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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on May 30th, 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 27 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 9 and 27 refer to the beam pattern as COSEC2. The examiner understands this is likely intended to be COSEC2 (squared) and will continue in this way, and appropriate correction is required to further clarity.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification refer to the beam pattern as COSEC2. The examine understands that this is likely intended to be COSEC2 (squared) and will continue in this way.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21 and 33 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "first conductive sheet material" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the radial antenna elements" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Young et al. (US 12341250 B1), herein referred to as Young.
Regarding claim 32, Young discloses an antenna element (fig. 4) comprising: two or more radial conductive guide plates (side walls of each element, 402), each of the two or more radial conductive guide plates having a curved edge (back rounded edge, fig. 4), a front edge (near ground plane 304) and a bottom edge (edge with waveguide opening).
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10, 12-15, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chekroun et al. (US 20080088520 A1), herein referred to as Chekroun and further in view of Young.
Regarding claim 1, Chekroun discloses an antenna (fig. 1) bounded by an outer circle forming an outer boundary (outer edge, “2”) having a diameter D1 and bounded by an inner circle forming an inner boundary (inner edge, “2”) having a diameter D2, the inner circle being concentric (see fig. 1, fig. 4a) with the outer circle, the antenna comprising: a plurality of radial antenna elements (2, see fig. 2), each radial antenna element comprising two or more radial conductive guide plates (fig. 2, sidewalls of each “element”), each of the two or more radial conductive guide plates having a front edge (see fig. 2, at the front side with slots) and a bottom edge (where 21 is connected); wherein each radial antenna element and each radial guide plate lies on a radius of said outer circle (See fig. 1), a first conductive sheet material (reflector formed by back wall of 2) which is mechanically fixed to (see fig. 2, one unit), and optionally electronically connected to the respective edges of the two or more radial conductive guide plates plurality of to form a conductive reflector (para. 0027), one or more antenna feeds (4), the one or more antenna feeds being offset from the conductive curved reflector (See fig. 1), each radial conductive guide plate or several or most radial conductive guide plates is/are being shared between a neighbouring antenna element on one side of the radial conductive guide plate and a further neighbouring antenna element on the other side of the radial conductive guide plate (para. 0026, and fig. 1 and 2, each sidewall is on the edge of output 28).
Chekroun does not disclose each of the two or more radial conductive guide plates having a curved edge.
However, Young discloses a similar device with parallel guide plates (see fig. 4), wherein each of the two or more radial conductive guide plates (col. 1 lines 57-61) having a curved edge (see fig. 4, butting against 402).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the antenna of Chekroun wherein each of the two or more radial conductive guide plates having a curved edge, as taught by Young, to control sidelobe performance (col. 5 line 66-col 6. line 1).
Regarding claim 2, Chekroun and Young render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Chekroun does not specifically disclose wherein a range of the ratio of D2 over D1 is in the range of 0.8 to 0.3 or in the range of 0.7 to 0.5. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the antenna of Chekroun wherein a range of the ratio of D2 over D1 is in the range of 0.8 to 0.3 or in the range of 0.7 to 0.5, to fit needed parameters as described in para. 0030, since 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).
Regarding claim 3, Chekroun and Young render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Chekroun also discloses wherein a second conductive sheet material is mechanically fixed to, and optionally electronically connected to, the respective front edges of each of two or more radial conductive guide plates to form a front plate (see fig. 2, the front plate, where the slots exist).
Regarding claim 4, Chekroun and Young render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Chekroun also discloses wherein a third conductive sheet material is mechanically fixed to, and optionally electronically connected to, a plurality of bottom edges of a plurality of radial conductive guide plates to form a bottom plate (para 0031, reflective plate in phase shift cells).
Regarding claim 6, Chekroun and Young render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Chekroun also discloses further comprising one or more cassettes (fig. 2), each cassette comprising the one or more of the radial antenna elements and wherein each cassette is removable from the antenna for maintenance, repair or replacement (para. 0026 explicitly describes the radiating guides “2” as separate pieces, which at least implies the ability to replace individually).
Regarding claim 10, Chekroun and Young render obvious all limitations of base claim 6.
Chekroun also discloses wherein transmit receive electronics are located at the bottom back inside of each cassette (See fig. 2, feed structure is at the bottom and “inside” of the radial antenna).
Regarding claim 12, Chekroun and Young render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Chekroun also discloses wherein the antenna is selected from: a sector or full 360° antenna (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Chekroun and Young render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Chekroun also discloses wherein the antenna is configured such that a beam of radio frequency waves is electronically steered by the antenna to point in different directions without moving the antenna (para. 0027).
Regarding claim 14, Chekroun and Young render obvious all limitations of base claim 12.
Chekroun also discloses wherein the antenna is configured to operate as a phased array (para. 0007) and comprises phase shifters (21) and a transmitter (4) configured to feed power from the transmitter to radiate through the front antenna elements through the phase shifters (para. 0026-0027), the antenna is configured to control the phase shifters and the phase shifters are configured to alter the phase or signal delay electronically, thus steering the beam of radio waves to different directions (para. 0007).
Regarding claim 15, Chekroun and Young render obvious all limitations of base claim 12.
Chekroun also discloses further comprising the antenna being adapted to scan in azimuth by feeding RF power into transmit/receive (T/R) modules (para. 0027).
Regarding claim 33, Chekroun discloses an antenna cassette (fig. 2) comprising: one or more radial antenna elements (2) comprising two or more radial conductive guide plates (side walls), each of the two or more radial conductive guide plates having a front edge (near front plate with slots) and a bottom edge (near phase shifter 21), wherein the cassette has two or more conductive radial guide plates (side walls), a reflector plate (back wall), a bottom plate (para. 0031) and optionally a front plate (front wall).
Chekroun does not disclose wherein the two or more radial conductive guide plates have a curved edge.
However, Young discloses a similar device with parallel guide plates (see fig. 4), wherein each of the two or more radial conductive guide plates (col. 1 lines 57-61) having a curved edge (see fig. 4, butting against 402).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the cassette of Chekroun wherein each of the two or more radial conductive guide plates having a curved edge, as taught by Young, to control sidelobe performance (col. 5 line 66-col 6. line 1).
Claims 7-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chekroun and Young and further in view of Weller et al. (US 8063832 B1), herein referred to as Weller.
Regarding claim 7, Chekroun and Young render obvious all limitations of base claim 6.
Chekroun does not disclose wherein a patch antenna feed array is located at a bottom front inside of each cassette, the patch antenna feed array emitting an RF signal reflected by the conductive curved reflector.
However, Weller discloses a similar antenna wherein a patch antenna (160-166) feed array (see fig. 5A) is located inside the antenna, the patch antenna feed array emitting an RF signal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified antenna of Chekroun wherein a patch antenna feed array is located at a bottom front inside of each cassette, the patch antenna feed array emitting an RF signal reflected by the conductive curved reflector, as suggested by the teachings of Weller, to provide an in series feed and assist in phase shifting (col. 3 lines 4-27).
Regarding claim 8, Chekroun, Young, and Weller render obvious all limitations of base claim 7.
Chekroun does not disclose comprising two patch antenna feed arrays located at a bottom front inside of each cassette, and wherein the two patch antenna feed arrays are configured to emit an RF signal reflected by the conductive curved reflector towards a front plate providing beams at at least two elevations along elevation axes of the antenna.
However, as discussed in the previous claim, Weller does disclose two patch antenna feed arrays (see fig. 5a), wherein the two patch antenna feed arrays are configured to emit an RF signal towards a front plate (see 5A) providing beams at at least two elevations along elevation axes of the antenna (see fig. 5a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified antenna of Chekroun comprising two patch antenna feed arrays located at a bottom front inside of each cassette, and wherein the two patch antenna feed arrays are configured to emit an RF signal reflected by the conductive curved reflector towards a front plate providing beams at at least two elevations along elevation axes of the antenna, as taught by Weller, to provide full coverage of the front plate.
structure is at the bottom and “inside” of the radial antenna).
Regarding claim 11, Chekroun and Young render obvious all limitations of base claim 10.
Chekroun also discloses wherein the transmit receive electronics of the antenna are located on a PCB (para. 0030).
Chekroun does not disclose one or two patch antenna feed arrays are located on the same PCB as the TRM electronics.
However, Weller discloses a similar antenna wherein patch antenna feed arrays (160-166) are located on the same PCB (71) as TRM electronics (93).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified antenna of Chekroun, one or two patch antenna feed arrays are located on the same PCB as the TRM electronics, as taught by Weller, to provide an in series feed and assist in phase shifting (col. 3 lines 4-27).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chekroun, Young, Weller and further in view of Tanabe (US 20110006966 A1), herein referred to as Tanabe.
Regarding claim 9, Chekroun, Young, and Weller render obvious all limitations of base claim 7.
Chekroun does not disclose wherein the patch antenna feed arrays emitting the RF signal reflected by the conductive curved reflector, creates a COSEC2 beam pattern.
However, Tanabe discloses an antenna wherein the feed arrays (100) emitting the RF signal, creates a COSEC2 beam pattern (para. 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified antenna of Chekroun wherein the patch antenna feed arrays emitting the RF signal reflected by the conductive curved reflector, creates a COSEC2 beam pattern as taught by Tanabe, to optimize the beam pattern (para. 0013).
Claims 16, 19-25, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chekroun and further in view of Young and Parsche (US 20230253700 A1), herein referred to as Parsche.
Regarding claim 16, Chekroun discloses a method of constructing an antenna (fig. 1) from a plurality of radial antenna elements (“2”, fig. 2), each radial antenna element comprising two or more radial conductive guide plates (side walls of each element 2), wherein the antenna is bounded by an outer circle (outer circle, see fig. 4a) forming an outer boundary having a diameter D1 and bounded by an inner circle (see fig. 4a, inner circle) forming an inner boundary having a diameter D2, the inner circle being concentric with the outer circle (see fig. 4a), the antenna further comprising front plates (front of 2, where slots are), bottom plates (para. 0031), guide plates (side walls) and reflector plates (back wall of 2), wherein each radial conductive guide plate has a front edge (front, where side walls connect to front plate), and a bottom edge (bottom, where phase shift 21 sits), wherein the front plates, bottom plates and reflector plates have a face (See fig. 2), wherein a back edge, the front edge and the bottom edge of each radial conductive guide plate is a machined edge (para. 0035) and each radial conductive guide plate lies on a radius of said outer circle (see fig. 1) to form a mechanical, and optionally electronic, connection with faces of the front, bottom and reflector plates (see fig. 2).
Chekroun does not disclose wherein each radial conductive guide plate has a curved edge, and wherein the connection between the guide plate and the faces are shape-lock.
However, Young discloses a similar antenna wherein each radial conductive guide plate has a curved edge (see fig. 4).
Furthermore, Parsche teaches a system of attaching antenna parts using a shape-locking system (paras. 0070 and 0090, figs. 11 and 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the method of Chekroun wherein each radial conductive guide plate has a curved edge, and wherein the connection between the guide plate and the faces are shape-lock, as taught by Young and Parsche, to control sidelobe performance (Young, col. 5 line 66-col 6. line 1), and to provide removable/adjustable connections.
Regarding claim 19, Chekroun, Young, and Parsche render obvious all limitations of base claim 16.
Chekroun does not specifically disclose wherein a range of the ratio of D2 over D1 is in the range of 0.8 to 0.3 or in the range of 0.7 to 0.5. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the antenna of Chekroun wherein a range of the ratio of D2 over D1 is in the range of 0.8 to 0.3 or in the range of 0.7 to 0.5, to fit needed parameters as described in para. 0030, since 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).
Regarding claim 20, Chekroun, Young, and Parsche render obvious all limitations of base claim 16.
Chekroun also discloses comprising the step of: making a plurality of radial antenna elements (2), each radial antenna element being made with two or more radial conductive guide plates (sidewalls, fig. 2), each of the two or more radial conductive guide plates having a front edge (attached to front wall with slots) and a bottom edge (attached with phase shifter 21); wherein each radial antenna element and each radial guide plate is placed on a radius of the outer circle with diameter D1 (See fig. 1).
Chekroun does not disclose wherein each of the two or more radial conductive guide plates has a curved edge.
However, Young discloses a similar device with parallel guide plates (see fig. 4), wherein each of the two or more radial conductive guide plates (col. 1 lines 57-61) having a curved edge (see fig. 4, butting against 402).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the antenna of Chekroun wherein each of the two or more radial conductive guide plates having a curved edge, as taught by Young, to control sidelobe performance (col. 5 line 66-col 6. line 1).
Regarding claim 21, Chekroun, Young, and Parsche render obvious all limitations of base claim 16.
Chekroun also discloses further comprising the step of fixing a first conductive sheet material (back of “2”) mechanically to a plurality of the edges (back edge of the sides of 2) of a plurality of radial antenna elements to form a conductive reflector.
Chekroun does not disclose wherein the edge of the of the antenna elements are curved, and therefore wherein the conductive reflector is curved.
However, Young discloses a similar device with parallel guide plates (see fig. 4), wherein each of the two or more radial conductive guide plates (col. 1 lines 57-61) having a curved edge (see fig. 4, butting against 402).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified method of Chekroun wherein the edge of the of the antenna elements are curved, and therefore wherein the conductive reflector is curved, as taught by Young, to control sidelobe performance (col. 5 line 66-col 6. line 1).
Regarding claim 22, Chekroun, Young, and Parsche render obvious all limitations of base claim 16.
Chekroun also discloses wherein each radial conductive guide plate is adapted to be shared between a neighbouring antenna element on one side of the radial conductive guide plate and a further neighbouring antenna element on the other side of the radial conductive guide plate (para. 0026, and fig. 1 and 2, each sidewall is on the edge of output 28).
Regarding claim 23, Chekroun, Young, and Parsche, render obvious all limitations of base claim 16.
Chekroun also discloses wherein a second conductive sheet material (front of 2) is mechanically fixed to a plurality of front edges of a plurality of radial conductive guide plates (Side walls of 2) to form a front plate (front of 2).
Regarding claim 24, Chekroun, Young, and Parsche render obvious all limitations of base claim 16.
Chekroun also discloses wherein a third conductive sheet material is mechanically fixed to a plurality of bottom edges of a plurality of radial conductive guide plates to form a bottom plate (para 0031, reflective plate in phase shift cells).
Regarding claim 25, Chekroun, Young, and Parsche render obvious all limitations of base claim 16.
Chekroun also discloses further forming one or more cassettes, each cassette comprising a plurality of the radial antenna elements (fig. 2 para. 0026).
Regarding claim 29, Chekroun, Young, and Parsche render obvious all limitations of base claim 16.
Chekroun also discloses wherein the antenna is selected from: a sector or full 360° antenna (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 30, Chekroun, Young, and Parsche render obvious all limitations of base claim 16.
Chekroun also discloses wherein the antenna is configured such that a beam of radio frequency waves is electronically steered by the antenna to point in different directions without moving the antenna (para. 0027).
Regarding claim 31, Chekroun, Young, and Parsche render obvious all limitations of base claim 16.
Chekroun also discloses wherein radio frequency current from a transmitter is fed to the plurality of radial antenna elements with a phase relationship so that the radio waves from separate radial antenna elements are configured to combine to form beams, to increase power radiated in desired directions and suppress radiation in undesired directions (this is inherent in the operation of phase shifters in an antenna, such as 21, and as described in para. 0027).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chekroun, Young, Parsche and further in view of Weller.
Regarding claim 26, Chekroun, Young, and Parsche render obvious all limitations of base claim 25.
Chekroun does not disclose wherein a patch antenna feed array is located at a bottom front inside of each cassette, the patch antenna feed array emitting an RF signal reflected by the conductive curved reflector.
However, Weller discloses a similar antenna wherein a patch antenna (160-166) feed array (see fig. 5A) is located inside the antenna, the patch antenna feed array emitting an RF signal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified method of Chekroun wherein a patch antenna feed array is located at a bottom front inside of each cassette, the patch antenna feed array emitting an RF signal reflected by the conductive curved reflector, as suggested by the teachings of Weller, to provide an in series feed and assist in phase shifting (col. 3 lines 4-27).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chekroun, Young, Parsche and further in view of Tanabe.
Regarding claim 27, Chekroun, Young, and Parsche render obvious all limitations of base claim 25.
Chekroun does not disclose wherein the patch antenna feed arrays emitting the RF signal reflected by the conductive curved reflector, creates a COSEC2 beam pattern.
However, Tanabe discloses an antenna wherein the feed arrays (100) emitting the RF signal, creates a COSEC2 beam pattern (para. 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified method of Chekroun wherein the patch antenna feed arrays emitting the RF signal reflected by the conductive curved reflector, creates a COSEC2 beam pattern as taught by Tanabe, to optimize the beam pattern (para. 0013).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chekroun, Young, Parsche and further in view of Lysejko et al. (US 20160381570 A1), herein referred to as Lysejko.
Regarding claim 28, Chekroun, Young, and Parsche render obvious all limitations of base claim 16.
Chekroun also discloses comprising configuring a switching matrix (para. 0039).
Chekroun does not disclose specifically using the switching matrix to control two user applications accessing the same antenna.
However, multiple operation is well known in the art, for example, para. 0059 of Lysejko specifically teaches multi-input multi-output operations of a similar antenna.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified method of Chekroun using the switching matrix to control two user applications accessing the same antenna, as taught by Lysejko, to carry multiple streams of data at once (para. 0059).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 17-18, and 34 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 repairing any other objections/rejections as written in this office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S WOODS whose telephone number is (571)270-1525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 571-270-7893. 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.
/BRANDON SEAN WOODS/
Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845