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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kar et al. (US 2010/0030492 A1) (hereinafter Kar).
Regarding claim 1, Kar teaches a method for monitoring a state of a device having a rotatable component [rolling element bearing and/or piece of equipment containing the rolling element bearing] (see Abstract), comprising the steps of:
measuring a structure-borne noise signal of the device during operation of the device [data collector 106 for collecting data associated with the equipment 102 or its rolling element bearings 104; for example, a vibration sensor that takes vibration measurements] (Para [0022], see Fig. 2);
ascertaining a first time range feature for a first frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal [desired defect frequencies are selected; signal reconstructed; processor performing signal reconstruction function based on frequency bands identified; determine one or more statistical features of each reconstructed signal] (Para [0034, 0040], see Figs. 2-3);
ascertaining a second time range feature for a second frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal [desired defect frequencies are selected; signal reconstructed; processor performing signal reconstruction function based on frequency bands identified] (Para [0034, 0040], see Figs. 2-3);
comparing the first time range feature with an upper first threshold [alarm threshold] and a lower first threshold [warning threshold] to determine a first time range feature state, wherein the first time range feature state is classified as a normal state if the first time range feature is below the lower first threshold and below the upper first threshold, the first time range feature state is classified as an elevated state if the first time range feature is above the lower first threshold and below the upper first threshold, and the first time range feature state is classified as a high state if the first time range feature is above the lower first threshold and above the upper first threshold [different threshold ranges indicate severity of the detected problem; under upper first and lower first thresholds indicating a “good range”, between upper first and lower first thresholds indicating more severe, and above both upper first and lower first threshold indicating more severe] (Para [0047-0048, 0063], see Fig. 5);
comparing the second time range feature with an upper second threshold [alarm threshold] and a lower second threshold [warning threshold] to determine a second time range feature state, wherein the second time range feature state is classified as a normal state if the second time range feature is below the lower second threshold and below the upper second threshold, the second time range feature state is classified as an elevated state if the second time range feature is above the lower second threshold and below the upper second threshold, and the second time range feature state is classified as a high state if the second time range feature is above the lower second threshold and above the upper second threshold [different threshold ranges indicate severity of the detected problem; under upper first and lower first thresholds indicating a “good range”, between upper first and lower first thresholds indicating more severe, and above both upper first and lower first threshold indicating more severe] (Para [0047-0048, 0063], see Fig. 5); and
determining the state of the device [health indicator 228] based on the first time range feature state and the second time range feature state [fault severity based on classified states; values 230-236 identifying likelihood of different types of faults; related values 230-236 compared to one or more thresholds to identify problems] (Para [0036-0037, 0047-0048, 0063], see Figs. 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 2, Kar as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the step of ascertaining the first time range feature further comprises ascertaining at least one additional first time range feature for the first frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal, the step of ascertaining the second time range feature further comprises ascertaining at least one additional second time range feature for the second frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal [one or more statistical features of each reconstructed signal; such as, RMS, Kurtosis, standard deviation, mean, skew, CD statistic, D-Stat, AR coefficient, or form/crest factor values] (Para [0034]), the step of comparing the first time range feature further comprises comparing the at least one additional first time range feature with at least one additional upper first threshold and at least one additional lower first threshold to determine at least additional first time range feature state, the step of comparing the second time range feature further comprise comparing the at least one additional second time range feature with at least one additional upper second threshold and at least one additional lower second threshold to determine at least one additional second time range feature state, and wherein the state of the device is further determined based on at least one of the at least one additional first time range feature state and the at least one additional second time range feature state [various fault indices identifying likelihood of different faults; different types of defects have specific frequency characteristics; health indicator 228 and related values 230-236 could further be compared to one or more thresholds] (Para [0031-0032, 0037]).
Regarding claims 5-6, Kar as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein both the first time range feature and the second time range feature are one of a mean squared deviation, a standard deviation, kurtosis, and energy [statistical features may include RMS, Kurtosis, standard deviation] (Para [0034]).
Regarding claim 7, Kar as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the structure-borne noise signal is a time range signal, and comprises at least one of a vibration acceleration signal, a vibration velocity signal, and a vibration deflection signal [vibration data from an accelerometer or other vibration sensor or speed data from a speed sensor; any other suitable data could be collected] (Para [0029]).
Regarding claim 8, Kar as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the first frequency band is a lower frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal and wherein the second frequency band is an upper frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal [select appropriate frequency bands; lower and upper frequency limits] (Para [0040, 0059]).
Regarding claim 10, Kar teaches a system for monitoring a state of a device that has a rotatable component [rolling element bearing and/or piece of equipment containing the rolling element bearing] (see Abstract), comprising:
a structure-borne noise meter that measures a structure-borne noise signal of the device [data collector 106 for collecting data associated with the equipment 102 or its rolling element bearings 104; for example, a vibration sensor that takes vibration measurements] (Para [0022], see Fig. 2); and
an evaluation device [processing system 108] (Para [0021], see Figs. 1-2) that:
ascertains a first time range feature for a first frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal, wherein the first time range feature is a mean square deviation of the first frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal [desired defect frequencies are selected; signal reconstructed; processor performing signal reconstruction function based on frequency bands identified; determine one or more statistical features of each reconstructed signal including RMS, standard deviation, etc.] (Para [0034, 0040], see Figs. 2-3);
ascertains a second time range feature for a second frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal, wherein the second time range feature is a mean square deviation of the second frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal [desired defect frequencies are selected; signal reconstructed; processor performing signal reconstruction function based on frequency bands identified; determine one or more statistical features of each reconstructed signal including RMS, standard deviation, etc.] (Para [0034, 0040], see Figs. 2-3);
compares the first time range feature of the first frequency band with at least one of an upper first threshold [alarm threshold] and a lower first threshold [warning threshold] to determine a first time range feature state [different threshold ranges indicate severity of the detected problem; under upper first and lower first thresholds indicating a “good range”, between upper first and lower first thresholds indicating more severe, and above both upper first and lower first threshold indicating more severe] (Para [0047-0048, 0063], see Fig. 5);
compares the second time range feature of the second frequency band with at least one upper second threshold [alarm threshold] and a lower second threshold [warning threshold] to determine a second time range feature state [different threshold ranges indicate severity of the detected problem; under upper first and lower first thresholds indicating a “good range”, between upper first and lower first thresholds indicating more severe, and above both upper first and lower first threshold indicating more severe] (Para [0047-0048, 0063], see Fig. 5); and
determines the state of the device based on at least one of the first time range feature state and the second time range feature state [fault severity based on classified states] (Para [0047-0048, 0063], see Fig. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-4 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leu et al. (US 2010/0106458 A1) (hereinafter Leu).
Regarding claim 3, Kar as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for further comprising the steps of: ascertaining, during operation of the device in a training phase, the first time range feature of the first frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal; ascertaining, during operation of the device in the training phase, the second time range feature of the second frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal; determining the upper first threshold and the lower first threshold based on the first time range feature ascertained during operation of the device in the training phase; and determining the upper second threshold and the lower second threshold based on the second time range feature ascertained during operation of the device in the training phase. Leu teaches a method for monitoring state of a device having a rotatable component wherein at least one threshold value is determined based on a time range feature from a measurement of a signal during a previous operation of the device [threshold value based on observation of previous failures and mean value for normal operation] (Para [0121]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Kar with Leu such that the method further comprises the steps of : ascertaining, during operation of the device in a training phase, the first time range feature of the first frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal; ascertaining, during operation of the device in the training phase, the second time range feature of the second frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal; determining the upper first threshold and the lower first threshold based on the first time range feature ascertained during operation of the device in the training phase; and determining the upper second threshold and the lower second threshold based on the second time range feature ascertained during operation of the device in the training phase, in order to determine threshold values that represent previously known conditions.
Regarding claim 4, Kar in view of Leu as applied to claim 3 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the step of ascertaining, during operation of the device in the training phase, the first time range feature of the first frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal further comprises ascertaining at least one additional first time range feature of the first frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal, the step of ascertaining, during operation of the device in the training phase, the second time range feature of the second frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal further comprises ascertaining at least one additional second time range feature of the second frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal, the step of determining the upper first threshold and the lower first threshold based on the first time range feature ascertained during operation of the device in the training phase further comprises determining at least one additional upper first threshold and at least one additional lower first threshold based on at least one additional first time range feature ascertained during operation of the device in the training phase, and the step of determining the upper second threshold and the lower second threshold based on the second time range feature ascertained during operation of the device in the training phase further comprises determining at least one additional upper second threshold and at least one additional lower second threshold based on at least one additional second time range feature ascertained during operation of the device in the training phase.
Kar additionally teaches wherein the step of ascertaining the first time range feature further comprises ascertaining at least one additional first time range feature for the first frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal, the step of ascertaining the second time range feature further comprises ascertaining at least one additional second time range feature for the second frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal [one or more statistical features of each reconstructed signal; such as, RMS, Kurtosis, standard deviation, mean, skew, CD statistic, D-Stat, AR coefficient, or form/crest factor values] (Para [0034]), the step of comparing the first time range feature further comprises comparing the at least one additional first time range feature with at least one additional upper first threshold and at least one additional lower first threshold to determine at least additional first time range feature state, the step of comparing the second time range feature further comprise comparing the at least one additional second time range feature with at least one additional upper second threshold and at least one additional lower second threshold to determine at least one additional second time range feature state, and wherein the state of the device is further determined based on at least one of the at least one additional first time range feature state and the at least one additional second time range feature state [various fault indices identifying likelihood of different faults; different types of defects have specific frequency characteristics; health indicator 228 and related values 230-236 could further be compared to one or more thresholds] (Para [0031-0032, 0037]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Kar in view of Leu such that wherein the step of ascertaining, during operation of the device in the training phase, the first time range feature of the first frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal further comprises ascertaining at least one additional first time range feature of the first frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal, the step of ascertaining, during operation of the device in the training phase, the second time range feature of the second frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal further comprises ascertaining at least one additional second time range feature of the second frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal, the step of determining the upper first threshold and the lower first threshold based on the first time range feature ascertained during operation of the device in the training phase further comprises determining at least one additional upper first threshold and at least one additional lower first threshold based on at least one additional first time range feature ascertained during operation of the device in the training phase, and the step of determining the upper second threshold and the lower second threshold based on the second time range feature ascertained during operation of the device in the training phase further comprises determining at least one additional upper second threshold and at least one additional lower second threshold based on at least one additional second time range feature ascertained during operation of the device in the training phase, in order to determine threshold values that represent previously known conditions.
Regarding claim 16, Kar as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for further comprising the step of evaluating a temperature of the device using a temperature gauge to produce a measured temperature of the device. Leu teaches a method for monitoring state of a device having a rotatable component comprising a step of evaluating a temperature of the device using a temperature gauge to produce a measured temperature of the device [temperature data] (Para [0006], see Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Kar with Leu such to further comprise the step of evaluating a temperature of the device using a temperature gauge to produce a measured temperature of the device, in order to better monitor and identify device failure.
Regarding claim 17-18, Kar in view of Leu as applied to claim 16 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further comprising the steps of comparing a measured value of the device to a first threshold, wherein the measured value of the device is classified as an elevated state if the measured value of the device is above a first threshold, and comparing the measured value of the device to a second threshold, wherein the measured value of the device is classified as a high state if the measured value of the device is above a second threshold, wherein the state of the device is determined to be a suspected fault state if the measured value of the device is classified as an elevated state, and wherein the state of the device is determined to be in a warning state if the measured value of the device is classified as a high state [different threshold ranges indicate severity of the detected problem; under upper first and lower first thresholds indicating a “good range”, between upper first and lower first thresholds indicating more severe, and above both upper first and lower first threshold indicating more severe; various fault indices identifying likelihood of different faults; different types of defects have specific frequency characteristics; health indicator 228 and related values 230-236 could further be compared to one or more thresholds] (Para [0031-0032, 0037, 0047-0048, 0063], see Fig. 5). Kar in view of Leu fails to teach wherein the measured value is the measured temperature and the first and second thresholds are first and second temperature thresholds. Leu additionally teaches wherein temperature of the system also contributes to possible failures (Para [0009]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Kar in view of Leu such that the measured value is the measured temperature and the first and second thresholds are first and second temperature thresholds, in order to better monitor the system for potential failures due to temperature.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kar as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Kar as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in except for wherein the state of the device is determined to be (1) a suspected fault state if one of the determined first and second time range features states is classified as an elevated state, (2) a warning state if the determined first and second time range feature states are classified as elevated states, (3) a danger state if at least one of the determined first and second time range feature states is classified as a high state, and (4) an OK state if the determined first and second time range feature states are classified as normal states.
Kar additionally teaches the classification of various fault states [good, satisfactory, unsatisfactory, or unacceptable] based on multiple thresholds in different classes of machines (Para [0063]) and determining values identifying likelihoods of different types of faults and comparing said values to multiple thresholds (Para [0037]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Kar such that the state of the device is determined to be (1) a suspected fault state if one of the determined first and second time range features states is classified as an elevated state, (2) a warning state if the determined first and second time range feature states are classified as elevated states, (3) a danger state if at least one of the determined first and second time range feature states is classified as a high state, and (4) an OK state if the determined first and second time range feature states are classified as normal states, in order to characterize an overall device status based on the values representing differing fault likelihoods.
Claims 11-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kar in view of Leu.
Regarding claim 11-15 and 19, Kar teaches a method for monitoring a state of a device having a rotatable component [rolling element bearing and/or piece of equipment containing the rolling element bearing] (see Abstract), comprising the steps of:
measuring a structure-borne noise signal of the device during operation of the device [data collector 106 for collecting data associated with the equipment 102 or its rolling element bearings 104; for example, a vibration sensor that takes vibration measurements] (Para [0022], see Fig. 2);
ascertaining a first time range feature for a first frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal [desired defect frequencies are selected; signal reconstructed; processor performing signal reconstruction function based on frequency bands identified; determine one or more statistical features of each reconstructed signal] (Para [0034, 0040], see Figs. 2-3);
ascertaining a second time range feature for a second frequency band of the structure-borne noise signal [desired defect frequencies are selected; signal reconstructed; processor performing signal reconstruction function based on frequency bands identified] (Para [0034, 0040], see Figs. 2-3);
comparing the first time range feature with an upper first threshold [alarm threshold] and a lower first threshold [warning threshold] to determine a first time range feature state [different threshold ranges indicate severity of the detected problem; under upper first and lower first thresholds indicating a “good range”, between upper first and lower first thresholds indicating more severe, and above both upper first and lower first threshold indicating more severe] (Para [0047-0048, 0063], see Fig. 5);
comparing the second time range feature with an upper second threshold [alarm threshold] and a lower second threshold [warning threshold] to determine a second time range feature state [different threshold ranges indicate severity of the detected problem; under upper first and lower first thresholds indicating a “good range”, between upper first and lower first thresholds indicating more severe, and above both upper first and lower first threshold indicating more severe] (Para [0047-0048, 0063], see Fig. 5); and
determining the state of the device based on at least one of the first time range feature state and the second time range feature state [fault severity based on classified states] (Para [0047-0048, 0063], see Fig. 5).
Kar fails to teach wherein the first frequency band is a lower frequency band that comprises a first frequency range from 0 Hz to 750 Hz and the second frequency band is an upper frequency band that comprises a second frequency range from 3000 Hz to 5000 Hz; however, Kar additionally teaches wherein desired defect frequencies of sensor signal are selected [first/second frequency bands] and that the sensor data could represent any suitable having any suitable bandwidth, such as acceleration data having a bandwidth of 0-10kHz (Para [0029, 0040], see Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Kar such that the first frequency band is a lower frequency band that comprises a first frequency range from 0 Hz to 750 Hz and the second frequency band is an upper frequency band that comprises a second frequency range from 3000 to 5000 Hz, in order to selected desired defect frequencies within the sensor data bandwidth. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Kar fails to teach measuring the structure-borne noise signal during operation of the device in a training phase and determining at least one first threshold based on the ascertained first time range feature and determining the at least one second threshold based on the ascertained second time range feature. Leu teaches a method for monitoring state of a device having a rotatable component wherein at least one threshold value is determined based on a time range feature from a measurement of a signal during a previous operation of the device [threshold value based on observation of previous failures and mean value for normal operation] (Para [0121]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Kar with Leu such that the method further comprises teach measuring the structure-borne noise signal during operation of the device in a training phase and determining at least one first threshold based on the ascertained first time range feature and determining the at least one second threshold based on the ascertained second time range feature, in order to determine threshold values that represent previously known conditions.
Regarding claim 20, Kar in view of Leu as applied to claim 11 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the lower frequency band is variable [desired defect frequencies are selected; signal reconstructed; processor performing signal reconstruction function based on frequency bands identified] (Para [0034, 0040], see Figs. 2-3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the prior art rejections for claim 1, Applicant argues that the amendment removing “at least one of” from the last paragraph overcomes the cited prior art. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant points towards Fig. 3 of Kar as showing evidence of Kar requiring only a single value product be compared with a single corresponding set of thresholds in order to identify health indicators. Examiner agrees that Fig. 3 shows what Applicant states; however, Kar also states that various steps in Fig. 3 could overlap, occur in parallel, occur multiples times, or occur in a different order (Para [0043]). Kar discusses utilizing multiple threshold comparisons for determining various fault severity indices which can be used for an overall health indicator, as explained in the updated rejections above.
Regarding the prior art rejections for claim 10, Applicant argues that Kar fails to teach the amended limitations regarding the time range feature being a mean square deviation. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the updated rejections above, Kar teaches wherein each time range feature [statistical features of each reconstructed signal] may include RMS, standard deviation, etc. (Para [0034]).
Regarding the prior art rejections for claim 11, Applicant argues that Kar only discloses a frequency up to 459 Hz and thus fails to teach the amended limitations. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kar discloses sensor data having bandwidth of 0-10 kHz (Para [0029]) and it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed limitations as explained the updated rejections above.
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 Z HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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 Z HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855