The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Upon entering the amendment, claims 1, 9, 12, and 13 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-13 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12/15/2025 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.
With respect to the amended language, the applicant argues that the prior art Beez fails to teach “to show or suggest one vehicle connected to two or more phases.” (Remarks, pg.7). The examiner provided two rejections (see below), 1) Robers et al. (WO 2012/0128626 A2) that illustrates it is generally known in the art for a consumer (2) to be connected to two or more phases and 2) Prior art Beez is modified with Paupert (2014/0021917 A1), fig.1, pars [7, 15, 25,27] that generally teaches it is known in the art for electric vehicles 8C or 8D to be multi-phase and connected to at least two phases. To further expedite prosecution, the examiner strongly suggests that the applicant distinguishes the claims structurally and operationally over the prior art of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by applicant cited Robers et al. (WO 2012/0128626 A2).
Regarding Claim 1,
Robers (for e.g., figs. 1a, 1b, 1c, etc.) teaches a charging arrangement for balancing load currents on multiple phases (pg.9, lines 18-24, pg.10, lines 1-6), the load currents being unbalanced between the phases caused by consumers connected to the phases (see for e.g., fig.1b or fig.1c, consumers 2 and 3 or 2 and 5 connected to the multiple phases), the charging arrangement comprising:
a three-phase current output line L1, L2, L3, having one phase conductor that is associated with each phase (see figs.1a-1c, pg.9, lines 18-20; the three phase conductors connected to the three-phase power supply 4, one phase conductor for each phase); and
a controller (8);
wherein the controller (8) is configured to control a load current in each of the phase conductors and balance the amount of current between the phase conductors by controlling a consumer (2) connected to at least two phases of the three-phase current output line (pg.9, lines 18-30, pg.10, lines 1-6, pg.12, lines 18-21 and related discussion; the controller 8 controls the consumer read on by the multiphase charger 2 and its power consumption by controlling the power/current, noting that P=V*I, delivered by each phase. The consumer 2 is operated asymmetrically, in order to balance the load between the phases. The consumer 2 is connected to three phases/at least two of the three phase current output line); and
wherein the charging arrangement further comprises a second measurement arrangement (6) associated with the consumer (2; pg.9, lines 21-24, pg.11, lines 10, 18-19 pg.12, lines 18-21; the second measurement arrangement is “associated” with the consumer 2, because it measures the power delivered on each phase to the consumer-later further defined as measuring the current in each phase- which makes them related/associated), wherein the second measurement arrangement (6) is configured to measure the load current on each phase the consumer generates (pg.9, lines 21-24, pg.11, lines 10, 18-19, pg.12, lines 18-21; the second measurement arrangement is further described as measuring the current in each phase. Because the consumer 2 is connected to each phase and drawing current (i.e., load current) form each phase, the load current is in effect “generated” by the consumer because the consumer is requiring/drawing or causing a current to be delivered on each phase)) and to report the measured load current to the controller (8, pg.9, lines 21-24, pg.12, lines 18-21 and related discussion).
Regarding Claim 12,
Robers teaches the apparatus necessary to complete the recited method steps in claim 12 as discussed above in the rejection of 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beez et al. (2019/0359077 A1) in view of Paupert (2014/0021917 A1).
Beez (fig.1) teaches a charging arrangement for balancing load currents on multiple phases (11-13, pars [34-40]), the load current being unbalanced between the phases caused by consumers connected to the phases (see fig.1, the currents withdrawn being unbalanced between the phases 11-13 caused by consumers 16 being connected to phases 11-13), the charging arrangement comprising:
a three-phase current output line L1, L2, L3 (fig.1, 11-13, par [34]), having one phase conductor that is associated with each phase (for e.g., phase conductor 11 associated with a first phase, phase conductor 12 associated with a second phase, phase conductor 13 associated with a third phase, etc.); and
a controller (18);
wherein the controller (18) is configured to control a load current in each of the phase conductors (11-13) and balance the amount of current between the phase conductors by controlling a consumer (pars [36-41]; the controller 18 controls the load current in each phase by controlling the current consumed by a consumer in each phase. Beez’s controller 18 is “configured to” control the load current in each phase by controlling the current draw of “a consumer” via each phase. Beez teaches controlling the consumer by controlling the load current withdrawn by the consumer via the phases and Beez discloses a “load balance results”- this meets the BRI of balance… by controlling a consumer. Examiner Note: applicant’s disclosure at par [0036] states that “perfect balance is neither required nor practically implementable”- thus, Beez’s balancing meets the BRI of “balance”); and
wherein the charging arrangement further comprises a second measurement arrangement (fig.1, 20) associated with the consumer (fig.1, par [34]; each 20 is “associated” with the consumer, because it measures current consumption/current withdrawn by the consumer via each phase line, which makes them related/associated), wherein the second measurement arrangement is configured to measure the load current on each phase the consumer generates (pars [34, 36, 38]; each 20 measures the phase current on each phase and Beez teaches the phase current on each phase is the current withdrawn by the consumer 16 via the phases- this is the “load current”. Any phase current is going to the consumer/load- this corresponds to a load current. What is being measured is the load current on each phase “the consumer generates”, because if a consumer is connected to and drawing current (i.e., load current) from any of the phases, the current is in effect “generated” by the consumer because the consumer is requiring/drawing or causing a current to be delivered on each phase)) and to report the measured load current to the controller (18, par [34]).
Beez does not explicitly disclose the consumer is connected to at least two phases of the three-phase current output line.
Paupert (fig.1), however, teaches it is known in the art to have a consumer (for e.g., 8C or 8D) connected to at least two phases of the three-phase current output line (pars [7, 15, 25,27]; consumer 8C or 8D is a three-phase consumer and is connected to at least phases 12, 14, 16 of the three-phase current output line).
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 teachings of at least one of Beez’s consumers to be that of Paupert’s multi-phase consumer connected to at least two phases of the three-phase current output line. The motivation would have been the obviousness of using known existing consumers, namely multi-phase consumers with Beez’s charger. By being able to connect a multi-phase consumer as taught by Paupert in Beez’s system, Beez’s system becomes more versatile and marketable than only being able to connect a single-phase consumer.
Regarding Claim 3,
Beez in view of Paupert teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and the combination further teaches a measurement arrangement (Beez, i.e., one of 20) connected to one of the phase conductors (Beez, fig.1, one of 20 connected to one of the phase conductors 11) and connected to the controller (Beez, 18) wherein the measurement arrangement comprises instrumentalities for measuring the load current of the phase conductor (Beez, pars [34, 36]; Beez teaches that 20 for phase 11 transmits the value of the measured load current of the phase conductor 11-thus, it comprises “instrumentalities”/i.e., the means as defined by the Merriam-webster dictionary to measure the load current); and wherein the measurement arrangement is configured to measure the amount of load current on the phase conductor (Beez, for e.g., 11; pars [34, 36]; by measuring the load current withdrawn on the phase conductor) and to signal the measured amounts of load current to the controller (Beez, par [34]).
Modified Beez teaches the functionality of the claimed “first measurement arrangement” connected to one of the phase conductors is accomplished through one of 20 of the second arrangement in Beez. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated one of Beez’s 20 second measurement arrangement to have two sets that would include the first measurement arrangement, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co. 193 USPQ 8. Furthermore, duplicating one of 20 of the second measurement arrangement to get a first measurement arrangement connected to the one phase conductor provides redundancy and backup in the readings of the current provided to the load.
Regarding Claim 6,
Beez in view of Paupert teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the controller (18) is further configured to control the load current on the phase conductors by sending a control signal containing an upper limit of the load current to consumers (Beez, pars [36-41] and Paupert, pars [7, 15, 25, 27]; Beez teaches “control unit 18 controls the electric vehicles 16 by controlling the load current withdrawn via the phase conductors. Beez teaches the control unit “transmits this present maximum available charging power” to the consumers and “transmit performance targets to the motor vehicles 16, which signal to the motor vehicles 16 that…the charging power has to be reduced.” Beez teaches the maximum available charging power is given by the maximum unbalanced load, which is 20A so the consumers can only charge with 20A as well as throttling the charging currents to prevent exceed of the maximum permissible unbalanced load. Thus, the controller 18 controls the load current on the phase conductors by sending a control signal containing an upper limit of the load current to consumers as claimed).
Regarding Claim 7,
Beez in view of Paupert teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and the combination further teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine a limit only for those consumers that cause an imbalance (Beez, pars [36-41]; Beez teaches limit consumers that cause an imbalance by 20A and/or individually limiting only those consumers that cause an imbalance by throttling the charging currents of those individual consumers).
Regarding Claim 8,
Beez in view of Paupert teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine a limit taking an allowed imbalance into account (Beez, pars [41, 44] and Paupert, pars [7, 15, 25, 27]; Beez teaches that a vehicle may take less than its maximum charging current and thus Beez’s controller makes adjustments to the other phases to control/balance the load between them to keep the “unbalanced load within permissible limits”- the “within permissible limits” reads on the “allowed imbalance”).
Regarding Claim 11,
Beez in view of Paupert teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and the combination further teaches wherein the charging arrangement is an electrical vehicle charging arrangement (Beez, fig.1, pars [2, 34], Paupert, pars [25, 29]).
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination of Beez in view of Paupert teaches the apparatus necessary to complete the recited method steps in claim 12 as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 2, 10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beez et al. (2019/0359077 A1) in view of Paupert (2014/0021917 A1) in further view of Takechi (2020/0412146 A1).
Regarding Claim 2,
Beez in view of Paupert teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further the combination further teaches wherein the controller (Beez, 18) is further configured to receive load current measurements for each phase (Beez, see fig.1, par [34]; controller 18 is “configured to”/capable of receiving load current measurements from each phase current measuring unit 20 for each phase), the consumers connected to one or more phases (Beez, see fig.1); and to control the load current in each of the phase conductors using the measurements for each phase (Beez, pars [36-41]; controller 18 controls the load current in each phase using the measurements for each phase from 20).
The claim is limited to the controller 18’s configured to/capability of receiving load current measurements (taught by Beez’s pars [34, 36]), and not where from (i.e., from the consumer) noting that the consumer is outside of the scope of the charging arrangement (not positively recited). However, alternatively, if the consumer were to be taken into account, Beez in view of Paupert does not explicitly disclose that the received load current measurements are from consumers.
Takechi (figs.1-2), however, explicitly discloses it is known in the art for a component (4) external to the consumer (“c”) to be configured to receive load current measurements from the consumer (pars [59, 64-66, 73]; 21 in 2 measures the charge current flowing through the battery of the consumer and thus measures the load current/current draw or consumption of the consumer- the current going into the battery to charge it is the load current and for component 4 to receive the measured load current via 23 and/or 33).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Beez in view of Paupert to that of Takechi so that Beez’s controller (18) receives load current measurements from consumers as discussed within Takechi. The motivation would have been because the controller receiving further load current measurements/charging current from each consumer gives a more accurate understanding of the current being drawn/load current because the measurement of the load current is being done closer to the load after the current has passed through all components.
Regarding Claim 10,
Beez in view of Paupert teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the charging arrangement further comprises a consumer charging controller (Beez, fig.1, not shown, par [38]; Beez teaches the controller 18 transmits targets to the vehicles 16 “which signal to the motor vehicles that either more charging power can be retrieved, or the charging power has to be reduced.” This means that the consumer receives the targets and regulates the current draw/consumption. This is obviously done by the not shown consumer charging controller) for charging a battery using at least one of the phases of the charging arrangement (Beez, pars [34, 36, 38] and related discussion, Paupert, par [33]; electric vehicles have a battery to be charged by the current withdrawn using at least one of the phases); and wherein the consumer charging current controller (not shown) is further configured to: receive a limit representing an allowed maximum value of the load current generated by the charging (Beez, pars [34, 36, 38-39] and related discussion; receiving a limit read on by the maximum available charging power and performance targets); and reduce the generate load on each phase according to the received limit (Beez, pars [34, 36, 38-39, 41, 43-44] and related discussion; Beez teaches according to the received limit, reduce the generated load current/the charging power has to be reduced).
Beez in view of Paupert does not explicitly illustrate the consumer charging controller being capable of receiving data.
Takechi (fig.1), however, illustrates the obviousness of having the consumer charging controller (item 3) being capable of receiving data (via 32) and for charging the battery (10 and/or 11, par [66]; via 31 of the controller 3 performs charging/discharging of the battery).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have relied upon the teachings of Takechi. The motivation would have been to fill in the gaps in modified Beez by further illustrating the obviousness of the consumer charging controller being within the consumer to receive the limit from controller 18 via data connections 22 and for the consumer controller to regulate the charging power by reducing it according to the received the limit.
Regarding Claim 13,
Beez (fig.1) teaches a consumer (for e.g., 16) adapted to connect to a charging arrangement, comprising:
a charging arrangement (see fig.1), the charging arrangement comprising:
a three-phase current output line L1, L2, L3 (fig.1, 11-13, par [34]), having one phase conductor that is associated with each phase (for e.g., phase conductor 11 associated with a first phase, phase conductor 12 associated with a second phase, phase conductor 13 associated with a third phase, etc.); and
a controller (18);
wherein the controller (18) is configured to control a load current in each of the phase conductors (11-13) and balance the amount of current between the phase conductors by controlling a consumer (pars [36-41]; the controller 18 controls the load current in each phase by controlling the current consumed by “a consumer” over the life time of the system in which any one consumer is connected to L1, L2, L3.
Beez teaches controlling the consumer by controlling the load current withdrawn by the consumer via the phases and Beez discloses a “load balance results”- this meets the BRI of balance… by controlling a consumer. Examiner Note: applicant’s disclosure at par [0036] states that “perfect balance is neither required nor practically implementable”- thus, Beez’s balancing meets the BRI of “balance”));
and
the consumer, wherein the consumer comprises a consumer charging controller (fig.1, not shown, par [38]; Beez teaches the controller 18 transmits targets to the vehicles 16 “which signal to the motor vehicles that either more charging power can be retrieved, or the charging power has to be reduced.” This means that the consumer receives the targets and regulates the current draw/consumption. This is obviously done by the not shown consumer charging controller) configured to charge a battery using a phase of the charging arrangement (pars [34, 36, 38] and related discussion; the consumer is plugged in and uses a phase of the arrangement to charge the battery within the consumer noting that EVs obviously have a battery);
a measurement arrangement (20), wherein the measurement arrangement is configured to measure the load current the consumer generates on a phase (Beez, pars [34, 36, 38]; each 20 measures the phase current on each respective phase and Beez teaches the phase current is the current withdrawn by the consumer 16- this is the “load current”. Any phase current is going to the consumer/load corresponds to a load current. What is being measured is the load current “the consumer generates” on a phase, because if a consumer is connected to and drawing current (i.e., load current) from a phase, the current is in effect “generated” by the consumer because the consumer is requiring/drawing or causing a current to be delivered on the phase); and to send a measurement value for the phase to the charging arrangement (par [34]; transmits measured value(s) for the phase to the controller 18 of the charging arrangement); and
wherein the consumer charging controller (not shown) is configured to receive a limit representing an allowed maximum value of the load current generated by the charging (pars [34, 36, 38-39] and related discussion; receiving a limit read on by the maximum available charging power and performance targets); and to reduce the generated load on the phase according to the received limit (pars [34, 36, 38-39, 41, 43-44] and related discussion; Beez teaches according to the received limit, reduce the generated load current/the charging power has to be reduced on the phase over time).
Beez does not explicitly disclose the consumer is connected to at least two phases of the three-phase current output line and does not explicitly illustrate the battery within the consumer.
Paupert (fig.1), however, teaches it is known in the art to have a consumer (for e.g., 8C or 8D) connected to at least two phases of the three-phase current output line (pars [7, 15, 25,27]; consumer 8C or 8D is a three-phase consumer and is connected to at least phases 12, 14, 16 of the three-phase current output line) and further illustrates the battery within the consumer (par [33]).
In the combination, Paupert’s multi-phase vehicle/multi-phase consumer is connected to Beez’s charging arrangement system, namely Beez’s three-phase current output line, and uses the phases of Beez’s charging arrangement to charge the multi-phase consumer’s battery and to reduce the generated load current on each phase according to the received limit as discussed within Beez. Further, in the combination, the measurement arrangement (20) would also measure the load current the multi-phase consumer generates on each phase it is connected to and send a corresponding measurement value for each phase to the charging arrangement/controller 18 of Beez.
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 teachings of at least one of Beez’s consumers to be that of Paupert’s multi-phase consumer connected to at least two phases of the three-phase current output line. The motivation would have been the obviousness of using known existing consumers, namely multi-phase consumers with Beez’s charging arrangement. By being able to connect a multi-phase consumer as taught by Paupert in Beez’s system, Beez’s system becomes more versatile and marketable than only being able to connect a single-phase consumer. One skilled in the art would further understand that an electric vehicle would comprise a battery.
Modified Beez does not explicitly illustrate the consumer charging controller and does not teach the consumer further comprises a measurement arrangement configured to measure the load current and to send a measurement value.
Takechi (figs.1-2), however, explicitly illustrates the consumer charging controller (31, 32) and the consumer (“c”) further comprises a measurement arrangement (2 and/or 2, 12) configured to measure the load current (pars [59, 73] and related discussion; 21 in 2 measures the charge current flowing through the battery of the consumer and thus measures the load current/current draw or consumption of the consumer- the current going into the battery to charge it is the load current) and to send a measurement value of the load current (pars [64-66, 73]; send the measured load current via 23 and/or 33).
In the combination, modified Beez’s consumer would obviously have a consumer charging controller to receive the limit from controller 18 through data connections 22, and the consumer would comprise the measurement arrangement “configured to” measure the load current (i.e., by sensing the charging current) the consumer generates on each phase it is connected to in the combination and then send the measurement value for each phase to the controller 18.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined modified Beez with the teachings of Takechi in order to fill in the gaps in Beez and further illustrate the consumer charging controller that would obviously be within the consumer to receive maximum allowable value and performance targets from the controller. Furthermore, having the measurement arrangement comprised by a consumer instead of being located on the phase conductors is advantageous in that the measurement of the load current would be done after the current has passed through all components, which gives a more accurate understanding of the current being drawn (i.e., measurement closer to the load), rather than measurement on the phase conductors that may not reflect losses.
Claim(s) 5, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beez et al. (2019/0359077 A1) in view of Paupert (2014/0021917 A1) in further view of Verheijen et al. (2023/0356615 A1).
Regarding Claim 5,
Beez in view of Paupert teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and the combination further teaches wherein the charging arrangement further comprises a measurement arrangement (Beez, fig.1, 20) on the phase conductors (Beez, see fig.1).
The combination does not explicitly disclose a third measurement arrangement associated with a consumer charger equipment and/or centrally.
Verheijen (figs.1-2), however, teaches it is known to have a third measurement arrangement (fig.2, 20, 22, 24) associated with a consumer charger equipment (figs.1-2, 14, pars [94-95]) and/or centrally (Note: the recitation of “and/or” is interpreted as “or”).
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 teachings of Beez to further comprises the third arrangement associated with a charger equipment as taught within Verheijen. The motivation would have been to ensure more accurate and reliable measurements of the load current with measurement being taken at the charger equipment closer to the consumer than measuring directly on the phase conductors, thereby improving the overall reliability and efficiency of the charging arrangement.
Regarding Claim 9,
Beez in view of Paupert teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and the combination further teaches the controller is further configured to calculate a limit such that the maximum load on each phase is not exceeded on the used phases (Beez, pars [38-41] and Paupert, pars [7, 15, 25, 27]).
The combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is further configured to calculate the limit by determining a total load current on a phase not used by the consumer, adding an allowed imbalance to the total load current, resulting in a maximum load on each phase.
Verheijen (fig.4), however, teaches determining a total load current on a phase not used by the consumer (see fig.4, pars [101, 121-122] and related discussion; vehicle only connected to phase I and phase II is freed up. The total load current in the top right diagram of fig.4 of not used phase II is 75), adding the allowed imbalance to the load current (see fig.4, the allowed imbalance indicated by the double arrow in the top right diagram of fig.4), resulting in the maximum load on each phase such that the maximum load current on each phase is not exceeded on the used phases (fig.4, pars [122-123] and related discussion; the maximum load current read on by “max capacity” limit is not exceeded on the used phases I and II in the bottom diagram).
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 teachings of modified Beez’s limit to be calculated in the manner discussed within Verheijen. The motivation would have been to efficiently use the total capacity of the charging system without exceeding the maximum capacity that the power distribution system can handle on each phase.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASEM MOURAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7770. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571)272-7492. 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.
/RASEM MOURAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836