INDUCTIVE 360-DEGREE ANGLE SENSOR USING A RADIALLY-SEPARATED DUAL TARGET

§102 §112

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 . This action is in response to the communication filed 7/20/2026. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to applicant’s arguments on pages 7-10 directed towards Ausserlechner (US 2021/0063206 A1), Applicant initially argues that the target features have a uniform width, but the Examiner respectfully notes that the term “feature” is broad and does not reasonably limit how the prior art can be interpreted other than the conductive “feature” must be a part or portion of an object. The definition of “feature” is “a prominent part or characteristic” per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feature, and such a definition is consistent with the disclosure and is the broadest reasonable interpretation of this term. PNG media_image1.png 416 458 media_image1.png Greyscale As seen above, a feature can be what is seen above, because any part of the outer target ring is a feature because it exists. The Examiner acknowledges that applicant’ has specific and distinctly shaped structures for the conductive features that have a clearly defined outer periphery unconnected on three sides as seen in applicant’s Figure 5. However, these distinctly shaped structures are not claimed. The term “feature” does not reasonably capture these structures, because it can be more broadly interpreted, such as in the manner noted above. Applicant then argues that the target in the prior art has features held together by multiple rings, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees. While plural rings are referenced with regard to Figure 7A, as seen above, those rings are referring to portions of a single unified body as expressly seen in Figure 7A and in the above figure. That stated, even if plural rings were used to form what is seen in Figure 7A, these collective rings still form a monolithic article, as they are integrated together into one article, as seen in Figure 7A. Applicant then argues various advantages of the instant application and disadvantages of the prior art, but the Examiner respectfully notes that such arguments are not pertinent to a rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 102. In anticipation, a prior art reference either does or does not disclose a feature, but motivation, advantage, or disadvantage are not factors when determining when a reference does or does not disclose a feature. Lastly, the Examiner further respectfully notes that all argued advantages and disadvantages are attorney argument unsupported by evidence. As explained in MPEP 2145(I), such evidence is required when applicant is relying upon what applicant believes a person of ordinary skill in the art would know. Applicant has not identified where in the original disclosure any argued advantage can be found, or presented evidence to that effect or to the argued disadvantages. Lastly, with regard to the arguments regarding new Claim 28, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that this claim introduces new matter. The original disclosure does disclose that the first and second conductive features can have a different size, but it does not state that the first conductive features have different average size than any of the second conductive features. The original disclosure makes no mention of the term “average,” and an it cannot be reasonably discerned whether the original disclosure provided support for such a feature without a disclosure of actual dimensions or the use of a ruler to measure the widths, but where the original disclosure does not state that the features are to scale. Note further that a different average “size” would include all dimensions. Two conductive features can have a different width but the same average size due to the other dimensions accounting for the different width. For example, if the first conductive feature had a larger width, but was thinner than a second conductive feature, that second conductive feature can be thick enough to cause its average size to be the same as the first conductive feature, even if they have different widths. The use of the term “average” therefore introduces new matter. The original disclosure is completely silent as to any “average” size, and no specific dimensions are disclosed to reasonably provide support for the above feature. This feature and any associated feature therefore introduce new matter. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 7/24/2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because no fee has been paid and no statement under 37 C.F.R. 1.97(e) has been made. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 4, 10, 24, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As to Claim 4, The phrase “wherein at least one of the first conductive features has a different average width than at least one of the second conductive features” on lines 1-3 introduces new matter. The term “average” is not originally disclosed, and applicant must intend this term to change the scope of the claim phrase by adding such a term. However, while the original disclosure does state that the first conductive features can have a different width than the second conductive features, it does not originally disclose them having a different “average” width than the second conductive features. Furthermore, the only way to know whether the actual widths of any group of features have a different average width would be a disclosure of dimensions or to use a ruler. But, as no such dimensions are provided or statement that the drawings are to scale, the newly claimed feature is not reasonably supported. This phrase therefore introduces new matter. As to Claim 10, The phrase “at least two of the first conductive features in the first set have different average widths” on lines 1-2 introduces new matter. The term “average” is not originally disclosed, and applicant must intend this term to change the scope of the claim phrase by adding such a term. However, while the original disclosure does state that the first conductive features can have a different width than the second conductive features, it does not originally disclose them having a different “average” width than the second conductive features. Furthermore, the only way to know whether the actual widths of any group of features have a different average width would be a disclosure of dimensions or to use a ruler. But, as no such dimensions are provided or statement that the drawings are to scale, the newly claimed feature is not reasonably supported. This phrase therefore introduces new matter. As to Claim 24, The phrase “wherein at least one of the first conductive features has a different average width than at least one of the second conductive features” on lines 1-3 introduces new matter. The term “average” is not originally disclosed, and applicant must intend this term to change the scope of the claim phrase by adding such a term. However, while the original disclosure does state that the first conductive features can have a different width than the second conductive features, it does not originally disclose them having a different “average” width than the second conductive features. Furthermore, the only way to know whether the actual widths of any group of features have a different average width would be a disclosure of dimensions or to use a ruler. But, as no such dimensions are provided or statement that the drawings are to scale, the newly claimed feature is not reasonably supported. This phrase therefore introduces new matter. As to Claim 27, The phrase “at least two of the first conductive features in the first set have different average widths” on lines 1-2 introduces new matter. The term “average” is not originally disclosed, and applicant must intend this term to change the scope of the claim phrase by adding such a term. However, while the original disclosure does state that the first conductive features can have a different width than the second conductive features, it does not originally disclose them having a different “average” width than the second conductive features. Furthermore, the only way to know whether the actual widths of any group of features have a different average width would be a disclosure of dimensions or to use a ruler. But, as no such dimensions are provided or statement that the drawings are to scale, the newly claimed feature is not reasonably supported. This phrase therefore introduces new matter. As to Claim 28, The phrase “each of the first conductive features has a different average size than any of the second conductive features” on lines 1-2 introduces new matter. The term “average” is not originally disclosed, and applicant must intend this term to change the scope of the claim phrase by adding such a term. However, while the original disclosure does state that the first conductive features can have a different width than the second conductive features, it does not originally disclose them having a different “average” width than the second conductive features. Furthermore, the only way to know whether the actual widths of any group of features have a different average width would be a disclosure of dimensions or to use a ruler. But, as no such dimensions are provided or statement that the drawings are to scale, the newly claimed feature is not reasonably supported. This phrase therefore introduces new matter. Furthermore, as explained in the above response to arguments, two conductive features can have the same average size even if one has a larger width, because another dimension can account for the difference. For example, if the first conductive feature has a larger width, but is thinner than a second conductive feature, the overall or average size of both conductive features can still be the same because the difference in thickness makes up for any difference in width. This claim phrase therefore introduces new matter. 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 4, 10, 24, 26, 27, and 28 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. As to Claim 4, The phrase “wherein at least one of the first conductive features has a different average width than at least one of the second conductive features” on lines 1-3 is indefinite 1) It is unclear how “at least one,” and therefore one of the first conductive features can have an “average” width. A single conductive feature has a width, and it is not reasonable to consider this width an “average” is an average would require more than one width in order to perform any averaging. The difference between this feature having a width and an average width is therefore unclear, and this phrase is therefore indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is equating width with average width. 2) Claim 1 has been amended to now recite that each of the first and second conductive features have a width. This width is distinctly recited from the width recited in Claim 4, but where, as best understood, it is not distinct. As best understood, both the widths for each respective first and second conductive feature are the widths now recited in Claim 4. Because the widths of Claim 1 and the widths of Claim 4 are being distinctly recited, the difference and relationship between them is unclear, and therefore indefinite. As to Claim 10, The phrase “at least two of the first conductive features in the first set have different average widths” on lines 1-2 is indefinite. 1) As best understood, the above claim scope reasonably includes each conductive feature having its own respective different average width, thereby allowing “at least two” of the features to have “different average widths.” Such a recitation would require each individual feature to have its own “average width” that is different than another feature. However, a single conductive feature has a width, and it is not reasonable to consider this width an “average” is an average would require more than one width in order to perform any averaging. The difference between this feature having a width and an average width is therefore unclear, and this phrase is therefore indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is equating width with average width. 2) Claim 1 has been amended to now recite that each of the first and second conductive features have a width. This width is distinctly recited from the width recited in Claim 10, but where, as best understood, it is not distinct. As best understood, both the widths for each respective first and second conductive feature are the widths now recited in Claim 10. Because the widths of Claim 1 and the widths of Claim 10 are being distinctly recited, the difference and relationship between them is unclear, and therefore indefinite. As to Claim 24, The phrase “wherein at least one of the first conductive features has a different average width than at least one of the second conductive features” on lines 1-3 is indefinite 1) It is unclear how “at least one,” and therefore one of the first conductive features can have an “average” width. A single conductive feature has a width, and it is not reasonable to consider this width an “average” is an average would require more than one width in order to perform any averaging. The difference between this feature having a width and an average width is therefore unclear, and this phrase is therefore indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is equating width with average width. 2) Claim 21 has been amended to now recite that each of the first and second conductive features have a width. This width is distinctly recited from the width recited in Claim 24, but where, as best understood, it is not distinct. As best understood, both the widths for each respective first and second conductive feature are the widths now recited in Claim 24. Because the widths of Claim 21 and the widths of Claim 24 are being distinctly recited, the difference and relationship between them is unclear, and therefore indefinite. As to Claim 26, The phrase “each of the first conductive features has a different size than any of the second conductive features” on lines 1-2 is indefinite. Claim 21 has been amended to now recite that each of the first and second conductive features have a width, and a width is part of the size of any feature. This width is distinctly recited from the size recited in Claim 28, but where, as best understood, it is not distinct because the width makes up part of the size of the feature(s). As best understood, both the widths for each respective first and second conductive feature are part of the sizes now recited in Claim 28. Because the widths of Claim 21 and the sizes of Claim 28 are being distinctly recited, the difference and relationship between them is unclear, and therefore indefinite. As to Claim 27, The phrase “at least two of the first conductive features in the first set have different average widths” on lines 1-2 is indefinite. 1) As best understood, the above claim scope reasonably includes each conductive feature having its own respective different average width, thereby allowing “at least two” of the features to have “different average widths.” Such a recitation would require each individual feature to have its own “average width” that is different than another feature. However, a single conductive feature has a width, and it is not reasonable to consider this width an “average” is an average would require more than one width in order to perform any averaging. The difference between this feature having a width and an average width is therefore unclear, and this phrase is therefore indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is equating width with average width. 2) Claim 21 has been amended to now recite that each of the first and second conductive features have a width. This width is distinctly recited from the width recited in Claim 27, but where, as best understood, it is not distinct. As best understood, both the widths for each respective first and second conductive feature are the widths now recited in Claim 27. Because the widths of Claim 21 and the widths of Claim 27 are being distinctly recited, the difference and relationship between them is unclear, and therefore indefinite. As to Claim 28, The phrase “each of the first conductive features has a different average size than any of the second conductive features” on lines 1-2 is indefinite. 1) It is unclear how “each of” and therefore each respective one of the first conductive features can have an “average” width. A single conductive feature has a width, and it is not reasonable to consider this width an “average” is an average would require more than one width in order to perform any averaging. The difference between this feature having a width and an average width is therefore unclear, and this phrase is therefore indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is equating width with average width. 2) Claim 1 has been amended to now recite that each of the first and second conductive features have a width, and a width is part of the size of any feature. This width is distinctly recited from the size recited in Claim 28, but where, as best understood, it is not distinct because the width makes up part of the size of the feature(s). As best understood, both the widths for each respective first and second conductive feature are part of the sizes now recited in Claim 28. Because the widths of Claim 21 and the sizes of Claim 28 are being distinctly recited, the difference and relationship between them is unclear, and therefore indefinite. 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, 2, 4-7, 10, 12, 13, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ausserlechner (US 2021/0063206 A1). PNG media_image2.png 416 458 media_image2.png Greyscale As to Claim 1, Ausserlechner discloses A method, comprising: providing a target (123) including: (i) a base having a through-hole formed therein that defines an inner perimeter of the base (see above figure, and note that the base is the material between the first and second individual targets (121,122), or the base is everything but the targets / conductive features and inner flange), the base having an outer side running around an outer perimeter of the base (see above figure), and the base having an inner side running around the inner perimeter of the base (see above figure), (ii) a first set of first conductive features (122) that are coupled to the outer side of the base (see above figure), (Figure 7A), (Paragraph [0122] / note all of 123 is made of a metal, and thus targets 122 must be metal), each of the first conductive features extending outwardly and having a width that increases with distance from the base (see above figure), (Figure 7A), (iii) and a second set of second conductive features (121) that are coupled to the inner side of the base (see above figure), (Figure 7A), (Paragraph [0122] / note all of 123 is made of a metal, and thus targets 121 must be metal), each of the second conductive features extending inwardly and having a width that decreases from the base (see above figure), (Figure 7A), wherein a first count of the first conductive features in the first set is different from a second count of the second conductive features in the second set (Figure 7A / note there are 9 of the 122 targets and 8 of the 121 targets), (Paragraph [0122]), and detecting an angular position of the target based on a first electrical angle that is associated with the first set of first conductive features and a second electrical angle that is associated with the second set of second conductive features (Paragraphs [0036],[0134],[0135] / note the embodiment of Figure 7A merely uses a different configuration for the targets but otherwise uses the same coils and is reasonably intended to use the same position determination described earlier, as evidenced by the fact that both use the same (123) number for the target, and especially given that the Nonius/Vernier method is mentioned with his a way to unambiguously determine a position of a rotating object in paragraph [0135]) , wherein the angular position of the target is in the range 0-360 mechanical degrees so that the detected angular position covers an entire mechanical revolution of the target (Paragraph [0133] / note the unique reading over a full 360 degrees), wherein the base, the first conductive features, and the second conductive feature are part of a monolithic article, the base is the only structure coupling the first conductive features with each other within the monolithic article, and the base is the only structure coupling the second conductive features with each other within the monolithic article (Figure 7A),(see above figure / note that everything in the above figure is shown to be one single article and thus is a monolithic article, and the base is the only thing that is coupling the first and second conductive features each other within the article as everything but the conductive features is the base). As to Claim 2, Ausserlechner discloses any two adjacent first conductive features are spaced apart from one another by a first distance, and any two adjacent second conductive features are spaced apart from one another by a second distance that is different from the first distance (Figure 7A / note targets 122 are reasonably spaced farther apart than targets 121 given the size of the holes between the respective targets). As to Claim 4, Ausserlechner discloses at least one of the first conductive features has a different average width than at least one of the second conductive features (Figure 7A / the width of targets 122 are reasonably greater than that of targets 121). As to Claim 5, Ausserlechner discloses the first conductive features are staggered with respect to the second conductive features (Figure 7A). As to Claim 6, Ausserlechner discloses the base is shaped as a ring (Figure 7A / note the object identified above as the base is reasonably a ring). As to Claim 7, Ausserlechner discloses each of the first conductive features is shaped as a sector of a ring and each of the second conductive features is shaped as a sector of a ring (Figure 7A). As to Claim 10, Ausserlechner discloses at least two of the first conductive features in the first set have different average widths (Figure 7A / note that this claim does not define what these different widths are relative to, and at least two of the first conductive features do have different widths relative to the widths of the second conductive features). As to Claim 12, Ausserlechner discloses the outer side of the base defines a first shape and the inner side of the base define a second shape that is concentric with the first shape (Figure 7A). As to Claim 13, Ausserlechner discloses the base, the first set of first conductive features, and the second set of second conductive features are integral with each other (Figure 7A). As to Claim 21, Ausserlechner discloses A system comprising: a target (123) including: (i) a base having a through-hole formed therein that defines an inner perimeter of the base (see above figure, and note that the base is the material between the first and second individual targets (121,122), or the base is everything but the targets / conductive features and inner flange), the base having an outer side running around an outer perimeter of the base (see above figure), and the base having an inner side running around the inner perimeter of the base (see above figure), (ii) a first set of first conductive features (122) that are coupled to the outer side of the base (see above figure), (Figure 7A), (Paragraph [0122] / note all of 123 is made of a metal, and thus targets 122 must be metal), each of the first conductive features extending outwardly and having a width that increases with distance from the base (see above figure), (Figure 7A), (iii) and a second set of second conductive features (121) that are coupled to the inner side of the base (see above figure), (Figure 7A), (Paragraph [0122] / note all of 123 is made of a metal, and thus targets 121 must be metal), each of the second conductive features extending inwardly and having a width that decreases with distance from the base (see above figure), (Figure 7A), wherein a first count of the first conductive features in the first set is different from a second count of the second conductive features in the second set (Figure 7A / note there are 9 of the 122 targets and 8 of the 121 targets), (Paragraph [0122]); a first receiving coil (111a) configured to generate a first signal in response to a first reflected magnetic field that is produced by the first set of conductive features (Figures 1,6,7A), (Paragraphs [0027],[0031],[0056]); a second receiving coil (111b) configured to generate a second signal in response to the first reflected magnetic field that is produced by the first set of conductive features (Figures 1,6,7A), (Paragraphs [0027],[0031],[0056]); a third receiving coil (112a) configured to generate a third signal in response to a second reflected magnetic field that is produced by the second set of conductive features (Figures 1,6,7A), (Paragraphs [0027],[0031],[0057]); a fourth receiving coil (112b) configured to generate a fourth signal in response to the second reflected magnetic field that is produced by the first set of conductive features (Figures 1,6,7A), (Paragraphs [0027],[0031],[0057]); and a processing circuitry (140) that is configured to generate an output signal based, at least in part, on the first signal, the second signal, the third signal, and the fourth signal, the output signal being indicative of an angular position of the target (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0096]), wherein the base, the first conductive features, and the second conductive feature are part of a monolithic article, the base is the only structure coupling the first conductive features with each other within the monolithic article, and the base is the only structure coupling the second conductive features with each other within the monolithic article (Figure 7A),(see above figure / note that everything in the above figure is shown to be one single article and thus is a monolithic article, and the base is the only thing that is coupling the first and second conductive features each other within the article as everything but the conductive features is the base). As to Claim 22, Ausserlechner discloses any two adjacent first conductive features are spaced apart from one another by a first distance, and any two adjacent second conductive features are spaced apart from one another by a second distance that is different from the first distance (Figure 7A / note targets 122 are reasonably spaced farther apart than targets 121 given the size of the holes between the respective targets). As to Claim 24, Ausserlechner wherein at least one of the first conductive features has a different average width than at least one of the second conductive features (Figure 7A / the width of targets 122 are reasonably greater than that of targets 121). As to Claim 25, Ausserlechner discloses the first conductive features are staggered with respect to the second conductive features (Figure 7A). As to Claim 26, Ausserlechner discloses each of the first conductive features has a different size than any of the second conductive features (Figure 7A / the width and size of targets 122 are reasonably greater than that of targets 121). As to Claim 27, Ausserlechner discloses at least two of the first conductive features in the first set have different average widths (Figure 7A / note that this claim does not define what these different widths are relative to, and at least two of the first conductive features do have different widths relative to the widths of the second conductive features). As to Claim 28, Ausserlechner discloses each of the first conductive features has a different average size than any of the second conductive features (Figure 7A / the width and size of targets 122 are reasonably greater than that of targets 121). 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 DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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 M. SCHINDLER Primary Examiner Art Unit 2858 /DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858