Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
At p. 6 para 3 that “… However, Zhou does not teach the specific structural relationship of "an optical module being partly or wholly packed in a housing and being arranged along the length direction of the housing and having a light source module, a light splitting module connected with the light source module, and a light focusing module connected with the light splitting module," as recited in claim 1”.
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Fig. 1 of Zhou clearly shows the limitation above. All the optical modules are working as one and wholly packed inside the Raman handheld spectrometer 102.
Applicant argues:
At p. 6 para 4 that “First, Fig. 1 of Zhou is merely a block diagram of one exemplary embodiment of the disclosed Raman measurement device and fails to illustrate the physical, structural relationship between the elements, particularly the diode laser 104 and the Raman probe 106”.
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, fig. 1 of Zhou explicitly shows the diode laser has a structure and its specific arrangement with respect to the rest of the optical elements, which is the Raman probe 106.
Applicant argues:
At p. 6 para 5 that “… Zhou discloses individual elements, not the claimed "modules." A module is understood in the art to be a self-contained unit or a packaged functional assembly, often comprising more than one element. In contrast, the "diode laser 104" (column 2, line 55 to column 3, line 16) is a single light source, not a "light source module" that would typically contain the source and associated elements. There is no doubt that "diode laser 104" can be referred to a light source but cannot simultaneously referred to a light source module including the light source. Similarly, the elements 1061, 1062, 1063, 1064, and 1065 inside the Raman probe 106 are described as single elements, not as "a light splitting module" or "a light focusing module." The references provide no evidence or description to suggest these single elements are, or are part of, distinct modules”.
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In comparison with the application, fig. 1B shows the light source module is simply the laser light source, which is equivalent to the laser 104 in fig. 1 of Zhou. In addition, fig. 1 B of the application shows connections between elements 1211–1213, which means all these modules work as one optical system, which is, again, equated as elements 104, 106, and 107 of Zhou. The examiner has the freedom to label which optical instrument belongs to each module based on the function of these optical elements. Fig. 1 and the specification of Zhou are the evidence regarding the modules.
Applicant argues:
At p. 6 para t that “the Examiner has not identified which of the elements in Zhou would correspond to the claimed "light focusing module," especially when both elements 1063 and 1065 perform light-focusing functions. This ambiguity underscores that Zhou fails to teach the claimed, specific module-based architecture”.
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Elements 1063 and 1065 are optical lenses which belong to the "light focusing module" because their function is to focus light rays. There is no ambiguity in Zhou’s device because it specifically shows how the optical elements arrange to perform the optical device compared to the application. The instant application does not show the details of the optical elements inside the modules in the housing 11.
Applicant argues:
At p. 7 para 4 that “The Examiner identifies angle theta 1 in an annotated Figure 11 of Plessis as corresponding to the claimed "first angle." This interpretation is incorrect. The claimed "first angle" is defined between "the axial centerline of the probe" and "a virtual line extending along and being parallel to the length direction of the housing”.
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Based on para [0042] lines 3–4 of Pleiss and the annotated fig. created by the examiner in the office action, the interpretation of the examiner to define the “first angle” is correct. The housing of Pleiss corresponds to the entire structure in the annotated fig.
Applicant argues:
At. p. 7 para 5 to p. 8 para 2 that “…In Plessis's Figure 11, the "length direction" of the casing 82 is its longitudinal direction (as indicated by the red double arrow in the annotated figure). However, the angle theta 1 identified by the Examiner is measured between a virtual line along the probe 28 and a horizontal line. The horizontal line is not "along with and parallel to the length direction" of the casing 82. Therefore, Plessis does not teach the claimed angular relationship”.
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The structure of fig. 11 connected to the probe 28 of Pleiss is an extension of the device of Zhou, connecting the Raman probe of Zhou to the mounting probe 29 of Pleiss. Thus, they are proper to combine. Regarding the horizontal line that is not "along with and parallel to the length direction" of the casing 82, the examiner can simply translate the horizontal line to the bottom of the casing 82, along elements 30 to 56, since this bottom is still part of the casing 82. This will result in the same definition of the first angle as argued by the applicant.
Applicant argues:
At p. 8 para 4 to p. 9 para 1 that “Fundamentally, the casing 82 of Plessis cannot be considered the "housing" recited in claim 1… For these reasons, Plessis fails to teach or suggest the claimed geometric configuration”.
Examiner response:
Again, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Plessis’s casing 82 is an extension of the Raman probe of Zhou, which can be connected to element 29 of Plessis.
Applicant argues:
At p. 9 para 3 to para 5 that “The proposed combination of Zhou, Plessis, and Zhang explicitly fails… Zhou, discloses a general-purpose, handheld Raman spectrometer designed for broad,… In contrast, Plessis is directed to a highly specialized apparatus for analyzing a continuous…”
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Plessis casing 82 is an addition of structure to the probe 28. It is obvious for the ordinary skill of the art to have a casing 82 which serves as an enclosure to the sample protecting it from any external light or contamination during measurement in order to provide an accurate measurement.
Applicant argues:
At p. 9 last para to p. 10 para 1 that “Similarly, Zhang is directed to solving an even more distinct problem: performing Raman spectroscopy in situ in extreme high-temperature environments, up to 1400°C… The motivation must stem from the problem faced by the primary reference, not from an unrelated problem solved by the secondary reference”.
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Note that Zhang was used to teach specifically to the effective distance. The effective distance depends on the light focusing modules of the instance application. In Zhou’s device, this depends on the lenses 1062, 1064, and 1061. Zhang’s effective distance relied on the sapphire convex lens and customized telescope as shown in fig. 1. The sample of Zhang is for intended use only because of a long working distance. Thus, Zhou, Plessis, and Zhang are appropriate to combine.
In response to p. 10 para 3: All the references are proper to combine because the casing 82 of Plessis is simply an expanded structure to the Raman probe of Zhou’s device. Zhang's effective distance depends on the focusing module of the instance application and the optical lenses in the device of Zhou as shown in fig. 1.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the term “optical module” in any of the claims 1-8; “light splitting module”, and “light focusing module” all in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, X. et al., US 8699020 B1 (hereinafter Zhou), in view of Du Plessis, F. et al., US 20050260763 A1 (hereinafter Plessis), and in further in view of Zhang, Bohong, et al. "In situ high-temperature Raman spectroscopy via a remote fiber-optic Raman probe." IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 72 (2023): 1-8 (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou teaches a Raman measurement device (fig. 1), comprising: a housing (fig. 1 element 100, col 2 last para); an optical module being partly or wholly packed in the housing (the laser 104 is inside 100) and being arranged along length direction of the housing (this is shown in fig. 1) and having a light source module (fig. 1 element 104, col 2 last para), a light splitting module connected with the light source module (the light splitting module are elements inside 106), and a light focusing module connected with the light splitting module (this is shown in fig. 1); “a laser light source being arranged in the optical module and included in the light source” module (this is shown in fig. 1 element 104), wherein an emitted light from the laser light source passes through the light splitting module and the light focusing module to reach a targeted area (fig. 1 element 1062 is the splitting module; col 3 lines 8-16); and “a measuring probe being directly connected to the optical module” (the probe is opening extending in element 100 in fig. 1), partly or wholly protruding from the housing (the probe is wholly protruding from the housing), “wherein an emitted light from the laser light source passes through the light splitting module and the light focusing module and exits an open end of the measuring probe and is focused on a surface to be detected” (col 3 lines 1-3), and the open end receives a Raman scattered light excited from the surface (col 3 lines 1-16).
Zhou fails to teach a first angle is included between an axial centerline of the measuring probe and a virtual line extending along and being parallel to the length direction of the housing, wherein the axial centerline is a virtual line passing through the center of the measuring probe and being parallel to axial direction of the measuring probe; the first angle is between 5 degrees and 60 degrees, wherein a non-zero second angle is included between the axial centerline of the measuring probe and a normal direction of an area of the surface to be detected, and the sum of the second angle and the first angle is 90 degrees, and an effective focusing distance between the open end and the surface is 7 mm to 9 mm.
Plessis from the same field of endeavor as Zhou, teaches a first angle is included between (this is theta 1 in the annotated fig. below) an axial centerline of the measuring probe (axial centerline is the line along probe 28, see annotated fig. below) and a virtual line extending along and being parallel to the length direction of the housing (the virtual line is equated to the parallel line adjacent to probe 28, forming theta 1, see annotated fig. below), wherein the axial centerline is a virtual line passing through the center of the measuring probe and being parallel to axial direction of the measuring probe (this is the line along element 28 as shown in the annotated fig. below); the first angle is between 5 degrees and 60 degrees (para [0042], lines 3-4), wherein a non-zero second angle is included between the axial centerline of the measuring probe and a normal direction (normal direction is line vertical with respect to theta 2, see annotated fig. below) of an area of the surface to be detected (this is theta 2, see annotated fig. below; note that the light from probe 28 reaches to the sample in the housing 12), and the sum of the second angle and the first angle is 90 degrees (para [0042], lines 3-4; if the first angle is 45 degrees, this means second angle is also 45 45 degrees, which sum up to 90o).
PNG
media_image1.png
523
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Plessis to Zhou to have a first angle is included between an axial centerline of the measuring probe and a virtual line extending along and being parallel to the length direction of the housing, wherein the axial centerline is a virtual line passing through the center of the measuring probe and being parallel to axial direction of the measuring probe; the first angle is between 5 degrees and 60 degrees, wherein a non-zero second angle is included between the axial centerline of the measuring probe and a normal direction of an area of the surface to be detected, and the sum of the second angle and the first angle is 90 degrees in order to enable real time information on the composition of a material (para [0010]) to be obtain as accurately as possible (para [0002]).
Zhou, when modified by Plessis, does not teach an effective focusing distance between the open end and the surface is 7 mm to 9 mm.
Zhang from the same field of endeavor as Zhou, teaches an effective focusing distance between the open end and the surface is 7 mm to 9 mm (p. 2 col 1 para 2 lines 5-7; 0. 8 cm is 8 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Zhang to Zhou, when modified by Plessis, to have an effective focusing distance between the open end and the surface is 7 mm to 9 mm in order to protect the probe from high temperature environment (p. 2 col 1 para 2 lines 5-7; 0. 8 cm is 8 mm).
Regarding claim 2, Zhou teaches the Raman measurement device of claim 1, wherein the first angle is between 15 degrees and 50 degrees (para [0042], lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 4, Zhou does not teach the Raman measurement device of claim 1, “wherein the optical module and the measuring probe are assembled to form a probe device which is to be placed in a receiving space of the housing and to be fixed onto the housing”.
Plessis from the same field of endeavor as Zhou, teaches the Raman measurement device of claim 1, “wherein the optical module and the measuring probe are assembled to form a probe device which is to be placed in a receiving space of the housing and to be fixed onto the housing” (see annotated fig. above; the probe 28 is fixed in the receiving space provided by the casing 82).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Plessis to Zhou to have the Raman measurement device of claim 1, “wherein the optical module and the measuring probe are assembled to form a probe device which is to be placed in a receiving space of the housing and to be fixed onto the housing” in order to enable real time information on the composition of a material (para [0010]) to be obtain as accurately as possible (para [0002]).
Regarding claim 5, Zhou teaches the Raman measurement device of claim 1, wherein the optical module is arranged along the length direction of the housing (this is shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Zhou does not teach the Raman measurement device of claim 1, wherein the housing is formed with an inclined surface being parallel to the axial centerline of the measuring probe. Regarding claim 7, Zhou does not teach the Raman measurement device of claim 6, wherein two supporting walls are respectively formed on both sides of the inclined surface and longitudinally extended to be perpendicular to the length direction of the housing, and the optical module is placed in the receiving space surrounded by the supporting walls, each of the supporting walls has a through hole formed in the direction parallel to the normal direction of the supporting walls, and the through hole is inserted with a locking element to fix the optical module or the measuring probe onto the housing.
Plessis, from the same field of endeavor as Luo, teaches the Raman measurement device of claim 1, wherein the housing (Fig. 1 “14”) is formed with an inclined surface being parallel to the axial centerline of the measuring probe (Fig. 1 “28”, para [0042] lines 1-8) and the Raman measurement device of claim 6, wherein two supporting walls are respectively formed on both sides of the inclined surface (this is the sides of casing 14 in Fig. 1) and longitudinally extended to be perpendicular to the length direction of the housing (this is shown in Fig. 1 where casing 14 is longitudinally extending up to the probe 28), and “the optical module is placed in the receiving space surrounded by the supporting walls” (probe 28 is mounted to mounting 29, para [0042] lines 1-2), “each of the supporting walls has a through hole formed in the direction parallel to the normal direction of the supporting walls” (this corresponds to the casing 14 is connected to mounting 29), and “the through hole is inserted with a locking element to fix the optical module or the measuring probe onto the housing” (para [0042] lines 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Plessis to Zhou to have the Raman measurement device of claim 1, wherein the housing is formed with an inclined surface being parallel to the axial centerline of the measuring probe and the Raman measurement device of claim 6, wherein two supporting walls are respectively formed on both sides of the inclined surface and longitudinally extended to be perpendicular to the length direction of the housing, and the optical module is placed in the receiving space surrounded by the supporting walls, each of the supporting walls has a through hole formed in the direction parallel to the normal direction of the supporting walls, and the through hole is inserted with a locking element to fix the optical module or the measuring probe onto the housing in order to enable real time information on the composition of a material (para [0010]) to be obtain as accurately as possible (para [0002]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhou does not teach the Raman measurement device of claim 6, further comprising: a fixing seat having a first wall and a second wall perpendicular to each other to have an L-shape contour, wherein the first wall has a first through hole, the second wall has a second through hole, the first through hole is used for the measuring probe to penetrate, and the second through hole is used for a locking element to penetrate to fix the second wall onto the inclined surface.
Plessis, from the same field of endeavor as Zhou, teaches the Raman measurement device of claim 6, further comprising: “a fixing seat having a first wall and a second wall perpendicular to each other to have an L-shape contour” (see annotated Fig. below), “wherein the first wall has a first through hole” (this is shown in Fig. 3, case 14 has hole where probe 28 is mounted), the second wall has a second through hole (para [0043] lines 6-9), the first through hole is used for the measuring probe to penetrate (this is shown in Fig. 3, case 14 has hole where probe 28 is mounted), and the second through hole is used for a locking element to penetrate to fix the second wall onto the inclined surface (the base plate of casing 14 are constructively build with locking elements to form the casing 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Plessis to Zhou to have the Raman measurement device of claim 6, further comprising: a fixing seat having a first wall and a second wall perpendicular to each other to have an L-shape contour, wherein the first wall has a first through hole, the second wall has a second through hole, the first through hole is used for the measuring probe to penetrate, and the second through hole is used for a locking element to penetrate to fix the second wall onto the inclined surface in order to enable real time information on the composition of a material (para [0010]) to be obtain as accurately as possible (para [0002]).
PNG
media_image2.png
404
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, Plessis, and Zhang as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Marquardt, B. J. et al., US 20180231415 A1 (hereinafter Marquardt).
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Luo does not teach the Raman measurement device of claim 1, further comprising: a light shield connected to the housing and formed with a barrier wall positioned at the opposite side of the open end of the measuring probe, wherein the distance between the barrier wall and the open end is greater than the effective focusing distance.
Marquardt, from the same field of endeavor as Luo, teaches the Raman measurement device of claim 1, further comprising: a light shield (Fig. 1 “body 116” with an enclosure) connected to the housing (this is shown in Fig. 1) and formed with a barrier wall (this is the inner wall of the body with the enclosure) positioned at the opposite side (this is the wall under probe 102) of the open end of the measuring probe (Fig. 1 probe 102), wherein the distance between the barrier wall and the open end is greater than the effective focusing distance (the barrier has a greater distance that the sample plate 120).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Marquardt to the modified device of Zhou to have the Raman measurement device of claim 1, further comprising: a light shield connected to the housing and formed with a barrier wall positioned at the opposite side of the open end of the measuring probe, wherein the distance between the barrier wall and the open end is greater than the effective focusing distance in order to improve the operator safety (para [0006] lines 27-32).
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 ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877