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 .
Comment on Preliminary Amendment
A preliminary amendment was filed in this application on 16 November 2023. As directed by the amendment: claims 3-9 have been amended, claims 10-13 have been cancelled, and claims 14-16 have been added. Thus, claims 1-9 & 14-16 are presently pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because FIGS. 3, 4, 5A & 5B are photographs rather than formal drawings. The PCT makes no provision for photographs. While they may be allowed in exceptional cases where it is impossible to present in a drawing what is to be shown (for instance, crystalline structures), that is not the case in this instance.
It is noted that US practice similarly does not ordinarily permit photographs, except when photographs are the only practicable medium for illustration [37 CFR 1.84(b)(1)]. As before, that is not the case here, as the subject matter shown can reasonably be providing as formal drawings.
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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). In this instance, claim 9 depends from “any of the preceding claims” (i.e., any of claims 1-8), however, claim 8 is also a multiple dependent claim which depends from “any of the preceding claims” (i.e., any of claims 1-7).
Accordingly, claim 9 has not been further treated on the merits.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 14 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stalter et al. (US 2,143,960; hereafter Stalter).
Regarding claim 1, Stalter discloses (figs. 1-4) a tube having a first end (at 10) and a second end (at 12), wherein the tube has a length in a longitudinal direction defined as extending from the first end to the second end (see fig. 1), and a width in a transverse direction defined as transverse to the longitudinal direction (i.e., see figs. 1 & 2), wherein the tube comprises corrugations in the longitudinal direction (see figs. 1 & 3; see pg. 2, left col., lines 66-68: “…a corrugated surface over substantially the full length of the tube”), characterized in that the tube has at least one longitudinally extending support (16; see figs. 1 & 2) configured for preventing stretching in the longitudinal direction (see below).
Regarding the limitation wherein the at least one longitudinally extending support is configured for preventing stretching in the longitudinal direction, while not explicitly stated by Stalter, Stalter otherwise discloses that when the supports are located at the outer end relative to a bending action, the supports “act as tension members between adjacent corrugations and act to resist such bending action” (see pg. 2, right col., lines 25-35). As can be reasonably understood from that description, in combination with the figures, the configuration of the longitudinally extending supports acting as tension members between adjacent corrugations would also act to resist tension applied along the length of the hose, thus preventing stretching in the longitudinal direction.
Regarding claim 2, Stalter discloses (figs. 1-4) a tube having a first end (at 10) and a second end (at 12), where a first length of the tube extends from the first end to the second end (see fig. 1), wherein the tube comprises at least one longitudinal extending support (16; see figs. 1 & 2) configured for preventing stretching in the longitudinal direction (see explanation in grounds of rejection for claim 1 above), the support having a length corresponding to the first length (see below), wherein the tube further comprises material constituting the lumen of the tube (i.e., the corrugated portion of the tube; see fig. 3), which material has a second length (i.e., a length as measured along the surface of the corrugations), that is longer than the first length (i.e., the second length, as measured along the corrugations, is longer than the straight-line length of the tube).
Regarding the limitation wherein the support has a length “corresponding to the first length”, as can be seen from at least figure 1, the support (16) extends along the length of the tube and has a length substantially corresponding to the length of the corrugated section (i.e., extending from the first peak to the last peak as shown). It is noted that the term “corresponding to” does not necessarily mean “equal to”. The length of the support is at least similar to or proportional to the length of the tube, or is otherwise arranged in a manner analogous to the length of the tube (i.e., they both extend in the same longitudinal direction) and therefore may be seen as meeting the limitation of “corresponding to the first length”.
To promote compact prosecution, it is noted that while the embodiment shown in fig. 1 is the intended final product, when the tube is initially removed from the mold (20,22), the support (16) would extend substantially the entire length of the tube, including along end portions 10 & 12. As shown in figs. 3 & 4, the supports 16 are formed by the tube material entering a gap 44 between the mold halves (20,22) during molding and, as shown, the gap extends along the entire length of the mold (see also pg. 3, right col., last line – pg. 4, left col., line 17: after the hose is removed from the mold, the excess rubber from between the gap may be removed in a desired shape, and removed from the end portions 10 & 12). As such, even if the supports 16 in figs. 1 & 2 are not seen as having “a length corresponding to the first length”, such a limitation would otherwise be met by the intermediate product of the tube when first removed from the mold, before trimming the excess material.
Regarding claim 3, the tube of Stalter reads on the additional limitation wherein the tube has two longitudinally extending supports (i.e., two diametrically opposed supports 16 are shown in figs. 2 & 4; see also pg. 2, right col., lines 11-18).
Regarding claim 7, the tube of Stalter reads on the additional limitations wherein a first width of the tube in the transverse direction (e.g., the width of the tube at the peaks of the corrugations) is larger than a second width of the tube in the transverse direction (e.g., the width of the tube at the valleys of the corrugations), wherein the first and second widths alternate in a longitudinal direction (as shown in figs. 1 & 3).
Regarding claim 14, the tube of Stalter reads on the additional limitations wherein the width of the tube is measured transverse across an outside diameter of a wall of the tube, with the wall of the tube having an inside diameter that defines a lumen of the tube (i.e., inside diameter as shown in the cross-sectional fig. 3), and the lumen of the tube has corrugations in the longitudinal direction such that the inside diameter of the lumen alternates longitudinally between a first diameter d (i.e., the inside diameter at the valleys of the corrugations) to a second diameter D (i.e., the inside diameter at the peaks of the corrugations), and the second diameter D is larger than the first diameter d (as shown in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, the tube of Stalter reads on the additional limitations wherein the corrugations in the longitudinal direction of the lumen of the tube are adapted to expand under extension and abut under compression such that the lumen of the tube is not restricted when the tube is bent (i.e., as would be understood by those skilled in the art, when the tube of Statler is bent transversely to the plane of the supports 16, the corrugations on the inside radius of the bend, placed in compression by the bending action, would approach one another until they abut, while the corrugations on the outside radius of the bend, placed under tension by the bending action, would expand / extend; as a result, the central lumen does not kink / does not become occluded during normal bending action).
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 1-7 & 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bigonzi-Jaker et al. (US 6,240,968; hereafter Bigonzi-Jaker) in view of Stalter.
Regarding claim 1, Bigonzi-Jaker discloses (e.g., figs. 6 & 6A) a tube (80; i.e., a tube formed from two polymeric film layers heat sealed along the longitudinal edges; see col. 9, lines 32-38) having a first end (82) and a second end (84), wherein the tube has a length in a longitudinal direction defined as extending from the first end to the second end, and a width in a transverse direction defined as transverse to the longitudinal direction, characterized in that the tube has at least one longitudinally extending support (86, 88).
Bigonzi-Jaker does not explicitly disclose the additional limitations wherein the tube comprises corrugations in the longitudinal direction, or wherein the longitudinally extending support is configured for preventing stretching in the longitudinal direction.
As detailed in the alternative grounds of rejection for claim 1, Stalter teaches (figs. 1-4) a tube having a first end (at 10) and a second end (at 12), wherein the tube has a length in a longitudinal direction defined as extending from the first end to the second end (see fig. 1), and a width in a transverse direction defined as transverse to the longitudinal direction (i.e., see figs. 1 & 2), wherein the tube comprises corrugations in the longitudinal direction (see figs. 1 & 3; see pg. 2, left col., lines 66-68), characterized in that the tube has at least one longitudinally extending support (16; see figs. 1 & 2) configured for preventing stretching in the longitudinal direction (see discussion in relevant grounds of rejection over Stalter, not repeated for brevity).
Stalter explains that it is known to provide such corrugations to a flexible hose to enable such a hose to bend without kinking (see, e.g., pg. 1, right col., lines 16-24). Stalter further explains that, by providing the longitudinal supports extending transversely to the corrugations, the kink-resistance of the hose may be improved (pg. 2, left col., lines 32-38). By way of example, the longitudinal supports may aid in resisting bending actions in the plane of the supports, while permitting bending transverse to the support plane, and may further aid in preventing hose collapse in the event that torsional forces are applied to opposing ends of the hose (pg. 2, right col., lines 25-40).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tube of Bigonzi-Jaker to comprise corrugations in the longitudinal direction, wherein the longitudinally extending supports are configured for preventing stretching in the longitudinal direction (i.e., by acting as tension members between adjacent corrugations), in view of the teachings of Stalter, as the use of a known technique (i.e., providing a tube with both corrugations and longitudinally extending supports, as in Stalter) to improve a similar device (i.e., the tube of Bigonzi-Jaker, formed from flexible materials and having longitudinally extending supports) in the same way (e.g., enabling the hose to bend transversely to the supports without kinking, while also ensuring the tube does not expand or contract axially, as may be undesirable in certain applications).
Regarding claim 2, the tube of Bigonzi-Jaker, as modified in view of Stalter above so as to comprise corrugations along the length and such that the longitudinally extending supports are configured to prevent stretching in the longitudinal direction, would further read on or otherwise render obvious a tube (i.e., as above, tube 80 as in figs. 6 & 6A of Bigonzi-Jaker, having corrugations as in Stalter, etc.) having a first end (82) and a second end (84), where a first length of the tube extends from the first end to the second end (i.e., the linear length of the tube), wherein the tube comprises at least one longitudinal extending support configured for preventing stretching in the longitudinal direction (i.e., 86 & 88 of Bigonzi-Jaker; corresponding to longitudinally extending supports 16 of Stalter), the support having a length corresponding to the first length (i.e., as shown in fig. 6 of Bigonzi-Jaker, the supports, which are formed by heat-sealing the edges of two polymeric films to form the tube, extend the entire length of the tube), wherein the tube further comprises material constituting the lumen of the tube (i.e., the curved portions of layers 77 & 78 forming the tube body / lumen; which, when modified, would comprise corrugations as taught by Stalter), which material has a second length, that is longer than the first length (i.e., when modified in view of Stalter above, the second length, as measured along the contours of the corrugations, would be longer than the straight-line first length of tube).
Regarding claim 3, the tube of Bigonzi-Jaker, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the tube has two longitudinally extending supports (i.e., 86 & 88 of Bigonzi-Jaker; corresponding to the two longitudinally extending supports 16 of Stalter).
Regarding claim 4, Bigonzi-Jaker discloses the additional limitation wherein a wall of the tube is made of a polymer material (e.g., modified PTFE films / membranes; see abstract, col. 5, lines 27-65, etc.).
Regarding the limitation wherein the polymer material has a thickness in a range from 10-90 micrometers, Bigonzi-Jaker discloses that, for most applications, the walls of such a tube “preferably have a thickness less than about 0.010 in. [254 micrometers], and more preferably less than about 0.0025 in [63.5 micrometers], and still more preferably less than about 0.001 inch [25.4 micrometers]” (col. 9, lines 22-26). As can be seen, Bigonzi-Jaker’s broadest range (<254 micrometers) encompasses the claimed range, while the more preferred ranges (<63.5 micrometers & < 25.4 micrometers) overlap the claimed range.
Moreover, in other instances, Bigonzi-Jaker discloses that such polymer materials, generally, may have a film thickness of about 0.001 to about 0.002 inches (about 25.4 to about 50.8 micrometers)(see col. 7, lines 8-11 & published claim 5), which lies within the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP § § 2144.05(I), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 5, the tube of Bigonzi-Jaker, as modified above, is seen as reading on the additional limitation wherein the tube has a storage configuration in which an inner lumen of the tube is substantially closed along the length of the tube and wherein the tube has a use configuration in which the inner lumen is open to allow flow of liquid through the lumen.
First, as set forth in MPEP § 2114(II), "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
In this case, while the cited references do not explicitly disclose the “storage” configuration, as explained below, the resulting combination is nevertheless seen as having corresponding structure capable of performing the claimed function. See MPEP § 2114(I).
In particular, while such a function is not explicitly disclosed by Bigonzi-Jaker, the structure of the tube resulting from the combination of Bigonzi-Jaker and Stalter is seen as being capable of adopting a storage configuration in which an inner lumen of the tube is substantially closed along the length of the tube and a use configuration in which the inner lumen is open to allow flow of liquid through the lumen.
The use configuration corresponds to the original configurations as shown in Bigonzi-Jaker and Stalter: the lumen is open and the corrugations (in Stalter) extend radially outward.
With respect to the storage configuration, it is noted that the tube of Bigonzi-Jaker is formed from two sheets of relatively thin, flexible polymeric film, which are heat-sealed at the longitudinal edges (i.e., forming the longitudinal supports). At certain thicknesses, Bigonzi-Jaker suggests that the material may be “soft and supple” (col. 7, lines 11-12).
Meanwhile, as can be seen from figures 1 & 3 of Stalter, the corrugations are laterally symmetric about the longitudinal supports; that is, the corrugation peaks on one side of the supports are aligned with the corrugation peaks on the other side (i.e., in figs. 1 & 3 of Stalter, the peaks above the support are aligned with the peaks below the support).
When the thin film tube of Bigonzi-Jaker is modified to comprise such aligned corrugations, the resulting configuration is such that one could reasonably press down upon the corrugation peaks formed in one of the polymer film sheets, collapsing and inverting them such that they extend inward, closing the lumen and nesting within the corresponding corrugation peak of the other polymer film sheet, achieving the claimed “storage” configuration.
Regarding claim 6, Bigonzi-Jaker discloses the additional limitation wherein the at least one longitudinally extending support (86, 88) is made by welding the tube in the longitudinal direction (see col. 9, lines 32-38: “heat sealed along two of their respective edges, to form tube 80 having…respective sealed edges 86, 88”; see also col. 8, line 57 – col. 9, line 5: “…the sealed edges…can be formed in any conventional manner, for example through use of heat-sealing bars, sonic welding, use of a heat gun, a sintering oven, a thermal impulse,…or any other now known…combination of heat and pressure…. The dwell time and pressure are dependent upon the film thickness as well as whether a tack weld or fusion weld is desired.”).
Regarding claim 7, the tube of Bigonzi-Jaker, as modified above to include corrugations as in Stalter, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitations wherein a first width of the tube in the transverse direction (i.e., the width of the tube at the peaks of the corrugations) is larger than a second width of the tube in the transverse direction (i.e., the width of the tube at the valleys of the corrugations), wherein the first and second widths alternate in a longitudinal direction (see figs. 1 & 3 of Stalter).
Regarding claim 14, the tube of Bigonzi-Jaker, as modified above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitations wherein the width of the tube is measured transverse across an outside diameter of a wall of the tube, with the wall of the tube having an inside diameter that defines a lumen of the tube (i.e., corresponding to the inside diameter as shown in the cross-sectional fig. 3 of Stalter), and the lumen of the tube has corrugations in the longitudinal direction such that the inside diameter of the lumen alternates longitudinally between a first diameter d (i.e., the inside diameter at the valleys of the corrugations) to a second diameter D (i.e., the inside diameter at the peaks of the corrugations), and the second diameter D is larger than the first diameter d (as shown in fig. 3 of Stalter).
Regarding claim 15, Bigonzi-Jaker discloses the additional limitation wherein the at least one longitudinally extending support (86, 88) comprises welded plastic (e.g., heat-sealed or otherwise welded modified PTFE film; see citations in rejections of claim 4 & 6 above) formed longitudinally along the outside diameter of the wall of the tube (see figs. 6 & 6A of Bigonzi-Jaker).
Regarding claim 16, the tube of Bigonzi-Jaker, as modified above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitations wherein the corrugations in the longitudinal direction of the lumen of the tube (i.e., as taught by Stalter) are adapted to expand under extension and abut under compression such that the lumen of the tube is not restricted when the tube is bent.
In particular, as would be understood by those skilled in the art, when the tube of Bigonzi-Jaker is modified so as to include corrugations of the type shown by Statler, bending the tube transversely to the plane of the supports would place corrugations on the inside radius of the bend into compression, whereby they would approach one another until they abut, and would place corrugations on the outside radius of the bend into tension, whereby they would expand / extend. As a result, the central lumen does not kink and does not become occluded during normal bending action.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stalter as applied to claims 1-3 & 7 above, and further in view of Abell et al. (US 5,405,319; hereafter Abell).
Regarding claim 8, Stalter discloses that the first end (10) and second end (12) provide “means for facilitating connection of the hose with a gas mask and a canister or between other suitable objects” (pg. 2, left col. , lines 58-62).
Stalter does not explicitly disclose the first end to comprise a first connector that is attachable to a reservoir bag or the second end to comprise a second connector that is attachable to an anal probe of an anal irrigation system.
Abell teaches (figs. 1-9) an anal irrigation system (see fig. 1; abstract) comprising a corrugated tube (30 / 33) with a first end of the tube comprising a first connector that is attached to a reservoir bag (35; “collection bag 35”; see fig. 1) and a second end of the tube comprising a second connector (61 / 75; see figs. 4 & 6) that is attached to an anal probe (i.e., 22; “rectal insertion tube or speculum 22”; via drain control valve 32; see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tube of Stalter such that the first end of the tube comprises a first connector that is attachable to a reservoir bag and the second end of the tube comprises a second connector that is attachable to an anal probe of an anal irrigation system, in view of the teachings of Abell, as the simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the conventional corrugated tube in the system of Abell) for another (i.e., the corrugated tube of Stalter, having longitudinal supports) to obtain predictable results (i.e., providing improved kink-resistance to the tube of the system of Abell, etc.); or otherwise as a combination of known prior art elements (i.e., the corrugated tube of Stalter; and the irrigation system of Abell) according to known methods (i.e., as in Abell, a corrugated tube may be provided with suitable end connectors and used to connect a probe to a reservoir bag of an irrigation system) to yield predictable results (i.e., as above, improving the system of Abell by providing the corrugated tube with increased kink resistance, etc.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bigonzi-Jaker in view of Stalter as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of Gobel (US 2019/0358390 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Bigonzi-Jaker discloses that the tube may “have broad applications” from medicine to industry (col. 9, lines 14-17; see also abstract), however, Bigonzi-Jaker does not explicitly disclose the additional limitations wherein the first end of the tube comprises a first connector that is attachable to a reservoir bag and the second end of the tube comprises a second connector that is attachable to an anal probe of an anal irrigation system.
Gobel teaches (e.g., figs 1-4) an anal irrigation system (1; see abstract) comprising a film tube (4) having a first end with a first connector (i.e., at 6 in fig. 1; 11 in fig. 3, or “connector element” 17 in fig. 5b; etc.) attachable to a reservoir bag (5) and a second end with a second connector (i.e., see connection to probe 2 in fig. 3; alternate embodiment in fig. 6 showing tube 105 connected to probe incl. 101, 102, etc.) attachable to an anal probe (i.e., 2 in figs 1 & 3; 101 / 102 in fig. 6; etc.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tube of Bigonzi-Jaker (as otherwise modified above) such that the first end of the tube comprises a first connector that is attachable to a reservoir bag and the second end of the tube comprises a second connector that is attachable to an anal probe of an anal irrigation system, in view of the teachings of Gobel, as the simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the conventional film tube in the system of Gobel) for another (i.e., the corrugated film tube of Bigonzi-Jaker in view of Stalter) to obtain predictable results (i.e., providing a tube with improved kink-resistance to the system of Gobel, etc.); or otherwise as a combination of known prior art elements (i.e., the corrugated film tube of Bigonzi-Jaker in view of Stalter; and the irrigation system of Gobel) according to known methods (i.e., as in Gobel, a film tube may be provided with suitable end connectors to connect a probe to a reservoir bag of an irrigation system) to yield predictable results (i.e., as above, improving the system of Gobel by providing the film tube with increased kink resistance, etc.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard K Durden whose telephone number is (571) 270-0538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone: Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881; Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Richard K. Durden/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753