group” is intended to be required to be measured for the beam measurement result report (e.g., in line with Applicant’s arguments), or if “one beam group in the at least one beam group” may instead be broadly reasonably interpreted as another beam group of multiple beam groups in “at least one beam group” that is not measured for the beam measurement result report. Said differently, when using an interpretation wherein “at least one beam group” comprises at least two beam groups, at least the “one beam group in the at least one beam group” may be broadly reasonably interpreted as not being required to be measured because at least one other beam group may be broadly reasonably interpreted as being measured instead. Claims 1, 53, and 55 are thus indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret “one beam group in the at least one beam group” as potentially being an additional beam group that is not measured for the beam measurement result report because the beam measurement result report is recited as “compris[ing] a beam measurement result report of at least one beam group” and not “one beam group in the at least one beam group.” Regarding claims 2-7, 10, 12, 15-19, and 23, the claims are rejected because they depend from rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10, 12, 14, 16-19, 23, and 53-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo et al. (US 2019/0297603, provided by Applicant, Guo hereinafter). Regarding claims 1 and 53, Guo teaches a method and a terminal (UE (e.g., UE-A 2401); Guo; Figs. 3 and 24; [0388]-[0391]), comprising: a processor (The UE may be comprised of a processor; Guo; Fig. 3; [0081]); and a memory for storing instructions executable by the processor (The UE may be comprised of a memory storing instructions; Guo; Fig. 3; [0081], [0084]); wherein the processor is configured to load and execute the executable instructions to implement a method for sending a beam measurement result report, comprising: sending a beam measurement result report, wherein the beam measurement result report comprises a beam measurement result report of at least one beam group (As can be seen in at least Fig. 24 and its corresponding description, a UE (e.g., UE-A 2401) can be requested to measure and report information regarding multiple downlink Tx beams of two different TRPs (e.g., TRP 1 and TRP 2). Beam(s) from a single TRP may be broadly reasonably interpreted as a beam group. The Examiner would also like to note that an alternative interpretation may be used wherein beam(s) from both TRP 1 and TRP 2 are interpreted as a beam group; Guo; Fig. 24; [0388]-[0391]), and at least one beam in the at least one beam group corresponds to a neighbor cell of the terminal (The UE is described as potentially monitoring several neighboring cells, and the term “TRP” is also described as being used interchangeably with the term “base station.” TRPs including at least those depicted in Fig. 24 may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as neighboring cells. Beam(s) from both TRP 1 and TRP 2 may be broadly reasonably interpreted as having at least one beam in at least one beam group that corresponds to a neighbor cell of a terminal; Guo; Fig. 24; [0011], [0066], [0388]-[0391]); wherein at least two beams within one beam group in the at least one beam group are supported to be simultaneously transmitted by the terminal (As can be seen in at least Figs. 17-18C and their corresponding descriptions, the UE is described as having a transmit RF chain that can be connected to two transmit panels such that multiple beams may be transmitted simultaneously by the terminal. At least two beams within one beam group in the at least one beam group may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as being supported to be simultaneously transmitted by the terminal. As was also discussed in the response to arguments above, in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner would like to note that Fig. 24 does appear to discuss simultaneous measurement of beams transmitted by the TRPs; Guo; Figs. 17-18C and 24; [0221]-[0222], [0225], [0228], [0232]-[0234], [0388]-[0391]). Regarding claim 14, Guo teaches a method for receiving a beam measurement result report, comprising: receiving, by a network device, the beam measurement result report, wherein the beam measurement result report comprises a beam measurement result report of at least one beam group (As can be seen in at least Fig. 24 and its corresponding description, a UE (e.g., UE-A 2401) can be requested to measure and report information to a network device regarding multiple downlink Tx beams of two different TRPs (e.g., TRP 1 and TRP 2). Beam(s) from a single TRP may be broadly reasonably interpreted as a beam group. The Examiner would also like to note that an alternative interpretation may be used wherein beam(s) from both TRP 1 and TRP 2 are interpreted as a beam group; Guo; Fig. 24; [0388]-[0391]), and at least one beam in the at least one beam group corresponds to a neighbor cell of a terminal (The UE is described as potentially monitoring several neighboring cells, and the term “TRP” is also described as being used interchangeably with the term “base station.” TRPs including at least those depicted in Fig. 24 may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as neighboring cells. Beam(s) from both TRP 1 and TRP 2 may be broadly reasonably interpreted as having at least one beam in at least one beam group that corresponds to a neighbor cell of a terminal; Guo; Fig. 24; [0011], [0066], [0388]-[0391]); wherein at least two beams within one beam group in the at least one beam group are supported to be simultaneously transmitted by the terminal (As can be seen in at least Figs. 17-18C and their corresponding descriptions, the UE is described as having a transmit RF chain that can be connected to two transmit panels such that multiple beams may be transmitted simultaneously by the terminal. At least two beams within one beam group in the at least one beam group may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as being supported to be simultaneously transmitted by the terminal. As was also discussed in the response to arguments above, in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner would like to note that Fig. 24 does appear to discuss simultaneous measurement of beams transmitted by the TRPs; Guo; Figs. 17-18C and 24; [0221]-[0222], [0225], [0228], [0232]-[0234], [0388]-[0391]). Regarding claims 3 and 16, Guo teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 14 respectively. Guo further teaches the at least two beams within the one beam group in the at least one beam group correspond to at least two different transmission and reception points (TRPs) (As can be seen in at least Fig. 24, at least two beams (which may be broadly reasonably interpreted as being within one beam group) may correspond to at least two different TRPs; Guo; Figs. 17-18C and 24; [0388]-[0391]), and the at least two TRPs satisfying one of following: the at least two TRPs corresponding to a same serving cell (The UE is described as monitoring TRPs for serving cells. At least Figs. 19-21 depict multiple TRPs belonging to a same cell. The at least two TRPs may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as potentially corresponding to a same serving cell. The Examiner would also like to note that this limitation is claimed in the alternative, and it is therefore not required to be taught by the prior art when other alternative limitations are taught; Guo; Figs. 19-24; [0011], [0388]-[0391]), the at least two TRPs comprising a TRP corresponding to a serving cell and a TRP corresponding to the neighbor cell (The UE is described as monitoring TRPs for serving and neighboring cells. The TRPs depicted in at least Fig. 24 may be broadly reasonably interpreted as corresponding to a serving cell and a neighbor cell. The Examiner would also like to note that this limitation is claimed in the alternative, and it is therefore not required to be taught by the prior art when other alternative limitations are taught; Guo; Figs. 19-24; [0011], [0388]-[0391]), or the at least two TRPs corresponding to the neighbor cell (The UE is described as monitoring TRPs for neighboring cells. The TRPs depicted in at least Fig. 24 may be broadly reasonably interpreted as corresponding to a neighbor cell. The Examiner would also like to note that this limitation is claimed in the alternative, and it is therefore not required to be taught by the prior art when other alternative limitations are taught; Guo; Figs. 19-24; [0011], [0388]-[0391]). Regarding claims 4 and 17, Guo teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 14 respectively. Guo further teaches the beam measurement result report comprises beam measurement result reports of at least two beam groups (A broadest reasonable interpretation may be used wherein the beams for each TRP (e.g., in at least Fig. 24) are interpreted as different beam groups (i.e., at least two beam groups); Guo; Fig. 24; [0388]-[0391]), and beams from different beam groups in the at least two beam groups are simultaneously transmission beams supported by the terminal (The UE may perform simultaneous transmission using beams from both TRPs (i.e., beams from different beam groups). At least Fig. 24 and its corresponding description also describe the UE as measuring different transmission beams simultaneously; Guo; Figs. 17-18C and 24; [0221]-[0222], [0225], [0228], [0232]-[0234], [0388]-[0391]). Regarding claims 5 and 18, Guo teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 14 respectively. Guo further teaches the beam group comprises beams received by a same antenna panel of the terminal (As can be seen in at least Fig. 24, a beam group (e.g., beams from a single TRP) may be received by a same antenna panel of the terminal; Guo; Figs. 19-24; [0388]-[0391]). Regarding claims 6 and 19, Guo teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 14 respectively. Guo further teaches the beam measurement result report comprises at least one of: first indication information, an identification of a beam, or a measurement result of the beam (The UE is described as reporting a transmit beam, which may be broadly reasonably interpreted as an identification of a beam. The Examiner would also like to note that such claim language recites a list of alternative limitations, and it is therefore not necessary for the prior art to teach all of such alternatives when at least one is taught; Guo; Figs. 19-24; [0388]-[0391]), wherein the first indication information is configured to indicate at least one of: to use simultaneous transmission beams supported by a filter in a same spatial domain of the terminal or supported by a same antenna panel of the terminal; or, to use simultaneous transmission beams supported by filters in different spatial domains of the terminal or supported by different antenna panels of the terminal (As was also discussed with regard to the previous limitation, Guo teaches the alternative wherein the UE may report an identification of a beam. It is therefore not necessary for Guo to teach elaborations on the first indication information because the first indication information is not required to be used. The Examiner would also like to note that it would be improper to add an additional reference to reject such an alternative limitation because Guo may be broadly reasonably interpreted as teaching the claims as recited; Guo; Figs. 19-24; [0388]-[0391]); wherein the identification of the beam comprises at least one of: an identification of a reference signal corresponding to the beam; a cell identification corresponding to the beam; or, a TRP identification corresponding to the beam (The identification of the beam is described as at least corresponding to a TRP (i.e., a TRP identification corresponding to the beam); Guo; Figs. 19-24; [0388]-[0391]). Regarding claim 7, Guo teaches the limitations of claim 6. Guo further teaches the first indication information comprises an identification of an antenna panel of the terminal corresponding to a beam (As was also discussed with regard to the limitations of claim 6, Guo teaches the alternative wherein the UE may report an identification of a beam. The Examiner would like to note that claim 7 contains no language specifically requiring the alternative of the first indication information. It is therefore not necessary for Guo to teach elaborations on the first indication information because the first indication information is not required to be used when using an interpretation wherein the identification of the beam is used. The Examiner would also like to note that it would be improper to add an additional reference to reject such an alternative limitation because Guo may be broadly reasonably interpreted as teaching the claims as recited; Guo; Figs. 19-24; [0388]-[0391]). Regarding claims 10 and 23, Guo teaches the limitations of claims 6 and 19 respectively. Guo further teaches the measurement result of the beam comprises at least one of: a layer 1-reference signal received power L1-RSRP; a layer 1-signal to interference plus noise ratio L1-SINR; or interference indication information, wherein the interference indication information is configured to indicate an interference situation between at least two beams within a same beam group (As was also discussed with regard to the limitations of claims 6 and 19, Guo teaches the alternative wherein the UE may report an identification of a beam. The Examiner would like to note that claims 10 and 23 contain no language specifically requiring the alternative of the measurement result. It is therefore not necessary for Guo to teach elaborations on the measurement result because the measurement result is not required to be used when using an interpretation wherein the identification of the beam is used. The Examiner would also like to note that it would be improper to add an additional reference to reject such an alternative limitation because Guo may be broadly reasonably interpreted as teaching the claims as recited; Guo; Figs. 19-24; [0388]-[0391]). Regarding claim 12, Guo teaches the limitations of claim 10. Guo further teaches the interference indication information comprises at least one of: first interference indication information for indicating an interference situation that a first beam suffers interferences comprising interference from a second beam, or second interference indication information for indicating an interference situation that the first beam suffers interferences other than the interference from a second beam, wherein the first beam being any one of the at least two beams, the second beam being another one of the at least two beams other than the first beam (As was also discussed with regard to the limitations of claims 6 and 10, Guo teaches the alternative wherein the UE may report an identification of a beam. The Examiner would like to note that claims 10 and 12 contain no language specifically requiring the alternative of the measurement result. Additionally, claim 10 also recites “the interference indication information” in the alternative to several other limitations and claim 12 contains no language specifically requiring the alternative of the measurement result or the interference indication information. It is therefore not necessary for Guo to teach elaborations on the measurement result or the interference indication information because the measurement result or the interference indication information is not required to be used when using an interpretation wherein the identification of the beam is used. The Examiner would also like to note that it would be improper to add an additional reference to reject such an alternative limitation because Guo may be broadly reasonably interpreted as teaching the claims as recited; Guo; Figs. 19-24; [0388]-[0391]). Regarding claim 54, Guo teaches a network device (gNB; Guo; Figs. 2 and 24; [0388]-[0391]), comprising: a processor (The gNB may be comprised of a processor; Guo; Fig. 2; [0071]); and a memory for storing instructions executable by the processor (The gNB may be comprised of a memory storing instructions; Guo; Fig. 2; [0071], [0074]); wherein the processor is configured to load and execute the executable instructions to implement the method for receiving the beam measurement result report of claim 14 (The gNB may be comprised of a memory storing instructions for execution by a processor. Please see the rejection of claim 1 above for a detailed explanation regarding Guo’s teachings as they pertain to the sending method of claim 14; Guo; Figs. 2 and 24; [0071], [0074], [0388]-[0391]). Regarding claim 55, Guo teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having executable instructions stored thereon that, when the executable instructions are loaded and executed by a processor to implement the method for sending the beam measurement result report of claim 1 (The UE may be comprised of a memory storing instructions for execution by a processor. Please see the rejection of claim 1 above for a detailed explanation regarding Guo’s teachings as they pertain to the sending method of claim 1; Guo; Figs. 3 and 24; [0081], [0084], [0388]-[0391]). Regarding claim 56, Guo teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having executable instructions stored thereon that, when the executable instructions are loaded and executed by a processor to implement the method for receiving the beam measurement result report of claim 14 (The gNB may be comprised of a memory storing instructions for execution by a processor. Please see the rejection of claim 1 above for a detailed explanation regarding Guo’s teachings as they pertain to the sending method of claim 14; Guo; Figs. 2 and 24; [0071], [0074], [0388]-[0391]).
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 ERIC A MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30am to 7:00pm.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/ERIC MYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474