DETAILED ACTION
The following is a first action on the merits of application serial no. 18/571447 filed 2/26/2024.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 12/18/23 and 3/24/25 have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-the claim limitation recites, “wherein the detection apparatus is in configured to additionally take into account a safety margin for the limit value,….”. The term “in” should be deleted to correct grammar in limitation.
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.
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:
-“a detection apparatus (generic placeholder) configured to monitor electrical current supplied by the energy supply device….. (function)” in claim 16.
-“a limiting unit (generic placeholder) configured to limit an electrical current flowing through the supply cable to a maximum value….. (function)” in claim 16.
-“an output unit (generic placeholder), wherein the output unit is configured: (i) to output an acoustic and/or visual warning….. (function)” in claim 26.
-“a setting apparatus (generic placeholder), via which the maximum value can be set by a user….. (function)” in claim 27.
-“ a communication module (generic placeholder) for communication with a user terminal in order to set the maximum value via the user terminal,….. (function)” in claim 30.
-“a release unit (generic placeholder) which is configured to release a settability of the maximum value via the setting apparatus….. (function)” in claim 31.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-18 and 20-33 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.
-Claims 16, 22, 24-26, 31 and 32 recite the terms “and/or” within the limitations. It is unclear as to if applicant is attempting to recite multiple embodiments within these claims. The examiner suggest applicant remove the term “or” to clarify that the limitations are covered by the same embodiment of the invention.
-Claim 20 recites the limitation "the reduction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 20 recites the limitation “when a comparison of the reduction in the electrical current with a planned reduction in the electrical current exceeds a limit value.”, in last two lines. It is unclear if this is the same “limit value” as recited in claim 16, please clarify and/or amend accordingly.
-Claim 24 recites the limitation “when a location at which a limit value is stored linked is reached,…..”. Please clarify what the terms “stored linked” is referring to.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
-Claim 19 seems to be missing from the listing of claims, please amend accordingly.
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.
Claim(s) 16-18, 21, 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 202178310 in view of JP 2020205671 (both IDS cited art with machine translation). Note: the use of the term “or” indicates that the limitations preceding or following the term doesn’t need to be met entirely and the recitations are in the form of “alternative” embodiments.
As to claim 16, JP’310 discloses a supply cable (1) for electrically connecting an energy store (BT) of a vehicle to an energy supply device (PP) providing electrical energy, the supply cable comprising: a connecting line (1); a primary connector (12) which is or can be electrically coupled to the connecting line and has a vehicle connection configured to releasably electrically connect to the energy store of the vehicle; a secondary connector (11) which is or can be electrically coupled to the connecting line and is configured to releasably electrically connect to the energy supply device; a detection apparatus configured to monitor electrical current supplied by the energy supply device and to detect an interruption of the supplied electrical current (141, 147 (1474)); and a limiting unit configured to limit an electrical current flowing through the supply cable to a maximum value (page 6, lines 18-21). However, JP’310 doesn’t disclose wherein the detection apparatus is configured to: (i) transfer a limit value based on a current supplied prior to the detection of the interruption, as a maximum value to the limiting unit, and/or (ii) output the limit value as a signal value as a proposal for setting as the maximum value.
JP’671 discloses a supply cable (5) for electrically connecting an energy store (13) of a vehicle to an energy supply device (2) providing electrical energy, the supply cable comprising: a connecting line (5); a primary connector (5c) which is or can be electrically coupled to the connecting line and has a vehicle connection configured to releasably electrically connect to the energy store of the vehicle; a secondary connector (5a) which is or can be electrically coupled to the connecting line and is configured to releasably electrically connect to the energy supply device and the vehicle discloses a detection apparatus configured to monitor electrical current supplied by the energy supply device and to detect an interruption of the supplied electrical current (page 4, lines 6-7); and a limiting unit configured to limit an electrical current flowing through the supply cable to a maximum value (abstract, lines 7-9 and page 6, lines 21-27). JP’671 discloses that it is well known in the art to have the detection apparatus configured to: (i) transfer a limit value based on a current supplied prior to the detection of the interruption, as a maximum value to the limiting unit, and/or (ii) output the limit value as a signal value as a proposal for setting as the maximum value (page 6, lines 21-27 and lines 37-41 via 14 and page 5, lines 13-last line).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the detection apparatus in JP’310 configured to transfer and/or signal a limit value as recited in view of JP’671 to provide a charging system capable of charging the energy store with charging power that is lower than the actual value of the power causing the interruption which actively adjust the current accordingly depending on the type of supply cable and/or supply station.
As to claim 17, JP’310 discloses wherein the detection apparatus is configured to detect the interruption when the supplied electrical current is reduced by more than 90% in a time interval of less than one second (page 9 to page 11 describe the time it takes to set the suppression information, which can be between 32msec to 30 sec).
As to claim 18, JP’310 discloses wherein the detection apparatus is configured to detect the interruption when the supplied electrical current is reduced by more than 90% in a time interval of less than 100 ms (page 9 to page 11 describe the time it takes to set the suppression information, which can be between 32msec to 30 sec).
As to claim 21, JP’310 in view of JP’671 discloses, wherein the detection apparatus is configured to to ascertain the limit value:(i) as a function of a last current value detected prior to the interruption (page 6, lines 21-27 in JP’671), or (ii) as a function of a mean value of a plurality of detected current values in a predefined time window prior to the interruption, or (iii) by applying a filtering to a plurality of detected current values prior to the interruption; and wherein the detection apparatus is in configured to additionally take into account a safety margin for the limit value, the safety margin being at least 5% of the ascertained limit value (page 6, lines 18-21 in JP’310 describes that the charging power is limited at least 1/2 to 1/3 of the maximum power) or which is at least 0.5 A.
As to claim 25, JP’310 in view of JP’671 discloses, wherein the limiting unit is configured to output the maximum value: (i) to the vehicle (via 10 in JP’671) and/or (ii) to a charging control logic of the supply cable or of the energy supply device (via 147 in JP’310), in order to notify the vehicle that the maximum value can at most be requested as a charging current.
As to claim 26, JP’310 in view of JP’671 discloses, wherein the supply cable has an output unit, wherein the output unit is configured: (i) to output an acoustic and/or visual warning, when the detection apparatus detects the interruption, and/or (ii) to output a signal that the maximum value set by the limiting unit is lower than a technically maximally possible maximum value (via 147 in JP’671).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’310 in view of JP’671 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of JP 201997230 (IDS cited art with machine translation). JP’310 in view of JP’671 discloses the detection apparatus, but doesn’t disclose the apparatus having a location sensor configured to store a link between the limit value and a location at which the limit value was ascertained, and wherein the detection apparatus is configured, when a location at which a limit value is stored linked is reached, to: (i) transfer the limit value linked to the location as the maximum value to the limiting unit and/or (ii) output the limit value as a proposal for setting as the maximum value to a user.
JP’230 discloses electrically connecting an energy store of a vehicle to an energy supply device (Figure 1) and discloses that it is well known in the art to provide a detection apparatus having a location sensor configured to store a link between the limit value and a location at which the limit value was ascertained, and wherein the detection apparatus is configured, when a location at which a limit value is stored linked is reached, to: (i) transfer the limit value linked to the location as the maximum value to the limiting unit and/or (ii) output the limit value as a proposal for setting as the maximum value to a user (page 5, line 16 to page 7, line 18).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the detection apparatus in JP’310 in view of JP’671 provided with a location sensor further in view of JP’230 to provide a charging system capable of charging the energy store with charging power that is lower than the actual value of the power causing the interruption which actively adjust the current accordingly depending on the type of supply cable and/or supply station.
Claim(s) 27-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’310 in view of JP’671 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yokoyama et al 20110199048. As to claim 27, JP’310 in view of JP’671 discloses a supplying cable having a setting apparatus, via which the maximum value can be set by a user (via 146, page 5, lines 37-41 and page 6, line 21 in JP’310). However, JP’310 in view of JP’671 doesn’t explicitly disclose the setting apparatus having a rotary knob or a slider or a touchscreen or a keypad, for setting the maximum value.
Yokoyama discloses a vehicle charging system and shows that it is well known in the art to have a supply cable (5) having a setting apparatus (6a), via which the maximum value can be set by a user ([0059]-[0064]), wherein the setting apparatus has a rotary knob or a slider or a touchscreen or a keypad, for setting the maximum value ([0034], lines 6-9 and [0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the supply cable in JP’310 in view of JP’671 with a setting apparatus having a rotary knob or a slider or a touchscreen or a keypad, for setting the maximum value further in view of Yokoyama to provide direct control of current power during charging which improves operating efficiency of system.
As to claim 28, JP’310 in view of JP’671 and further in view of Yokoyama discloses wherein the maximum value can be selected from a plurality of predefined values via the setting apparatus, or the maximum value can be set steplessly from a predefined interval via the setting apparatus ([0035] describes at least 4 values can be set in Yokoyama).
As to claim 29, JP’310 in view of JP’671 and further in view of Yokoyama, wherein the supply cable has a memory (page 20, lines 2-14 in JP’310 and 8 in Yokoyama), which is configured to store different maximum values by a user.
As to claim 30, JP’310 in view of JP’671 and further in view of Yokoyama, wherein the supply cable has a communication module for communication with a user terminal in order to set the maximum value via the user terminal, wherein the communication module is configured for wireless communication with the user terminal (via 1444, page 5, lines 16-32 in JP’310).
As to claim 31, JP’310 in view of JP’671 and further in view of Yokoyama, wherein the supply cable has a release unit (6b in Yokoyama) which is configured to release a settability of the maximum value via the setting apparatus ([0059]-[0064]), wherein the release unit has: (i) a locking slider and/or (ii) a mechanical or electronic lock and/or (iii) a fingerprint sensor (6b in Yokoyama).
As to claim 32, JP’310, wherein the supply cable has a reset function, wherein, when the reset function is activated, a technically maximally possible maximum value is set, and wherein the reset function: (i) can be activated by a user, and/or (ii) is activated when the supply cable is decoupled from the energy supply device (page 8, lines 27-30).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’310 in view of JP’671 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of DE 102013007330 (IDS cited art with machine translation). JP’310 in view of JP’671 discloses a connecting line, but doesn’t disclose a coupling, which is configured to be detachably electrically connected to the secondary connector.
DE discloses a supply cable for electrically connecting an energy store of a vehicle to an energy supply device providing electrical energy and shows that it is well known in the art to provide a coupling (20) configured to be detachably electrically connected to the secondary connector (21).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the secondary connector of JP’310 in view of JP’671 with a coupling further in view of DE to compensate for the different plug arrangements required when charging during traveling of vehicle which increases operating efficiency of charging system.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 16-33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-26 of co-pending Application No. 18/571489 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the co-pending application encompass the claims of the present invention (common scope bolded in the co-pending application claims below):
14. A secondary connector of a power cable, which is configured for electrical connection to a vehicle, the secondary connector comprising a plug-in connector for detachable electrical connection to a power supply device; a cable connection for detachable electrical connection to a coupling of the power cable; a limiting unit configured to limit an electrical current flowing through the power cable to a maximum value; and an adjusting unit via which the maximum value can be adjusted (corresponds to setting apparatus in present invention).
15. The secondary connector according to claim 14, wherein, for adjusting the maximum value, the adjusting unit has a rotary knob or a slider or a touchscreen or a keypad.
16. The secondary connector according to claim 14, wherein: (i) the maximum value can be selected from a plurality of predefined values via the adjusting unit, or (ii) the maximum value can be adjusted steplessly from a predefined interval via the adjusting unit.
17. The secondary connector according to claim 14, wherein the secondary connector has a memory which is configured for storing different maximum values by a user.
18. The secondary connector according to claim 14, wherein the secondary connector has a communication module for communication with a user terminal in order to adjust the maximum value via the user terminal, and wherein the communication module is configured for wireless communication with the user terminal.
19. The secondary connector according to claim 14, wherein the secondary connector has a release unit, which is configured for releasing the adjustability of the maximum value via the adjusting unit, wherein the release unit includes a locking slider and/or a mechanical or electronic lock and/or a fingerprint sensor.
20. The secondary connector according to claim 14, wherein the secondary connector has a reset function, wherein, when the reset function is activated, a technically maximally possible maximum value is adjusted, and wherein the reset function can be activated by a user and/or is activated when a supply cable is decoupled from the power supply device.
21. The secondary connector according to claim 14, wherein the limiting unit is configured to output the maximum value to the vehicle and/or to a charging control logic of the power cable or of the power supply device in order to notify the vehicle that at most the maximum value can be requested as a charging current.
22. The secondary connector according to claim 14, wherein the secondary connector includes a detection unit, wherein the detection unit is configured to monitor electrical current supplied by the power supply device and to detect an interruption of supplied electrical current.
23. The secondary connector according to claim 22, wherein the secondary connector has an output unit, wherein the output unit is configured to output a signal including an acoustic and/or visual warning, when the detection apparatus detects the interruption, and/or to output a signal that the maximum value adjusted by the limiting unit is lower than a technically maximally possible maximum value.
24. The secondary connector according to claim 22, wherein the detection unit is configured to transfer a limit value based on a current supplied prior to the detection of the interruption with a predefined safety margin, as the maximum value to the limiting unit and/or to output the limit value as a proposal for adjusting as the maximum value.
25. A power cable for electrical connection of an energy store of a vehicle to a power supply device providing electrical energy, the power cable comprising: a connecting line; a primary connector which is or can be electrically coupled to the connecting line and has a vehicle connection for detachable electrical connection to the energy store of the vehicle; and a secondary connector which is or can be electrically coupled to the connecting line and is provided for detachable electrical connection to the power supply device; wherein the secondary connector has a limiting unit, which is configured to limit an electrical current flowing through the power cable to a maximum value; and wherein the secondary connector has an adjusting unit via which the maximum value can be adjusted.
26. (New) The power cable according to claim 25, wherein the connecting line has a coupling which is configured to be detachably electrically connected to the secondary connector.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20, 22 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (and filing of a terminal disclaimer per the double patenting rejection).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record doesn’t disclose or render obvious a motivation to provide for:
-(as to claim 20 in combination with the limitations in claim 16 exactly as written)…... wherein the detection apparatus is configured to detect the interruption when the supplied electrical current is reduced by more than 90% in a time interval of less than one second, when a comparison of the reduction in the electrical current with a planned reduction in the electrical current exceeds a limit value.
-(as to claim 22) reasons will not be indicated at this time based upon applicant’s response to the 112(b) rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-DE 102018205162 discloses a supply cable (5) for electrically connecting an energy store (2) of a vehicle to an energy supply device (4) providing electrical energy, the supply cable comprising: a connecting line (5); a primary connector (6) which is or can be electrically coupled to the connecting line and has a vehicle connection configured to releasably electrically connect to the energy store of the vehicle; a secondary connector (connected to 4) which is or can be electrically coupled to the connecting line and is configured to releasably electrically connect to the energy supply device; a detection apparatus (3) configured to monitor electrical current supplied by the energy supply device and to detect an interruption of the supplied electrical current (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TISHA D LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
Tdl
/TISHA D LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 September 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights