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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 14, 16, 18, & 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallant et al. (US Patent No. 10,167,081 B2) in view of Page (Pub No. US 2022/0001974 A1), Wildschek et al. (Pub No. US 2017/0021911 A1) & Lassen et al. (Pub No. US 2014/0014768 A1).
Regarding claim 1
Gallant teaches a commercial aircraft (See column 1, lines 14-17 & figures 1-4, ref # 10) for short distance air travel, the commercial aircraft (See column 1, lines 14-17 & figures 1-4, ref # 10) comprising: a blended wing body (See figures 1-4, ref # 10) having a main body, (See figures 1-4, ref # near 24) a transition, (See figures 1-4, ref # 16 & 18) and wings (See figures 1- 4, ref # near 21) with no clear demarcation between the wings and the main body along a leading edge of the commercial aircraft, (See figures 1-4, ref # 10) wherein the transition (See figures 1-4, ref #16 & 18) comprises a section of the blended wing body between the main body (See figures 1-4, ref # near 24) and the wings; (See figures 1-4, ref # near 21) a passenger cabin, (See figures 1-4, ref # 14) the passenger cabin (See figures 1-4, ref # 14) located within the main body and having a wide body passenger capacity; (See column 3, lines 39-65 & figures 1-4) a structural element, (See column 3, line 61 – column 4, line 6) wherein: the structural element extends vertically from a lower surface of the main body to an upper surface of the main body; (See column 3, line 61 – column 4, line 6 & figures 1-4) the structural element (See column 3, line 61 – column 4, line 6) extends longitudinally from a first distal end of the passenger cabin (See figures 1-4, ref # 14) to a second distal end of the passenger cabin; (See figures 1-4, ref # 14) and separates the passenger cabin (See figures 1-4, ref # 14) into more than one region; (See column 3, line 61 – column 4, line 6) one or more cargo holds, (See figures 1-4, ref # 16a & 16b) wherein the one or more cargo holds (See figures 1-4, ref # 16a & 16b) are located outwardly toward the wings; (See column 4, line 7-25 & 45-67, column 5, lines 1-3 & figures 1-4, ref #21) at least a propulsor, (See figures 1- 4, ref # 20a & 20b) the at least a propulsor (See figures 1-4, ref # 20a & 20b) attached to a portion of the main body and configured to propel the commercial aircraft (See figures 1-4, ref # 10) through air; (See column 3, lines 39-65) a fuel storage (See figures 1-4, ref # 18a & 18b) located within the transition (See figures 1-4, ref # 16 & 18) of the blended wing body, (See figures 1-4, ref # 10) the fuel storage (See figures 1-4, ref # 18a & 18b) configured for a fuel capacity associated with short-range flight; (See column 1, lines 50-67) and a landing gear, (See figure 3) the landing gear (See figure 3) located on an undercarriage of the blended wing body. (See column 1, lines 50-67 & figures 1-4, ref # 10)
Gallant does is silent about the structural element separates the passenger cabin into more than one cabin bays; and the structural element is in tension during flight.
However, Page teaches a commercial aircraft (See paragraphs 0004, 0022 & figures 1-3, ref # 100 & 300) for short distance air travel, (See paragraph 0024, regional) the commercial aircraft (See figures 1-3, ref # 100 & 300) comprising: a blended wing body (See paragraphs 0027, 0032 & figures 1-3, ref # 104 & 302) having a main body, (See figure 3, ref # 302) a transition, (See figure 3, ref # 312 & 314) and wings (See figure 3, ref # 304a & 304b) with no clear demarcation between the wings (See figure 3, ref # 304a & 304b) and the main body (See figure 3, ref # 302) along a leading edge of the commercial aircraft, (See figures 1-3, ref # 100 & 300) wherein the transition (See figure 3, ref # 312 & 314) comprises a section of the blended wing body (See figure 3, ref # 302) between the main body (See figure 3, ref # 302) and the wings, (See figure 3, ref # 304a & 304b) a passenger cabin, (See paragraph 0033 & figure 3, ref # 316) the passenger cabin (See figure 3, ref # 316) located within the main body (See figure 3, ref # 302) and having a wide body passenger capacity; (See paragraphs 0024, 0027 & figures 1-3) a structural element, (See figure 3, unlabeled center wall near the arrow for ref # 302) wherein: the structural element (See figure 3, unlabeled center wall near the arrow for ref # 302) extends vertically from a lower surface (See figure 3) of the main body (See figure 3, ref # 302) to an upper surface (See figure 3) of the main body; (See figure 3, ref # 302) that structural element (See figure 3, unlabeled center wall near the arrow for ref # 302) extends longitudinally from a first distal end of the passenger cabin (See figures 1-3, ref # 316) to a second distal end of the passenger cabin (See figures 1-3, ref # 316) and separates the passenger cabin (See figure 3, ref # 316) into more than one cabin bays; (See paragraph 0027) and the structural element (See figure 3, unlabeled center wall near the arrow for ref # 302) is in tension during flight; (See figures 3 & 5, unlabeled center wall & beams ref # 508) one or more cargo holds, (See figure 3, ref # 312) wherein the one or more cargo holds (See figure 3, ref # 312) are located outwardly toward the wings; (See figure 3, ref # 304a & 304b) at least a propulsor, (See figure 3, ref # 310a & 310b) the at least a propulsor (See figure 3, ref # 310a & 310b) attached to a portion of the main body (See figure 3, ref # 302) and configured to propel the commercial aircraft (See figures 1-3, ref # 100 & 300) through air; a fuel storage (See figure 3, ref # 314a & 314b) within the transition (See figure 3, ref # 312 & 314) of the blended wing body, (See figure 3, ref # 302) the fuel storage (See figure 3, ref # 314a & 314b) configured for a fuel capacity associated with short-range flight; (See paragraph 0024, regional) and a landing gear, (See figure 3, ref # 324) the landing gear (See figure 3, ref # 324) located on an undercarriage of the blended wing body. (See figure 3, ref # 302)
While Page does not mention tension, Page is showing similar/same structure and therefore the structure would perform the similar/same functions. (See figures 3 & 5)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a structural element, wherein: the structural element extends vertically from a lower surface of the main body to an upper surface of the main body; that structural element extends longitudinally from a first distal end of the passenger cabin to a second distal end of the passenger cabin and separates the passenger cabin into more than one cabin bays; and the structural element is in tension during flight as taught by Page in the aircraft of Gallant, so as to have extra overhead luggage storage. (See figure 3, luggage compartments attached to the center wall)
A modified Gallant does not teach wherein the wings comprise folding wings; wherein the commercial aircraft further comprises: a lock configured to arrest movement of the folding wings; and a sensor configured to detect a locked and unlocked status of the lock.
However, Wildschek teaches wherein the wings (See figures 1-3 & 7, ref # 20) comprise folding wings; (See paragraphs 0089-0092 & figures 1-3 & 7, ref # 20) wherein the commercial aircraft further comprises: a lock (See paragraph 0124) configured to arrest movement of the folding wings. (See figures 1-3 & 7, ref # 20)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the wings comprise folding wings; wherein the commercial aircraft further comprises: a lock configured to arrest movement of the folding wings as taught by Wildschek in the modified aircraft of Gallant, so as to reduce the space wing parking the aircraft. (See paragraph 0094)
A modified Gallant is silent about a sensor configured to detect a locked and unlocked status of the lock.
However, Lassen teaches wherein the wings (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 102 & 104) comprise folding wings; (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 102, 120, 104 & 122) wherein the commercial aircraft (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 100) further comprises: a lock (See paragraphs 0078, 0085 & figures 5 & 6, ref # 574) configured to arrest movement of the folding wings; (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 102, 120, 104 & 122) and a sensor (See paragraphs 0078, 0085 & figures 5 & 6, ref # 564/582) configured to detect a locked and unlocked status of the lock. (See paragraphs 0078, 0085 & figures 5 & 6, ref # 574)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the wings comprise folding wings; wherein the commercial aircraft further comprises: a lock configured to arrest movement of the folding wings; and a sensor configured to detect a locked and unlocked status of the lock as taught by Lassen in the modified aircraft of Gallant, so as to determine if the locks are in the locked or unlocked position.
Regarding claim 2
Gallant teaches wherein the passenger cabin (See figures 1-4, ref # 14) comprises an ascending layout. (See figures 1-4)
Regarding claim 3
Gallant teaches wherein the passenger cabin (See figures 1-4, ref # 14) comprises a single deck with cargo (See figures 1-4, ref # 16a & 16b) and passenger (See figures 1-4, ref # 14/22) located on or above the single deck. (See figures 1-4)
Regarding claim 4
Gallant teaches wherein the wide body passenger capacity contains a maximum passenger capacity of at least 182 passengers. (See column 3, lines 57-60)
A modified Gallant is silent about wherein the wide body passenger capacity contains a maximum passenger capacity of at least 200 passengers.
However, Page teaches wherein the wide body passenger capacity (See figures 1-3) contains a maximum passenger capacity of at least 200 passengers. (See paragraph 0024)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a wide body passenger capacity contains a maximum passenger capacity of at least 200 passengers as taught by Page in the modified aircraft of Gallant, so as to have the desired number of passengers.
Regarding claim 5
Gallant teaches wherein the wide body passenger capacity contains a maximum passenger capacity of at least 182 passengers. (See column 3, lines 57-60)
A modified Gallant is silent about wherein the wide body passenger capacity contains a maximum passenger capacity of at least 300 passengers.
However, Page teaches wherein the wide body passenger capacity (See column 1-3) contains a maximum passenger capacity of at least 300 passengers. (See paragraph 0024)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a wide body passenger capacity contains a maximum passenger capacity of at least 300 passengers as taught by Page in the modified aircraft of Gallant, so as to have the desired number of passengers.
Regarding claim 6
A modified Gallant is silent about wherein the wide body passenger capacity comprises a wide body seat size.
However, Page teaches wherein the wide body passenger capacity comprises a wide body seat size. (See paragraphs 0045 & 0047)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a wide body passenger capacity comprises a wide body seat size as taught by Page in the modified aircraft of Gallant, so as to increase the comfort of the passengers. (See paragraph 0047)
Regarding claim 7
Gallant teaches wherein the passenger cabin (See figures 1-4, ref # 14) includes more than two passenger aisles, (See figures 1-4, ref # 30a & 30b) the more than two passenger aisles (See figures 1-4, ref # 30a & 30b) are parallel to each other. (See column 3, lines 61-65 & figures 1-4)
Regarding claim 9
Gallant teaches wherein the transition increases in chord and thickness from the wings towards the main body. (See column 1, lines 50-67 & figures 1-4)
Regarding claim 14
A modified Gallant does not teach further comprising: a hinge located on a portion of the wings and configured to allow folding of the folding wings; an actuation system configured to fold the folding wings and a controller configured to control the actuation system.
However, Wildschek teaches further comprising: a hinge (See paragraph 0090 & figures 1-3 & 7, ref # 26) located on a portion of the wings (See figures 1-3 & 7, ref # 20) and configured to allow folding of the folding wings; (See figures 1-3 & 7, ref # 20) an actuation system (See figures 3-5, ref # 28) configured to fold the folding wings (See figures 1-3 & 7, ref # 20) and a controller (See paragraph 0073) configured to control the actuation system. (See paragraph 0073 & figures 3-5, ref # 28)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a hinge located on a portion of the wings and configured to allow folding of the folding wings; an actuation system configured to fold the folding wings and a controller configured to control the actuation system as taught by Wildschek in the aircraft of Gallant, so as to reduce the wing span of the aircraft during parking. (See paragraph 0094)
Regarding claim 16
Gallant teaches the passenger cabin (See figures 1-4, ref # 14) comprises at least one passenger row, wherein the at least one passenger row contains 8 or more passenger seats. (See column 3, lines 54-60 & figures 1-4, ref # 22)
Regarding claim 18
A modified Gallant is silent about wherein the more than one cabin bays are separated by a wall.
However, Page teaches wherein the more than one cabin bays (See figure 3, ref # 316) are separated by a wall. (See figure 3, the center wall shown but not labeled)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a more than one cabin bays are separated by a wall as taught by Page in the modified aircraft of Gallant, so as to have extra overhead luggage storage. (See figure 3, luggage compartments attached to the center wall)
Regarding claim 21
A modified Gallant does not teach wherein the commercial aircraft further comprises: a hinge located on a portion of the wings and configured to allow folding of the folding wings; and a hinge sensor configured to detect loading at the hinge.
However, Lassen teaches wherein the commercial aircraft (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 100) further comprises: a hinge (See paragraphs 0093-0094 & figures 5 & 6, ref # 578) located on a portion of the wings (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 102 & 104) and configured to allow folding of the folding wings; (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 102, 120, 104 & 122) and a hinge sensor (See paragraphs 0085, 0093-0094 & figures 5 & 6, ref # 568) configured to detect loading at the hinge. (See paragraphs 0093-0094 & figures 5 & 6, ref # 578)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a commercial aircraft further comprises: a hinge located on a portion of the wings and configured to allow folding of the folding wings; and a hinge sensor configured to detect loading at the hinge as taught by Lassen in the modified aircraft of Gallant, so as to determine the loads on the wings.
Regarding claim 22
A modified Gallant does not teach wherein the structural element is parallel to at least one passenger aisle within the passenger cabin.
However, Page teaches wherein the structural element (See figure 3, the center wall shown but not labeled) is parallel to at least one passenger aisle (See figure 3) within the passenger cabin. (See figure 3, ref # 316)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a structural element is parallel to at least one passenger aisle within the passenger cabin as taught by Page in the modified aircraft of Gallant, so as to provide more than one cabin bay.
Regarding claim 23
A modified Gallant does not teach wherein the structural element comprises one or more beams.
However, Page teaches wherein the structural element (See figure 3, the center wall shown but not labeled) comprises one or more beams. (See figure 5, ref # 508)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a wherein the structural element comprises one or more beams as taught by Page in the modified aircraft of Gallant, so as to provide support to the structural element.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallant et al. (US Patent No. 10,167,081 B2) in view of Page (Pub No. US 2022/0001974 A1), Wildschek et al. (Pub No. US 2017/0021911 A1) & Lassen et al. (Pub No. US 2014/0014768 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cox et al. (US Patent No. 11,142,306 B2).
Regarding claim 8
A modified Gallant is silent about wherein the short-range flight comprises a maximum flight time of 6.5 hours.
However, Cox teaches short haul flights are 3 hours or less, medium haul flights are between 3 hours and 6 hours, and long haul flights are greater than 6 hours. (See column 2, lines 54-59)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a flight comprises a maximum flight time of 6.5 hours as taught by Cox in the modified aircraft of Gallant, since it would be obvious to optimize the maximum flight time for the desired range of the aircraft. (See column 2, lines 54- 59)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallant et al. (US Patent No. 10,167,081 B2) in view of Page (Pub No. US 2022/0001974 A1), Wildschek et al. (Pub No. US 2017/0021911 A1) & Lassen et al. (Pub No. US 2014/0014768 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Whitlock et al. (Pub No. US 2020/0207476 A1).
Regarding claim 10
A modified Gallant is silent about wherein the more than one forward entry doors are located on the transition.
However, Whitlock teaches wherein the more than one forward entry doors (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 118A) are located on the transition. (See paragraphs 0014, 0017, 0019, & figures 1 & 2)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a the more than one forward entry doors are located on the transition as taught by Whitlock in the modified aircraft of Gallant, so as to provide safe passage out of the aircraft. (See paragraph 0014)
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallant et al. (US Patent No. 10,167,081 B2) in view of Page (Pub No. US 2022/0001974 A1), Wildschek et al. (Pub No. US 2017/0021911 A1) & Lassen et al. (Pub No. US 2014/0014768 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nelson (US Patent No. 6,938,854 B2).
Regarding claim 17
Gallant teaches wherein the passenger cabin contains a maximum packing efficiency of 0.85. (See figures 1 & 4; 12 seats/14 seats & aisles = 0.85)
A modified Gallant does not teach wherein the passenger cabin contains a maximum packing efficiency of 0.83.
However, Nelson teaches passenger cabin contains a maximum packing efficiency of 0.83. (See figures 1E, 6B, & 6C; # of seats/(# of seats + # of aisles))
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a passenger cabin contains a maximum packing efficiency of 0.83 as taught by Nelson in the modified aircraft of Gallant, since it would have been obvious to optimize the packing efficiency of the passengers. (See column 13, lines 11-15)
Claim(s) 19 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallant et al. (US Patent No. 10,167,081 B2) in view of Page (Pub No. US 2022/0001974 A1), Wildschek et al. (Pub No. US 2017/0021911 A1) & Lassen et al. (Pub No. US 2014/0014768 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buchsel (US Patent No. 4,066,227).
Regarding claim 19
A modified Gallant is silent about wherein the commercial aircraft comprises a maximum fuel capacity of between 200 and 300 pounds of fuel per passenger.
However, Buchsel teaches wherein the commercial aircraft comprises reducing the fuel per passenger. (See column 2, line 63 - column 3, line 3)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a commercial aircraft comprises a maximum fuel capacity of between 200 and 300 pounds of fuel per passenger as taught by Buchsel in the modified aircraft of Gallant, so as to optimize fuel per passenger to reduce the overall cost per passenger to increase profits. (See column 2, line 63 — column 3, line 3)
Regarding claim 20
A modified Gallant is silent about wherein the commercial aircraft comprises a maximum fuel capacity of 150 pounds of fuel per passenger.
However, Buchsel teaches wherein the commercial aircraft comprises reducing the fuel per passenger. (See column 2, line 63 - column 3, line 3)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a commercial aircraft comprises a maximum fuel capacity of 150 pounds of fuel per passenger as taught by Buchsel in the modified aircraft of Gallant, so as to optimize fuel per passenger to reduce the overall cost per passenger to increase profits. (See column 2, line 63 — column 3, line 3)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10/15/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 3-4 that Page does not cure the deficiencies of the references Gallant, Wildschek, & Lassen, specifically “the structural element is in tension during flight”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Page teaches the structural element extending vertically from a lower surface of the main body to an upper surface of the main body; the structural element extends longitudinally from a first distal end of the passenger cabin to a second distal end of the passenger cabin and separates the passenger cabin into more than one cabin bays as pointed out in the above rejection. Regarding “the structural element is in tension during flight”, Page is teaching the same/similar structure as the Instant Applicant. (See Page’s figures 3 & 5 and the Instant Applications figures 3 & 5) Therefore since the structural element of Page and the Applicant have similar structure, they would be performing the same structural functions, e.g. the structural element is in tension during flight. It would be unclear how one would perform the function while the other one doesn’t since they have similar structures.
Therefore the Examiner maintains the rejections, modifying the rejection based on amendments.
The Applicant further argues on pages 5-6 that Whitlock also does not cure the deficiencies of the references Gallant, Wildschek, & Lassen.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Similar to Page, the reference Whitlock also shows similar structure to the Applicant’s Instant Application. However, Page was used in the above rejection for these limitations.
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 RODNEY ANDREW BONNETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-7556. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/RODNEY A BONNETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647