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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claim s 3 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 3, line 2, “a plurality of storage battery cells” should read “the plurality of storage battery cells” . In claim 8, line 3, “the or each filter mat section” should read “the at least one filter mat section” to remain consistent with the claim language introduced in claim 1 . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation s recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation are: “means of the cover layer” in claim 3 and “means of comb-like contact elements” in claim 6. Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-8 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. The term “ essentially ” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ essentially ” is not defined by the claim s , the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The “filter mat section” of claim 1 is rendered indefinite because of the term “essentially” . Claims 2 -8 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 1 . Claims 2-7 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. The term “ essentially ” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ essentially ” is not defined by the claim s , the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The “filter mat section” of claim 2 is rendered indefinite because of the term “essentially” . Claims 3-7 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 2. Claims 4-5 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. The term “essentially” in claims 1-2 and 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The “partition wall” of claim 4 is rendered indefinite because of the term “essentially” . Claim 5 is similarly rejected due to its dependence on claim 4. Claim 8 is 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “wherein the or each filter mat section (22) is a needled nonwoven , ” and the claim also recites “in particular a needled nonwoven based on SiO 2 glass fibers” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 1-8 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation “ the entire surface ” in lines 9 and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which limitation is referred to by “the entire surface”. Claims 2-8 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 1. Claims 3-7 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. Claim 3 recites the limitation “the entire surface” in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 4-7 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 3. Claims 1-8 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation s “the filter mat section” in line 13 and “a filter mat section” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitations of lines 13 and 15 refer to the “at least one filter mat section” of claim 1, line 8, or a different “filter mat section”. Claims 2-8 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 1. Claims 2-7 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. Claim 2 recites the limitation “the filter mat section” in line 5 and “a filter mat section” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 3-7 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 2. Claims 4-5 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. Claim 4 recites the limitation “ each case ” in lines 4, 6, and 7 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 is similarly rejected due to its dependence on claim 4 . Claims 4-5 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. Claim 4 recites the limitation “an intermediate layer” in lines 4, 6, and 7. It is unclear whether the “intermediate layer” in lines 6 and/or 7 refer to the “intermediate layer” of line 4, or a different “intermediate layer”. Claim 5 is similarly rejected due to its dependence on claim 4. Claims 1-8 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 claim 1, the phrase “ or the like ” in line 10 renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “ or the like ”) , thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 2-8 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 1. 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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Riley et al. (US 2020/0112009 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Riley et al. discloses a storage battery module ( paragraph 0021 and Fig. 2, electrochemical cell enclosure 2) , comprising: a housing (paragraph 0021 and Fig. 2, housing 4) that includes an upper housing part (see Riley et al. Annotated Fig. 2 below, upper housing part), a plurality of storage battery cells in the housing ( paragraph 0021 and Fig. 2, one or more electrochemical cells 8 disposed in housing 4) , and a cover layer in the housing and above the storage battery cells (see Riley et al. Annotated Fig. 2 below, cover layer) , wherein: each storage battery cell having at least one weak point (see Riley et al. Annotated Fig. 2 below, preformed vents at the bottom of high temperature gas 20) , the cover layer includes at least one filter mat section that is gas-permeable over the entire surface and flame-arresting over the entire surface (paragraph 0021 and see Riley et al. Annotated Fig. 2 below , filter mat section consisting of flame arrestor 10 and filter 12), the upper housing part has openings, apertures, boreholes, slots, or the like over large areas which allow gas to be discharged from the interior of the storage battery module (paragraph 0021 and see Riley et al. Annotated Fig. 2 below , outlets 14 in upper housing part ) , and the filter mat section is situated over the entire surface and uniformly spaced above all weak points of the storage battery cells contained in the storage battery module (see Riley et al. Annotated Fig. 2 below , filter mat section spans the entire length of housing 4 and is uniformly spaced above all preformed vents). Riley et al. Annotated Fig. 2 Regarding claim 8, Riley et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. Riley et al. further discloses wherein the filter mat section is a needled nonwoven, in particular a needled nonwoven based on SiO 2 glass fibers (paragraph 0015, filter 12 made with a porous flame resistant material that may be fiber glass) . 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley et al. (US 2020/0112009 A1) in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 2018/0183026 A1). Regarding claim 2, Riley et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1. Riley et al. further discloses that the filter mat section is placed in the immediate vicinity of all weak points of the storage battery cells contained in the storage battery module (see Riley et al. Annotated Fig. 2 above, filter mat section adjacent to preformed vents). Riley et al. does not disclose wherein each storage battery cell has its weak point in the region of a transition between an enclosure of the storage battery cell and a metal tab that passes through the enclosure and functions as a contact element . Matsumoto et al. discloses wherein each storage battery cell has its weak point in the region of a transition between an enclosure of the storage battery cell and a metal tab that passes through the enclosure and functions as a contact element (paragraphs 0032-0034 and Fig. 2, gas discharge valve 60 located between wide portion 56a and terminals 80 and 82). Riley et al. and Matsumoto et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of storage battery modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical cell enclosure of Riley et al. with the teachings of Matsumoto et al. according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing a storage battery cell with the capabilities of connection and gas discharge , and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Claims 3- 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley et al. (US 2020/0112009 A1) in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 2018/0183026 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2013/0280596 A1) . Regarding claim 3, modified Riley discloses the limitations of claim 2. Modified Riley further discloses a plurality of storage battery cells that are placed with a vertical orientation in the housing, in layers next to one another (Riley et al. Fig. 2, electrochemical cells 8 are vertically arranged in housing 4) , and the metal tabs of the storage battery cells being situated in a contact area in the interior of the storage battery module (Matsumoto et al. Fig. 2, terminals 80 and 82 protrude upwards from battery case 50, and would have to extend into the contact area as shown in Riley et al. Annotated Fig. 2 above), and the contact area as a whole being covered over the entire surface by means of the cover layer (see Riley et al. Annotated Fig. 2 above, contact area covered by cover layer) . Modified Riley does not disclose the contact area being subdivided by partition walls, and the partition walls being covered over the entire surface by means of the cover layer . Lee et al. discloses the contact area being subdivided by partition walls (paragraph 0050 and Fig. 3, partition 130). Lee et al. is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of storage battery modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical cell enclosure of modified Riley with the teachings of Lee et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would pr event short-circuiting between the storage battery cells (Lee et al. paragraph 00 49 ). From the above modification, modified Riley discloses the limitation “ the partition walls being covered over the entire surface by means of the cover layer ,” because the partition walls are located within the contact area and the contact area as a whole is covered over the entire surface by means of the cover layer . Regarding claim 4, modified Riley discloses the limitations of claim 3. Modified Riley does not disclose wherein the storage battery cells are combined in pairs to form cell packets, and the cell packets are combined to form a storage battery module core, an intermediate layer is situated in each case between two successive cell packets, and each partition wall is aligned in each case with an intermediate layer, or is at least essentially aligned in each case with an intermediate layer. Lee et al. discloses wherein the storage battery cells are combined in pairs to form cell packets (paragraph 0050 and Figs. 3 and 4, sub-module 100 including two pouch type cells 100) , and the cell packets are combined to form a storage battery module core (paragraph 0050 and Fig. 5, battery module 1000 formed by stacking a plurality of sub-modules 100) , an intermediate layer is situated in each case between two successive cell packets (paragraph 0050 and Figs. 3 and 4, case 120) , and each partition wall is aligned in each case with an intermediate layer (paragraph 0050 and Figs. 3 and 4, partition 130 located inside case 120) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical cell enclosure of modified Riley with the teachings of Lee et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would protect the pouch type cells and reduce manufacturing costs (Lee et al. paragraphs 0046 and 0051). Regarding claim 5, modified Riley discloses the limitations of claim 4. Modified Riley further discloses wherein the partition walls are uniformly spaced apart along the storage battery module core (Lee et al. Fig. 5, partitions 130 are evenly spaced apart in battery module 1000) . Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley et al. (US 2020/0112009 A1) in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 2018/0183026 A1) , further in view of Lee et al. (US 2013/0280596 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Eisermann et al. (US 2019/0221798 A1). Regarding claim 6, modified Riley discloses the limitations of claim 3. Modified Riley does not disclose wherein the metal tabs of the storage battery cells are contactable by means of comb-like contact elements having a plurality of contact fingers that engage laterally with the contact area. Eisermann et al. discloses wherein the metal tabs of the storage battery cells are contactable by means of comb-like contact elements having a plurality of contact fingers that engage laterally with the contact area (paragraphs 105-108 and 111-114 and Figs. 4a-4c, contacting device 200 with teeth 221 that contact connection lugs 111 and 112 ) . Eisermann et al. is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of storage battery modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical cell enclosure of modified Riley with the teachings of Eisermann et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide a centering device for the contact connection lugs and facilitate assembly (Eisermann et al. paragraph 0016). Regarding claim 7, modified Riley discloses the limitations of claim 3. Modified Riley does not disclose a functional space for heat-sensitive electronic components that is partitioned off from the contact area by a cover plate that delimits the storage battery module core on one side. Eisermann et al. discloses a functional space that is partitioned off from the contact area by a cover plate that delimits the storage battery module core on one side (paragraphs 0098-0099 and Fig. 2, recess in end plates 130 and foam plate 150 that is provided in at least some region of the recess) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical cell enclosure of modified Riley with the teachings of Eisermann et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would uniformly distribute contact pressure from the end plates and have a damping effect on vibrations and/or shocks (Eisermann et al. paragraph 0061). With regard to the limitation “for heat-sensitive electronic components”, the claim does not require the recited “heat-sensitive electronic components” to be included in the storage battery module. The recess of modified Riley is capable of accommodating heat-sensitive electronic components. A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP § 2111.02, 2112.01, and 2114-2115. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Jackie Liang whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) - 272-0880 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:30AM - 4:30PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)-272-1307 . 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. /J.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /TAMIR AYAD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726