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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/28/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-11 and 14-16 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections to the drawings and the claims, and some of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the Non-Final Office Action of 07/31/2025. However, the amendments to the claims have introduced new claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 and 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (line 22): “connection section” should read “connecting section”.
Claim 11 (line 12): should read “under the connecting section of the signal feeding structure of the first dipole radiator; and wherein”.
Claim 11 (line 14): “of the second dipole radiator comprise at least two coupling surfaces” should read “of the second dipole radiator each comprise at least first and second coupling surfaces”.
Claim 11 (lines 16 and 18): “the coupling surfaces” should read “the first and second coupling surfaces”.
Claim 11 (lines 22 and 28): “both coupling surfaces” should read “both first coupling surfaces”.
Claim 11 (lines 25 and 31): “both coupling surfaces” should read “both second coupling surfaces”.
The Examiner notes that the coupling surfaces are referred to as “at least two coupling surfaces” (line 14), “the coupling surfaces” (lines 16 and 18), “a first coupling surface” (at least line 20), “a second coupling surface” (at least line 23), and “both coupling surfaces” (lines 22 and 25). Consistent terminology for the coupling surfaces should be used throughout the claim(s).
Claim 14 (line 5): “the base plate” should read “a base plate”, as claim 14 is now dependent on claim 11.
Claims 11, 14, 15, 16: “cross dipole” should read “crossed dipole” for consistency with claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-10 are objected to due to their dependency on claim 1.
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 1-11 and 14-16 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 (lines 5-7) recites the limitation “the first carrier comprises a support section and a wing section, said support section having a first end and said support section is arrangeable on a base plate such that it extends away from the base plate”. However, it is not clear what “it” refers to in this context and so it is unclear which element of the dipole radiator is extending from the base plate. Is it the first end of the first carrier? Or the support section? Or the first carrier? Clarification is required.
Claim 1 also recites (lines 9-11) “the second carrier comprises a support section and a wing section, said support section having a first end and said support section is arrangeable on the base plate such that it extends away from the base plate”. Again, it is not clear what “it” refers to, so it is unclear which element of the dipole radiator is extending from the base plate. Did the Applicant intend to claim the relationship between the first end of the second carrier and the base plate? Lines 26-27 of claim 1 recite the limitation “the end section runs along the outer side of the support section of the second carrier in the direction of its first end”. However, as the relationship between the first end and second end of the second carrier, and between the first end of the second carrier and the support plate, is not specified, the direction of its (the second carrier’s) first end is also not clear. Clarification is therefore required.
Claim 1 is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the connecting section of the signal feeding structure of the second dipole radiator” (lines 10-11). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, claim 11 does not clearly recite the structural relationships between the first and second dipole radiators and the support sections, carriers and signal feeding structures.
Claim 11 (lines 13-15) further recites “the first and second carriers of the first dipole radiator and the first and second carriers of the second dipole radiator comprise at least two coupling surfaces in the region of the second end of their respective support structures”. However, the position of the second end with respect to the support structure is not clearly defined. Claim 11 then recites (lines 16-17) “the coupling surfaces partly extend from the region of the second end of the respective support section in the direction of the first end of the respective support section”. The position of the first end with respect to the support structure and the second end has not been clearly defined.
For examination purposes, claim 11 will therefore be interpreted as comprising the dipole radiator according to claim 1.
Claims 14-15 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 11.
Claims 2-10 and 16 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
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 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IDS document Oelmez et al. (EP 3035438A1 – of record; Oelmez or “O”) in view of Göttl (EP 1 695 417 B1 – of record; “Göttl” or “G”).
PNG
media_image1.png
363
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1(a)
Claim 1: Oelmez discloses (annotated fig. 1(a), figs. 1c & 2b) “a dipole radiator for a dual-polarized crossed dipole (¶46, “The radiating element 101 may be a dipole and may have a cross-shape”) for a mobile communication antenna (¶65, “the radiator 100 according to embodiments of the present invention is well suited for high frequency applications”), comprising the following features:
a first and a second carrier (annotated fig. 1a above, first C1 and second C2 portions of carrier 102) (note that the first and second carriers may be formed in one piece, according to page 7, lines 4-19 of the instant Specification) and a signal feeding structure (fig. 2, feed 200);
the first carrier (C1) comprises a support section (annotated fig. 1a, SS) and a wing section (annotated fig. 1a, WS), said support section (SS) having a first end (annotated fig. 1a, lower end E1) and a second end (annotated fig. 1a, upper end E2) merging with said wing section (WS) which extends at an angle to and away from said support section (SS);
the second carrier (C2) comprises a support section (SS) and a wing section (WS), said support section having a first end (lower end) and a second end (upper end) merging with said wing section (WS) which extends at an angle to and away from said support section (SS);
the wing sections (WS) of the first (C1) and second (C2) carriers extend at least partially in opposite directions;
the support sections of the first (C1) and second carriers (C2) each comprise an inner side (an inner side can be interpreted as the sides at the upper ends of the support section) and an opposite outer side (an opposite outer side can be interpreted as the sides at the lower ends of the support section), wherein the inner sides of the support sections of the first and second carriers face each other;
the signal feeding structure (200) comprises a feed section (annotated fig. 2b below, FS), a connecting section (annotated fig. 2b, CS) and an end section (annotated fig. 2b, ES);
the feed section (FS) of the signal feeding structure (200) extends between the support sections (SS) of the first (C1) and second (C2) carriers along the inner side of the support section (SS) of the first carrier (C1) and merges with the connecting section (CS);
the connecting section (CS) extends from the region of the second end (upper end E2) of the support section of the first carrier (C1) towards the second end of the support section of the second carrier (C2) and merges into the end section (ES) in this region;
the end section (ES) runs along the outer side of the support section of the second carrier (C2) in the direction of its first end (lower end E1)”.
Examiner’s note: the preamble of claim 1 “for a dual-polarized crossed dipole for a mobile communication antenna” is not given patentable weight as it indicates the intended use of the system.
PNG
media_image2.png
483
486
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Oelmez does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first and the second carrier are comprised of metal or a metal alloy; the support section is arrangeable on a base plate such that it extends away from the base plate”.
Göttl teaches a dual-polarized cross dipole (see fig. 1ba below, and ¶25) that the dipole halves (13) and the support (15) consist of a metal or a metal alloy (¶28). Göttl also teaches (¶28) “A dipole-shaped radiator arrangement 11 formed in this way is held and mounted on the reflector 3 via an associated support device or support 15”. Ends of the support device are arrangeable on a base plate (base 22 and reflector 3). Göttl therefore teaches “the support section is arrangeable on a base plate such that it extends away from the base plate”.
PNG
media_image3.png
218
349
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Göttl to the dipole radiator of Oelmez, wherein said support section is arranged on and extends away from a base plate. Providing a base plate increases the gain and directivity of the dipole radiator.
Additionally, Göttl states (¶28) that although the dipole halves and associated carrier usually consist of metal, they can also be made of a non-conductive material, for example plastic. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Göttl to the dipole radiator of Oelmez wherein the first and the second carrier are comprised of metal or a metal alloy. Doing so allows for the carriers to be soldered to the reflector (see ¶31 of Göttl).
Claim 2: the modified Oelmez discloses the dipole radiator according to claim 1.
Oelmez discloses “a vector of an E-field between the feed section (FS) of the signal feeding structure (200) and the support section (SS) of the first carrier (C1) points in approximately the same direction as a vector of an E-field between the end section (ES) of the signal feeding structure (200) and the support section of the second carrier (C2) (the Examiner has reason to believe that the limitation of claim 2, which refers entirely to a property or function of the explicitly recited structure of claim 1, which reads on the antenna of Oelmez, is presumed inherent to the antenna of Oelmez, as outlined in MPEP 2112.01(l). For further information see In Re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (CAFC 1997) which states: “A patent applicant is free to recite features of an apparatus either structurally or functionally….. Yet, choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk ….. As our predecessor court stated in Swinehart, 439 F.2d at 213, 169 USPQ at 228: where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on.”)”.
Claim 3: the modified Oelmez disclose the dipole radiator according to claim 1.
Oelmez discloses (fig. 2b) “the second carrier (C2) comprises an opening (feed slot 205) in the region of the second (upper end E2) end of the support section (SS) through which the signal feeding structure (200) passes”.
Claim 4: the modified Oelmez discloses the dipole radiator according to claim 3.
Oelmez discloses (fig. 2b) “the opening (205) is open to one side so that the signal feeding structure (200) is insertable into the opening with a movement vector transverse to the extension of the support section (SS) of the second carrier (C2)” (opening 205 is in a similar position to the opening shown in fig. 1A of the drawings of the instant Application, and the feeding structure 200 is of a similar shape to the feeding structure 7 shown in fig. 1A of the instant Application. Therefore, the Oelmez feeding structure 200 is insertable into opening 205 with a movement vector transverse to the extension of the support section of the second carrier).
Claim 5: the modified Oelmez discloses the dipole radiator according to claim 1.
Oelmez discloses (annotated fig. 2b and fig. 2a below) “the feed section (FS) of the signal feeding structure (200) is longer than the end section (ES) of the signal feeding structure”.
PNG
media_image4.png
299
184
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 6: the modified Oelmez discloses the dipole radiator according to claim 1.
Oelmez discloses (fig. 2a) “the signal feeding structure (200) is a bent part”.
Claim 7: the modified Oelmez discloses the dipole radiator according to claim 1.
Oelmez discloses “the support section (SS) of the first carrier (C1) is wider along its predominant length than the feed section (FS) of the signal feeding structure (200) (¶48; otherwise the feed 200 would not be able to fit into the feed slot 205 former in the carrier 102)”.
Claim 8: the modified Oelmez discloses the dipole radiator according to claim 1.
Oelmez discloses (fig. 2a) “the feed section (FS) of the signal feeding structure comprises segments (200) with a different width (the lower end of feed section FS has two narrowed segments)”.
Claim 10: the modified Oelmez discloses the dipole radiator according to claim 1.
Oelmez discloses (fig. 1a) “the wing section of the first carrier is bifurcated; and the wing section of the second carrier is bifurcated (the first carrier C1 and second C2 can each comprise two opposite halves of carrier 102, and therefore the wing sections of the first carrier and the second carrier are in two parts and can be considered to be bifurcated)”.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oelmez in view of Göttl, and further in view of Panther et al. (US 2022/0344823 – of record; hereinafter Panther).
Claim 9: the modified Oelmez discloses the dipole radiator according to claim 1.
Oelmez does not disclose “a part of the wing section of the first carrier comprises a printed circuit board or a metallized substrate; and/or-a part of the wing section of the second carrier comprises a printed circuit board or a metallized substrate”.
Panther teaches (fig. 3B) a crossed dipole arrangement comprising a carrier with four wing sections (supports 210A-210D). The wing sections include metallized portions (dipole metallizations 410A and 410B shown in fig. 4).
Panther therefore teaches “a part of the wing section of the first carrier comprises a metallized substrate; and a part of the wing section of the second carrier comprises a metallized substrate”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Panther to the dipole radiator of Oelmez in view of Göttl, wherein a part of the wing section of the first carrier comprises a printed a metallized substrate, and a part of the wing section of the second carrier comprises a metallized substrate. Doing so allows the metallized substrate to be connected to a feed in order to receive an RF signal (¶195 of Panther) and therefore to operate as an antenna.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oelmez in view of Göttl, and further in view of Patel et al. (US 2021/0384616 – of record; hereinafter Patel) and Hou et al. (US 2021/0305683 – of record; hereinafter Hou).
Claim 16: the modified Oelmez teaches the dipole radiator of claim 1.
Oelmez does not teach “a reflector arrangement; the plurality of dual-polarized crossed dipoles are arranged on a first side of the reflector arrangement in n columns, with n>= 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, wherein in each column m dual-polarized cross dipoles are provided, with m>=2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16, 20; a phase shifter arrangement and a filter arrangement are arranged on a second side of the reflector arrangement”.
Although Oelmez does not disclose a reflector arrangement. Oelmez does describe fixing radiators to a reflector (¶5).
G teaches (fig. 1 below) a dual-polarized crossed dipole arranged on a first side of a reflector arrangement (reflector 3) in a single column.
PNG
media_image5.png
479
335
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of G to the dipole radiator of Oelmez in view of G, wherein a dual-polarized crossed dipole is arranged on a first side of a reflector arrangement in a column. Doing so allows for the dipole radiators to be used in a base station for mobile communications.
G does not disclose “n columns, with n>=2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, wherein in each column m dual-polarized crossed dipoles are provided, with m>=2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16, 20; a phase shifter arrangement and a filter arrangement are arranged on a second side of the reflector arrangement”.
Patel teaches (fig. 2, figs. 3 & 6 below, fig. 9) a mobile communication antenna having a plurality of dual-polarized cross dipoles (¶129, “the antenna 100 includes a plurality of dual-polarized radiating elements 252”) comprising:
- a reflector arrangement (submodule reflector 314);
- the plurality of dual-polarized cross dipoles are arranged on a first side of the reflector arrangement in n columns, with n ≥ 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, wherein in each column m dual-polarized cross dipoles are provided, with m ≥ 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16, 20 (see fig. 6 which shows an array of dual-polarized radiating elements 252 arranged in three columns with more than two dual-polarized cross dipoles);
- a phase shifter arrangement (fig. 9, phase shifters 342) and a filter arrangement are arranged on a second side of the reflector arrangement (¶28 “the second reflector may be part of a second backplane”. ¶13 “The phase shifter may be mounted on a rear side of the second backplane”)”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Patel to the dipole radiator of Oelmez in view of G, to include n columns, with n>=2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, wherein in each column m dual-polarized crossed dipoles are provided, with m>=2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16, 20; a phase shifter arrangement are arranged on a second side of the reflector arrangement. Doing so allows for phase shifters and other components of the base station antenna to be provided to enable mobile communications without interfering with operation of the crossed dipoles.
PNG
media_image6.png
227
447
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
296
453
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Although Patel discloses a filter arrangement (¶184, “filters may be added between at least some of the RF connector ports on the radios mounted on the antenna assemblies according to embodiments of the present invention and the RF connector ports on the antenna”), Patel does not explicitly disclose “a filter arrangement arranged on a second side of the reflector arrangement”.
Hou teaches (fig. 8A below) a base station antenna (800) including a plurality of dipole antennas arranged on a first side of a reflector arrangement (804) and a phase shifter arrangement (phase shifters 806) and a filter arrangement (filter bank 810) arranged on a second side of the reflector arrangement (804).
PNG
media_image8.png
235
454
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Hou to the dipole radiator of Oelmez in view of G and Patel, wherein a filter arrangement is arranged on a second side of the reflector arrangement. Doing so provides a more compact antenna arrangement by allowing relatively small interconnections between antenna components (¶63 of Hou).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of the allowable subject matter: The pertinent prior art, as a whole, or in combination, cannot be reasonably construed as adequately teaching or suggesting the elements and features of the claimed invention(s) as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Regarding claim 11, Oelmez discloses (annotated figs. 1a and 1c) “a crossed dipole (¶46, “The radiating element 101 may be a dipole and may have a cross-shape”) for a mobile communication antenna (¶65, “the radiator 100 according to embodiments of the present invention is well suited for high frequency applications”), wherein the crossed dipole comprises a first dipole radiator (DR1) and a second dipole radiator (DR2) (¶19, “The radiating element may be a dipole with two dipole arms”) characterized by the following features: the second dipole radiator (DR2) is arranged 90 degrees rotated with respect to the first dipole radiator (DR1) (see annotated fig. 1c), whereby support sections of first (C1) and second (C2) carriers of the first dipole radiator (DR1) are arranged 90 degrees rotated with respect to the support sections of the first and second carriers of the second dipole radiator (DR2); the first (C1) and second (C2) carriers of the first dipole radiator (DR1) and the first (C1) and second carriers (C2) of the second dipole radiator (DR2) each comprise at least first and second coupling surfaces in the region of the second end (E2) of their respective support section (the wing sections of the first and second carriers are coupled to the dipole radiators, as shown in fig. 1c)”.
PNG
media_image9.png
315
333
media_image9.png
Greyscale
However, Oelmez does not teach, or suggest, “a dual-polarized crossed dipole, or a connecting section of a signal feeding structure of the first dipole radiator passes under the connecting section of the signal feeding structure of the second dipole radiator; or the connecting section of a signal feeding structure of the second dipole radiator passes under the connecting section of the signal feeding structure of the first dipole radiator”.
Oelmez also does not teach, or suggest, “the first and second coupling surfaces partly extend from the region of the second end of the respective support section in the direction of the first end of the respective support section;
- the first and second coupling surfaces are arranged on the two opposite sides of the respective first and second carrier and are angularly aligned with respect to this first and second carrier;
- a first coupling surface of the first carrier of the first dipole radiator extends spaced apart and at least partially parallel and adjacent to a first coupling surface of the first carrier of the second dipole radiator, thereby forming a capacitive coupling between both first coupling surfaces;
- a second coupling surface of the first carrier of the first dipole radiator extends spaced apart and at least partially parallel and adjacent to a second coupling surface of the second carrier of the second dipole radiator, thereby forming a capacitive coupling between both second coupling surfaces;
- a first coupling surface of the second carrier of the first dipole radiator extends spaced apart and at least partially parallel and adjacent to a first coupling surface of the second carrier of the second dipole radiator, thereby forming a capacitive coupling between both first coupling surfaces;
- a second coupling surface of the second carrier of the first dipole radiator extends spaced apart and at least partially parallel and adjacent to a second coupling surface of the first carrier of the second dipole radiator, thereby forming a capacitive coupling between both second coupling surfaces”.
Boss et al. (US 2007/0080883 – of record; “Boss”) discloses (see fig. 9) (title) a dual polarized dipole radiator for mobile communication antennas, wherein the dual-polarized dipole having a first dipole radiator and a second dipole radiator (¶34, two respective dipole components 9 oriented perpendicularly to one another); the second dipole radiator is arranged 90 degrees rotated with respect to the first dipole radiator, whereby support sections of the first dipole radiator are arranged 90 degrees with respect to support sections of the second dipole radiator (see fig. 9). Boss also discloses (annotated fig. 13) “the connecting section (45c) of the signal feeding structure (¶66, “A metal strip 45 thus formed serves as a feed line 47”) of the first dipole radiator passes under the connecting section (45d) of the signal feeding structure of the second dipole radiator”. Boss further discloses coupling surfaces for the antenna feed (¶73). However, Boss does not teach, or suggest, a crossed dipole, and first and second carriers of the first crossed dipole and the second crossed dipole which have first and second coupling surfaces.
PNG
media_image10.png
382
411
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claims 14-15 are dependent on claim 11, and are included in the allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 ANNA N HAMADYK whose telephone number is (703)756-1672. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7893. 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.
/ANNA N HAMADYK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845