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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant's Election/Restriction filed on 14 November 2025.
Claims 1 – 15, 17 – 18, and 21 – 22 are pending. Claims 19 – 20 are withdrawn due to a restriction requirement and cancelled by applicant. Claim 16 is also cancelled by applicant.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of claims 1 – 18 in the reply filed on 14 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 19 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1 October 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the limitation, “the garlic bulb”, should read, “the individual garlic bulb.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation, “claim 1”, should read, “claim 13”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation, “the singulation belt”, is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “the singulation belt”, to mean “a singulation belt”. Please note, since claims 3 – 12 depend upon claim 1, claims 3 – 12 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claims 6, the limitation, “about 0.1 inch/inch to about 1 inch/inch”, is indefinite because the term, “about”, is a relative term. Neither the claim nor the specification provides a standard for measuring the degree of slope given to the term, “about”, thus one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “about 0.1 inch/inch to about 1 inch/inch”, to mean “0.1 inch/inch to 0.5 inch/inch”.
Regarding claims 7, the limitation, “about 0.1 inch/inch to about 0.3 inch/inch”, is indefinite because the term, “about”, is a relative term. Neither the claim nor the specification provides a standard for measuring the degree of slope given to the term, “about”, thus one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “about 0.1 inch/inch to about 1 inch/inch”, to mean “0.1 inch/inch to 1 inch/inch”.
Regarding claims 8, the limitation, “about 0.1 inch/inch to about 1 inch/inch”, is indefinite because the term, “about”, is a relative term. Neither the claim nor the specification provides a standard for measuring the degree of slope given to the term, “about”, thus one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “about 0.1 inch/inch to about 1 inch/inch”, to mean “0.1 inch/inch to 1 inch/inch”.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation, “it”, is indefinite because the term “it” is a pronoun that refers to an element previously recited and it is ambiguous as written in the claim as to the antecedent basis of the pronoun or, in other words, what element the term “it” refers. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “it”, to mean “the driver wheel”. Please note, since claim 11 depends upon claim 10, claim 11 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claims 13, the limitation, “about 0.1 inch/inch to about 1 inch/inch”, is indefinite because the term, “about”, is a relative term. Neither the claim nor the specification provides a standard for measuring the degree of slope given to the term, “about”, thus one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “about 0.1 inch/inch to about 1 inch/inch”, to mean “0.1 inch/inch to 1 inch/inch”. Please note, since claims 14 – 15 depend upon claim 13, claims 14 – 15 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claims 13 – 14 and 17 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odman (US 9 475 643 B1).
PNG
media_image1.png
546
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (Odman (US 9 475 643 B1) – Annotated figure 4)]
Regarding claim 13, Odman discloses a roller assembly for singulation and individual banding of garlic, the roller assembly comprising:
a roller support (20, fig. 4) configured to attach to a moving belt (24, fig. 4) configured to move along a longitudinal axis (axis A, annotated fig. 4);
a roller extending (the first roller spindle 28 and the second roller spindle 29 shown in the center of the roller assembly 15, fig. 4. Reference characters are circled for clarification purposes) along a lateral axis (axis B, annotated fig. 4), the roller having an hourglass shape with a first cross-sectional diameter at a first end and at a second end and a second cross- sectional diameter at a center, wherein the first cross-sectional diameter is larger than the second cross-sectional diameter (As shown in fig. 4); and
a driver wheel (30, fig. 2)for connecting the roller support and the roller.
Odman discloses the roller having a slope as measured from the first end to the center (As shown in fig. 4).
Odman does not explicitly disclose the roller has a slope as measured from the first end to the center from about 0.1 inch/inch to about 1 inch/inch.
However, different slopes for roller conveyors in fruit/vegetable processing optimize singulation by controlling speed, reducing damage, and enhancing alignment. For example, gentle slopes allow for gentle transport of delicate items while steeper slopes increase flow speed. Thus, the slope is a result effective variable that affects handling of the fruit/vegetable and the flow speed/throughput.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the slope of the roller in Odman to have a slope as measured from the first end to the center from about 0.1 inch/inch to about 1 inch/inch because it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image3.png
357
413
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (C)][AltContent: textbox (Odman (US 9 475 643 B1) – Annotated figure 4)]
Regarding claim 14, Odman discloses the invention as recited in claim 13.
Odman discloses the driver wheel (Odman – 30, fig. 2) has a protrusion (Odman – 31, fig. 2) that extends through an opening (Odman – opening C, annotated fig. 2) in the roller support (Odman – 20, fig. 4) and is received by the roller to connect the roller support and the roller.
Regarding claim 17, Odman discloses the invention as recited in claim 13.
The modified Odman discloses the roller (Odman – the first roller spindle 28 and the second roller spindle 29 shown in the center of the roller assembly 15, fig. 4. Reference characters are circled for clarification purposes) has a slope as measured from the first end to the center (As shown in fig. 4).
The modified Odman does not explicitly disclose the roller has a slope as measured from the first end to the center from about 0.1 inch/inch to about 0.5 inch/inch.
However, different slopes for roller conveyors in fruit/vegetable processing optimize singulation by controlling speed, reducing damage, and enhancing alignment. For example, gentle slopes allow for gentle transport of delicate items while steeper slopes increase flow speed. Thus, the slope is a result effective variable that affects handling of the fruit/vegetable and the flow speed/throughput.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the slope of the roller in the modified Odman to have a slope as measured from the first end to the center from about 0.1 inch/inch to about 0.5 inch/inch because it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 18, Odman discloses the invention as recited in claim 13.
The modified discloses the roller (Odman – the first roller spindle 28 and the second roller spindle 29 shown in the center of the roller assembly 15, fig. 4. Reference characters are circled for clarification purposes) has a slope as measured from the first end to the center (As shown in fig. 4).
The modified Odman does not explicitly disclose the roller has a slope as measured from the first end to the center from about 0.1 inch/inch to about 0.3 inch/inch.
However, different slopes for roller conveyors in fruit/vegetable processing optimize singulation by controlling speed, reducing damage, and enhancing alignment. For example, gentle slopes allow for gentle transport of delicate items while steeper slopes increase flow speed. Thus, the slope is a result effective variable that affects handling of the fruit/vegetable and the flow speed/throughput.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the slope of the roller in the modified Odman to have a slope as measured from the first end to the center from about 0.1 inch/inch to about 0.3 inch/inch because it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer (US 4 263 246 A) in view of Kwack (KR 10 2009 0035678 A).
Regarding claim 1, Mercer discloses a packaging system suitable for garlic bulbs, the packaging system comprising:
a bander (37, fig. 6) configured to place a sleeve (1, fig. 6) around an individual garlic bulb (Col. 1, ll. 61 – 66 describes that while the embodiment shown in the figures places a sleeve around a bottle, the sleeve can be placed about fruits and vegetables such as oranges and tomatoes wherein the examiner deems these fruits and vegetables such as oranges and tomatoes as equivalent to an individual garlic bulb (a vegetable). Additionally, the examiner deems the limitation, “to place a sleeve around an individual garlic bulb”, as a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, in the instant case, since the bander of Mercer is capable of placing a sleeve around fruits and vegetables such as oranges and tomatoes, the bander of Mercer would be capable of placing a sleeve a vegetables such as an individual garlic bulb); and
a heat shrink unit (42, fig. 6) configured to apply heat to the sleeve on the individual garlic bulb to shrink the sleeve.
Mercer does not explicitly disclose the sleeve covers a portion of the individual garlic bulb and two portions of the garlic bulb are exposed.
However, Kwack, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the sleeve covers a portion of the object and two portions of the object are exposed (Page 4, paragraph 2, l. 12 – page 5, paragraph 1, l. 4 describes a shrink film 5 placed over a watermelon and then heat/steam is applied to shrink the shrink film 5 such that the shrink film covers a portion of the watermelon and two portions of the watermelon are exposed. With the incorporation of the teachings of Kwack with the invention of Mercer, a vegetable such as an individual garlic bulb have the sleeve cover a portion of the individual garlic bulb and two portions of the garlic bulb are exposed as taught by Kwack).
Kwack is evidence that having the heat shrink unit configured to apply heat to the sleeve such that the sleeve covers a portion of the individual vegetable/garlic bulb and two portions of the vegetable/garlic bulb are exposed was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the packaging system of Mercer such that the heat shrink unit of Mercer is configured to apply heat to the sleeve such that the sleeve covers a portion of the individual vegetable/garlic bulb and two portions of the vegetable/garlic bulb are exposed, as taught by Kwack. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the packaging system of Mercer such that the heat shrink unit of Mercer is configured to apply heat to the sleeve such that the sleeve covers a portion of the individual vegetable/garlic bulb and two portions of the vegetable/garlic bulb are exposed, as taught by Kwack, in order to provide packaging that protects the vegetable/garlic bulb while offering improved breathability and reducing condensation and decay compared to full encapsulation.
Regarding claim 21, Mercer, as modified by Kwack, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Mercer discloses a singulation belt (38, fig. 6) configured to receive and singulate the garlic bulbs prior to the bander (37, fig. 6).
Claims 2 – 4, 6 – 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer (US 4 263 246 A) in view of Kwack (KR 10 2009 0035678 A), in further view of Odman (US 9 475 643 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Mercer, as modified by Kwack, discloses the invention as recited in claim 21.
Mercer teaches the singulation belt (38, fig. 6).
The modified Mercer does not explicitly disclose the singulation belt comprising a moving belt extending along a longitudinal axis; and a roller assembly attached to the moving belt, the roller assembly including: a roller support configured to attach to the moving belt; a roller extending along a lateral axis, the roller having an hourglass shape with a first cross-sectional diameter at a first end and at a second end and a second cross-sectional diameter at a center, wherein the first cross-sectional diameter is larger than the second cross-sectional diameter; and a driver wheel for connecting the roller support and the roller.
However, Odman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a singulation belt (15, fig. 4) comprising a moving belt (24, fig. 5) extending along a longitudinal axis (axis A, annotated fig. 4); and a roller assembly attached to the moving belt, the roller assembly including: a roller support (20, fig. 4) configured to attach to the moving belt; a roller (the first roller spindle 28 and the second roller spindle 29 shown in the center of the roller assembly 15, fig. 4. Reference characters are circled for clarification purposes) extending along a lateral axis (axis B, annotated fig. 4); the roller having an hourglass shape with a first cross-sectional diameter at a first end and at a second end and a second cross-sectional diameter at a center, wherein the first cross-sectional diameter is larger than the second cross-sectional diameter (As shown in fig. 4); and a driver wheel (30, fig. 2) for connecting the roller support and the roller.
Odman is evidence that having the singulation belt comprising a moving belt extending along a longitudinal axis; and a roller assembly attached to the moving belt, the roller assembly including: a roller support configured to attach to the moving belt; a roller extending along a lateral axis, the roller having an hourglass shape with a first cross-sectional diameter at a first end and at a second end and a second cross-sectional diameter at a center, wherein the first cross-sectional diameter is larger than the second cross-sectional diameter; and a driver wheel for connecting the roller support and the roller was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the singulation belt of Mercer with the structures of the singulation belt of Odman. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the singulation belt of Mercer with the structures of the singulation belt of Odman because while Mercer discloses the singulation belt, Mercer does not disclose any structures for the singulation belt thus the one having ordinary skill in the art may look to Odman for those structures. Moreover, the singulation belt in Odman is specialized for fruit and vegetables and thus increases sorting of the fruit and vegetables while minimizing damage.
Regarding claim 3, Mercer, as modified by Kwack, as further modified by Odman, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
The modified Mercer discloses the moving belt (Odman – 24, fig. 5) is a roller chain.
Regarding claim 4, Mercer, as modified by Kwack, as further modified by Odman, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
The modified Mercer discloses the driver wheel (Odman – 30, fig. 2) has a protrusion (Odman – 31, fig. 2) that extends through an opening (Odman – opening C, annotated fig. 2) in the roller support (Odman – 20, fig. 4) and is received by the roller to connect the roller support and the roller.
Regarding claim 6, Mercer, as modified by Kwack, as further modified by Odman, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
The modified Mercer discloses the roller (Odman – the first roller spindle 28 and the second roller spindle 29 shown in the center of the roller assembly 15, fig. 4. Reference characters are circled for clarification purposes) has a slope as measured from the first end to the center (As shown in fig. 4).
The modified Mercer does not explicitly disclose the roller has a slope as measured from the first end to the center from about 0.1 inch/inch to about 1 inch/inch.
However, different slopes for roller conveyors in fruit/vegetable processing optimize singulation by controlling speed, reducing damage, and enhancing alignment. For example, gentle slopes allow for gentle transport of delicate items while steeper slopes increase flow speed. Thus, the slope is a result effective variable that affects handling of the fruit/vegetable and the flow speed/throughput.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the slope of the roller in the modified Mercer to have a slope as measured from the first end to the center from about 0.1 inch/inch to about 1 inch/inch because it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Mercer, as modified by Kwack, as further modified by Odman, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
The modified Mercer discloses the roller (Odman – the first roller spindle 28 and the second roller spindle 29 shown in the center of the roller assembly 15, fig. 4. Reference characters are circled for clarification purposes) has a slope as measured from the first end to the center (As shown in fig. 4).
The modified Mercer does not explicitly disclose the roller has a slope as measured from the first end to the center from about 0.1 inch/inch to about 0.5 inch/inch.
However, different slopes for roller conveyors in fruit/vegetable processing optimize singulation by controlling speed, reducing damage, and enhancing alignment. For example, gentle slopes allow for gentle transport of delicate items while steeper slopes increase flow speed. Thus, the slope is a result effective variable that affects handling of the fruit/vegetable and the flow speed/throughput.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the slope of the roller in the modified Mercer to have a slope as measured from the first end to the center from about 0.1 inch/inch to about 0.5 inch/inch because it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Mercer, as modified by Kwack, as further modified by Odman, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
The modified Mercer discloses the roller (Odman – the first roller spindle 28 and the second roller spindle 29 shown in the center of the roller assembly 15, fig. 4. Reference characters are circled for clarification purposes) has a slope as measured from the first end to the center (As shown in fig. 4).
The modified Mercer does not explicitly disclose the roller has a slope as measured from the first end to the center from about 0.1 inch/inch to about 0.3 inch/inch.
However, different slopes for roller conveyors in fruit/vegetable processing optimize singulation by controlling speed, reducing damage, and enhancing alignment. For example, gentle slopes allow for gentle transport of delicate items while steeper slopes increase flow speed. Thus, the slope is a result effective variable that affects handling of the fruit/vegetable and the flow speed/throughput.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the slope of the roller in the modified Mercer to have a slope as measured from the first end to the center from about 0.1 inch/inch to about 0.3 inch/inch because it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 12, Mercer, as modified by Kwack, as further modified by Odman, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
The modified Mercer discloses the roller (Odman – the first roller spindle 28 and the second roller spindle 29 shown in the center of the roller assembly 15, fig. 4. Reference characters are circled for clarification purposes) is configured to move the individual garlic bulb to the center of the roller (Odman – Figure 4 shows the fruit/vegetable positioned to the center of the roller 28/29).
Claims 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer (US 4 263 246 A) in view of Kwack (KR 10 2009 0035678 A), in further view of Mingotti (US 3 591 999 A).
Regarding claim 22, Mercer, as modified by Kwack, discloses the invention as recited min claim 1.
The modified Mercer does not explicitly disclose a feed control hopper; and a pre-singulation feed belt configured to receive the garlic bulbs from the feed control hopper, wherein the singulation belt is configured to receive the garlic bulbs from the pre-singulation feed belt.
However, Mingotti, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches a feed control hopper (1, fig. 1); and a pre-singulation feed belt (3, 4, 5, 6, fig. 1) configured to receive the garlic bulbs from the feed control hopper, wherein a singulation belt (7, 8, fig. 1) is configured to receive the garlic bulbs from the pre-singulation feed belt (Please note, while the embodiment of figures show lemons, col. 1, ll. 7 – 9 describes the invention of Mingotti for packaging spheroidal products wherein the examiner deems a garlic bulb as a spheroidal product).
Mingotti is evidence that having the feed control hopper; and the pre-singulation feed belt configured to receive the garlic bulbs from the feed control hopper, wherein the singulation belt is configured to receive the garlic bulbs from the pre-singulation feed belt was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the packaging system of Mercer with feed control hopper; and a pre-singulation feed belt configured to receive the garlic bulbs from the feed control hopper, wherein the singulation belt is configured to receive the garlic bulbs from the pre-singulation feed belt, as taught by Mingotti. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the packaging system of Mercer with feed control hopper; and a pre-singulation feed belt configured to receive the garlic bulbs from the feed control hopper, wherein the singulation belt is configured to receive the garlic bulbs from the pre-singulation feed belt, as taught by Mingotti, in order to provide a hoppers which acts as a buffer, enabling continuous, automated, and controlled feeding of fruit/vegetables into processing lines.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9 – 11, and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is 571-272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
16 March 2026