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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the stack having both a closed back end and wherein the plurality of laminar surfaces, the front laminar surface and the back laminar surfaces are truncated cones of claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the phrase “rigid bind plate”, it appears the word “bind” should be changed to “blind,” as the disclosure refers to a “blind plate” and not a “bind plate”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: clamping means in claims 1 and 15 and separation means in claims 2-3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 6 and 21 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.
Regarding claim 6, the disclosure does not describe a stack having both a closed back end, as required by claim 1, and further wherein the plurality of laminar surfaces, the front laminar surface and the back laminar surfaces are truncated cones, in addition to the plurality of laminar surfaces are separated from one another by air gaps of between 0.1 mm to 0.2 mm as required by claim 6. Figure 13, which shows the truncated cone embodiment does not include a closed end, and it is unclear how the flat blind plate forming the closed end, as seen in Figures 2a and 3, could be incorporated into the truncated cone configuration of Figure 13. A flat plate extending across the top plate of the last truncated cone would form a large space that would likely resonate, which does not appear to be part of Applicant’s invention. Further, Applicant does not contemplate a blind plate formed with the truncated cone shape, so the Examiner cannot interpret the disclosure as supporting that interpretation. It appears the truncated cone embodiment is separate and apart from the flat plate embodiment of Figures 2a-3, having the closed end blind plate. There is no support for a truncated cone plate configuration that also has a closed end, in addition to the plurality of laminar surfaces are separated from one another by air gaps of between 0.1 mm to 0.2 mm as defined in claim 6.
Regarding claim 21, the disclosure does not describe wherein the plurality of laminar surfaces, the front laminar surface and the back laminar surfaces are truncated cones as described in claim 21, in addition to the plurality of laminar surfaces is separated from one another by gaps having a thickness smaller than a doubled Stokes boundary layer for acoustic signal frequencies below 800 Hz as required by independent claim 14, from which claim 21 depends. It is unclear how the device would perform when tuned/sized in this manner. Because Applicant does not contemplate dimensioning the truncated cone configuration with gaps having a thickness smaller than a doubled Stokes boundary layer for acoustic signal frequencies below 800 Hz as required by independent claim 14, the claim is considered indefinite.
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 (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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 9-10 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont (“A Microstructure material design for low frequency sound absorption” - provided by Applicant).
With respect to claim 1, Dupont teaches an acoustic dampener for a duct carrying an acoustic signal (defined by device of Figures 2 and 3), the acoustic dampener comprising:- a plurality of laminar surfaces (defined by surfaces of stacked plates, similar to Applicant’s) stacked on top of one another and separated from one another, thereby creating a stack, the stack having a closed back end (defined by rear-most flat, serving to “close” the back end with plate having central opening; or the melamine foam located at a rear end as seen in Figure 8), wherein the plurality of laminar surfaces includes a front laminar surface and a back laminar surface (defined by respective front/rear surfaces of each pate of the stack of Figures 2-3), wherein a periphery side of the stack is exposed to an open atmosphere (via openings at either end of stack) or to a closed box (outer cylindrical housing could constitute a “closed box”) with particular sizes; - a hole arranged in each of the plurality of laminar surfaces, and in the front laminar surface wherein the hole has dimensions enabling a duct carrying an acoustic signal (central hole in each plate clearly seen), to be connected to the acoustic dampener; clamping means for clamping together the front laminar surface (clamping means defined by successive washers and seals, with sealing rings of Figures 3a-b defining a “clamping means”), the stack of plurality of laminar surfaces and the back laminar surface to create an acoustic dampener, wherein the plurality of laminar surfaces are separated from one another by air gaps of 0.5 mm (note that main pores hmp=1mm and each gap is equal to hmp /2 as seen in Table 1 and Figure 4).
Dupont fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of laminar surfaces are separated from one another by air gaps of between 0.1 mm to 0.2 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the air gaps are between 0.1 to 0.2 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, Dupont discusses experiments with differing dimensions for some portions within the device for tuning purposes, and further contemplates the need for further study to optimizing the acoustic performance, especially at low frequencies (see Conclusions section on page 92). One of ordinary skill would understand that all of the dimensions in the structure are results effective variable that will in part determine the acoustic performance of the device, and therefore, changing any particular dimension would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art so as to tune the device.
With respect to claim 2, Dupont teaches wherein the plurality of laminar surfaces are separated from one another by separation means (defined by sealing rings of Figures 3a-b, located between successive washers which form the laminar surfaces).
With respect to claim 3, Dupont teaches wherein the separation means (defined by sealing rings of Figures 3a-b, located between successive washers which form the laminar surfaces) are spacers and/or protrusions on the plurality of laminar surfaces (clearly seen in Figures 3a-b).
With respect to claim 4, Dupont teaches the acoustic dampener of claim 1. Dupont further teaches wherein the plurality of laminar surfaces, the front laminar surface and the back laminar surfaces are all flat plates (See Figures 2-3), wherein the flat plates are formed of a rigid material (see Page 91, 2nd paragraph)
Dupont fails to explicitly teach wherein the flat plates are formed of stainless steel.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the flat plates are formed of stainless steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this case, selecting stainless steel for the rigid material of Dupont would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and involves routine skill.
With respect to claim 5, Dupont teaches the acoustic dampener of claim 1. Dupont further teaches wherein the back flat plate (defined by melamine foam located at a rear end as seen in Figure 8) is thicker than the plurality of flat plates. Dupont Figure 8 further depicts wherein the front flat plate (end plate at end opposite foam layer) as being thicker than the plurality of flat plates, however, it is not clear if the depiction is intentional or not.
Dupont fails to explicitly teach wherein the front flat plate is thicker than the plurality of flat plates.
It would have been an obvious design choice to wherein the front flat plate is thicker than the plurality of flat plates, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In this case, forming the outermost plate to be thicker than the interior plates would have been obvious, and involves routine skill.
With respect to claim 6, Dupont teaches the acoustic dampener of claim 1. Dupont further teaches the plurality of laminar surfaces, the front laminar surface and the back laminar surfaces are all flat plates (see Figures 2-3).
Nothwithstanding the 112b rejection of claim 6 above, Dupont fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of laminar surfaces, the front laminar surface and back laminar surfaces are truncated cones.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the plurality of laminar surfaces, the front laminar surface and the back laminar surfaces are truncated cones, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Dupont.
With respect to claim 7, Dupont teaches further comprising a rigid bind plate (defined by melamine foam located at a rear end as seen in Figure 8) completing the stack of plurality of laminar surfaces to form the closed end.
With respect to claim 9, Dupont teaches wherein the plurality of laminar surfaces comprises 10 to 65 laminar surfaces (clearly seen in Figure 2).
With respect to claim 10, Dupont teaches the acoustic dampener of claim 1. Dupont further teaches wherein the plurality of laminar surfaces comprise groups of plates with what appear to be identical inter-plate gap widths (See Figures 2-3).
Dupont fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of laminar surfaces comprise groups of plates with different inter-plate gap widths.
It would have been an obvious design choice to provide wherein the plurality of laminar surfaces comprise groups of plates with different inter-plate gap widths, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In this case, altering the inter-plate gap widths serves to tune the device, which tuning would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and involves routine skill.
With respect to claims 14 and 19, Dupont teaches broadband low frequency acoustic dampener for a duct carrying an acoustic signal (defined by device of Figures 2 and 3), the acoustic dampener comprising:- a plurality of laminar surfaces stacked on top of one another and separated from one another (defined by surfaces of stacked plates, similar to Applicant’s), thereby creating a stack, wherein the plurality of laminar surfaces includes a front laminar surface and a back laminar surface (defined by respective front/rear surfaces of each pate of the stack of Figures 2-3) and wherein the plurality of laminar surfaces is separated from one another by gaps (gaps clearly seen) having a thickness of 0.5 mm (note that main pores hmp=1mm and each gap is equal to hmp /2 as seen in Table 1 and Figure 4); - a hole arranged in each of the plurality of laminar surfaces (central hole in each plate clearly seen), wherein the hole has dimensions enabling a duct carrying an acoustic signal, to be connected to the acoustic dampener.
It is noted that the gap dimensions appear to have “a thickness smaller than a doubled Stokes boundary layer for acoustic signal frequencies below 800 Hz or below 100 Hz” as Applicant’s disclosure defined a stokes boundary layer as being “~0.5 mm for 20 Hz to ~0.075 mm for 800 Hz,” so for a frequency of 20Hz, the doubled Stokes boundary layer would be 1mm, which the 0.5 mm dimensions of Dupont is clearly smaller than. However, Dupont fails to explicitly teach the dimensions of the gap thickness in terms of being smaller than a doubled Stokes boundary layer for acoustic signal frequencies below 800 Hz or below 100 Hz. It is considered to be obvious that gaps have a thickness smaller than a doubled Stokes boundary layer for acoustic signal frequencies below 800 Hz or below 100 Hz, as the structure of Dupont teaches the physical dimensions that Applicant teaches are “smaller than a doubled Stokes boundary layer for acoustic signal frequencies below 800 Hz or below 100 Hz.”
The Examiner notes that the method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has been given little patentable weight in terms of determining the thickness based on a doubled Stokes boundary layer for acoustic signal frequencies below 800 Hz or below 100 Hz. Because the gap dimensions of Dupont satisfy the numerical values taught by Applicant as being smaller than a doubled Stokes boundary layer for acoustic signal frequencies below 800 Hz or below 100 Hz, this limitation is obvious.
With respect to claim 15, Dupont teaches further comprising clamping means (clamping means defined by successive washers and seals, with sealing rings of Figures 3a-b defining a “clamping means”) for clamping together the front laminar surface, the stack of plurality of laminar surfaces, and the back laminar surface to create an acoustic dampener (seen in Figures 2-3).
With respect to claim 16, Dupont teaches the acoustic dampener of claim 14. Dupont further teaches wherein the plurality of laminar surfaces are separated from one another by air gaps of 0.5 mm (note that main pores hmp=1mm and each gap is equal to hmp /2 as seen in Table 1 and Figure 4).
Dupont fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of laminar surfaces are separated from one another by air gaps of between 0.1 mm to 0.2 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the air gaps are between 0.1 to 0.2 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, Dupont discusses experiments with differing dimensions for some portions within the device for tuning purposes, and further contemplates the need for further study to optimizing the acoustic performance, especially at low frequencies (see Conclusions section on page 92). One of ordinary skill would understand that all of the dimensions in the structure are results effective variable that will in part determine the acoustic performance of the device, and therefore, changing any particular dimension would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art so as to tune the device.
With respect to claim 17, Dupont teaches the acoustic dampener of claim 14. Dupont further teaches wherein the plurality of laminar surfaces (32/40, 48, 58, 60, 62/66) is configured such that the stack has an obvious, but unspecified reflection coefficient in the frequency range 20 Hz -800 Hz.
Dupont fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of laminar surfaces is configured such that the stack has a reflection coefficient that is less than 0.1 in the frequency range 20 Hz -800 Hz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the plurality of laminar surfaces is configured such that the stack has a reflection coefficient that is less than 0.1 in the frequency range 20-800 Hz, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, Applicant is merely tuning the device to a particular reflection coefficient within a particular frequency range, which tuning would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and involves routine skill.
Further, it has been held that the recitation than an element is “configured to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
With respect to claims 18 and 20, Dupont teaches wherein it is obvious that the gaps separating the pluralities of laminar surfaces have a thickness of a Stokes boundary layer for acoustic signal frequencies below 800 Hz or below 100Hz (i.e., 0.5 mm - note that main pores hmp=1 mm and each gap is equal to hmp /2 as seen in Table 1 and Figure 4). It is noted that the gap dimensions appear to have “a thickness of Stokes boundary layer for acoustic signal frequencies below 800 Hz” as Applicant’s disclosure defined a Stokes boundary layer as being “~0.5 mm for 20 Hz to ~0.075 mm for 800 Hz,” so for a frequency of 20Hz, the Stokes boundary layer would be 0.5mm, which is taught by Dupont. Further, see Examiner’s discussion of the Stokes boundary layer in the rejection of claim 14.
With respect to claim 21, Dupont teaches the acoustic dampener of claim 1. Dupont further teaches the plurality of laminar surfaces, the front laminar surface and the back laminar surfaces are all flat plates (see Figures 2-3).
Nothwithstanding the 112b rejection of claim 6 above, Dupont fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of laminar surfaces, the front laminar surface and back laminar surfaces are truncated cones.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the plurality of laminar surfaces, the front laminar surface and the back laminar surfaces are truncated cones, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Dupont.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9-10 and 14-21 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.
Regarding the drawing objections and 112 rejections of claims 6 and 21, the Examiner maintains that the truncated cones are not described or depicted as having a closed end with regard to claim 6, and while Applicant’s disclosure does describe the importance of a closed end, it is unclear from the disclosure how a closed end is incorporated with the truncated cone embodiment. Is the closed end also truncated, or is it flat? There is no disclosure in Applicant’s disclosure for a truncated closed end plate. If it is flat, how is it oriented with respect to the truncated cones? A flat closed plate spaced from a truncated cone would create a large resonance space with respect to the rest of the device, or would certainly affect the device performance in a different manner than is disclosed. Therefore, the 112 and drawing objections are maintained for claim 6. Further with regard to claim 21, as described in the d 112 rejection above, there is no support for a truncated cone plate configuration that also includes the plurality of laminar surfaces being separated from one another by gaps having a thickness smaller than a doubled Stokes boundary layer for acoustic signal frequencies below 800 Hz as defined in claim 21.
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 JEREMY AUSTIN LUKS whose telephone number is (571)272-2707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00-5:00).
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
/JEREMY A LUKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837