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 .
This is the first Office action responsive to application 18879556 filed 12/27/2024. Claims 1-11 are pending.
Drawings
In accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.83(a), 1.84(n), and 1.84(o), the drawings (Fig. 2) are objected to because they contain graphical drawing symbols (boxes, rectangles, circles, etc.) which are not indicative as to what the symbols represent and do not have universally-recognized meanings generally accepted in the art. Applicant is required to label, in words, the function or component represented by the graphical drawing symbols in order to aid in a proper understanding of the invention. For example, according to Applicant’s specification, element 72 is - - Engine Control Module - -; it is suggested that Applicant label the graphical drawing symbol associated with element 72 - - Engine Control Module - -. The requirement applies to all graphical drawing symbols which do not have universally-recognized meanings generally accepted in the art and which are associated with conventional elements (all other boxes in Fig. 2). See MPEP 608.02(b).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5 & 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1:
The recitation “the acceleration phase” (7th to last and 8th to last lines) is believed to be in error for - - an acceleration phase - -.
The recitation “an idle speed which is a function” (2nd to last line) is believed to be in error for - - an idle speed, the idle speed being a function - -.
Regarding Claim 5:
The recitation “of the gas at the outlet” (l. 4) is believed to be in error for - - of gas at an outlet - -.
Regarding Claim 8:
The recitation “the current speed” (l. 3) is believed to be in error for - - the current engine speed - -.
The recitation “of the gas at the outlet” (l. 4) is believed to be in error for - - of gas at an outlet - -.
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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a member for determining a current engine speed” (claim 1), “a device for determining the current electrical power generated by the rotary machine” (claim 1), “a syste for deducing a future requirement of the aircraft for electrical power generated by the rotary machine” (claim 2).
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, the recitation “the control system is configured to limit a current electrical power… at least when the engine spool is in the acceleration phase, to a maximum authorized power, the maximum authorized power being a function of the current engine speed before acceleration, and… the control system being configured to establish the engine speed above an idle speed which is a function of the current electrical power” (last 8 lines) is vague and indefinite because (a) it is unclear whether “establish the engine speed” requires actually changing a speed of the engine or whether it merely requires calculating a desired speed above idle speed, (b) it is unclear whether the acceleration phase is required, (c) if the acceleration phase is required, it is unclear whether this is linked to the establishment of the engine speed above the idle speed, (d) it is unclear whether the recited idle speed is an idle speed prior to acceleration or an idle speed after acceleration, and (e) it is unclear whether the idle speed is a function of the “current electrical power” prior to acceleration or after acceleration.
Regarding Dependent Claims 4 & 7, the recitation “a substantial percentage of a full-throttle thrust” is vague and indefinite because the term “substantial percentage” is a relative term. It is unclear how high the percentage must be to be considered “substantial.” Applicant discloses the substantial percentage is “typically between 89 and 91%” of the full-throttle thrust (p. 12, ll. 22-23 of specification), but this is only exemplary and does not put bounds on the term substantial. For instance, would 80% be considered “substantial?” 70%? The specification does not provide sufficient guidance for determining the intended scope of the claim terminology.
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, the recitation “the overheat limit speed” is vague and indefinite because the recitation lacks antecedent basis in the claims and the term “overheat limit speed” is undefined.
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, the recitation “the overheat limit power” is vague and indefinite because the recitation lacks antecedent basis in the claims and the term “overheat limit power” is undefined.
Regarding Independent Claim 11, the recitation “the following successive steps: defining an idle speed… establishing the engine speed above the idle speed, determining a current engine speed of the engine spool… and accelerating the engine spool” is vague and indefinite because (a) it is unclear whether “establishing” the engine speed above the idle speed requires increasing the actual engine speed or merely calculating a desired speed above idle, (b) it is unclear whether the “current engine speed” is the idle speed or the engine speed above idle speed, (c) it is unclear whether “accelerating the engine spool” is an acceleration from the idle speed to the engine speed above the idle speed or to a speed beyond the engine speed above the idle speed, and (d) it is unclear, in view of the above, when the current electrical power is limited to the maximum authorized power (when changing from idle speed to the speed above idle speed or when changing from the speed above idle speed to a speed beyond that, both, or neither).
Dependent Claims 2-3, 5, 8, & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for their dependence from claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 & 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barkowsky 20180163734.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Barkowsky teaches an aircraft propulsion system (Fig. 1; para. [0048]) comprising:
-a gas turbine engine (turbofan) with a combustion chamber (3) and an engine spool (as follows), the engine spool including a turbine (one of T1 or T2) downstream of the combustion chamber, a compressor (one of C1 or C2, consistent with T1 or T2) upstream of the combustion chamber and a transmission shaft (para. [0057]) for driving the compressor via the turbine;
a control system (Fig. 5);
-a member for determining a current engine speed of the engine spool (para. [0081]); and
a rotary machine (to generate electrical power; paras. [0013], [0019]) coupled to the transmission shaft for generating electrical power by taking off mechanical power from the transmission shaft (paras. [0059]-[0060]), wherein the control system is configured to limit a current electrical power generated by the rotary machine, at least when the engine spool is in the acceleration phase, to a maximum authorized power, the maximum authorized power being a function of the current engine speed before acceleration (mechanical power takeoff, which is used to produce electrical energy, is limited in order to take into account possible sudden acceleration requirements; para. [0020]), and
wherein the propulsion system comprises a device for determining the current electrical power generated by the rotary machine (the AEM and IM determine if additional energy, including electrical energy, is required if modifications to mechanical and pneumatic takeoffs are permitted, which requires the capability of determining the electrical power currently being generated by the electrical machine; paras. [0105]-[0107]), the control system being configured to establish the engine speed above an idle speed which is a function of the current electrical power (either when acceleration is required or if the idle speed is to be increased; paras. [0020] & [0107]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Barkowsky further teaches a system for deducing a future requirement of the aircraft for electrical power generated by the rotary machine, the control system being configured to accelerate the engine spool when said future requirement is greater than the maximum authorized power (when additional power is required, and power takeoffs cannot be modified, idle speed is increased; paras. [0098] & [0107]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Barkowsky further teaches when the engine speed is established at the idle speed, the current electrical power constitutes the maximum authorized power (disclosure directed to idle operation generally, assessment is made as to whether takeoffs must be lowered, if they are not lowered, then the current electrical power will constitute the maximum authorized power; paras. [0078], [0083]-[0084]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, Barkowsky further teaches the control system is configured to limit the electrical power generated by the rotary machine when the engine spool is not in the acceleration phase (limiting mechanical takeoffs at idle in case of sudden acceleration requirements; para. [0020]).
Regarding Independent Claim 11, Barkowsky teaches a control method (see Title) for controlling an aircraft propulsion system (para. [0048]) comprising a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1) with a combustion chamber (3) and an engine spool (as follows), the engine spool including a turbine (one of T1 or T2) downstream of the combustion chamber, a compressor (one of C1 or C2, consistent with T1 or T2) upstream of the combustion chamber and a transmission shaft (para. [0057]) for driving the compressor via the turbine, and a rotary machine (to generate electrical power; paras. [0013], [0019]) coupled to the transmission shaft for generating electrical power by taking off mechanical power from the transmission shaft (paras. [0059]-[0060]), the control method comprising the following successive steps:
determining a current electrical power generated by the rotary machine (the AEM and IM determine if additional energy, including electrical energy, is required if modifications to mechanical and pneumatic takeoffs are permitted, which requires the capability of determining the electrical power currently being generated by the electrical machine; paras. [0105]-[0107]), defining an idle speed which is a function of the current electrical power (para. [0019]), establishing the engine speed above the idle speed (sudden acceleration or increased idle speed; paras. [0020], [0107], determining a current engine speed of the engine spool (para. [0081]), defining a maximum authorized power which is a function of the current engine speed (mechanical power takeoff, which is used to produce electrical energy, is limited in order to take into account possible sudden acceleration requirements; para. [0020]), and accelerating the engine spool (sudden acceleration or increase in idle speed; paras. [0020], [0107]), the current electrical power generated by the rotary machine being limited to the maximum authorized power (mechanical power takeoff, which is used to produce electrical energy, is limited in order to take into account possible sudden acceleration requirements; para. [0020]).
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 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkowsky, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Barkowsky teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, but Barkowsky fails to expressly teach the idle speed is greater than or equal to an acceleration limit speed for which the engine spool, accelerating to the stall limit from said acceleration limit speed while the rotary machine is generating the current electrical power, reaches without stalling, in an allotted time less than or equal to 10 seconds, a target speed at which the gas turbine engine produces a substantial percentage of a full-throttle thrust.
AAPA teaches (specification, p. 1) that it was known that aircraft propulsion systems must be operated such that the engine spool speed at idle is sufficient to re-establish the majority, typically over 90%, of full-throttle power within a critical time, typically 8 seconds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barkowsky’s propulsion system such that the idle speed is greater than or equal to an acceleration limit speed for which the engine spool, accelerating to the stall limit from said acceleration limit speed while the rotary machine is generating the current electrical power, reaches without stalling, in an allotted time less than or equal to 10 seconds, a target speed at which the gas turbine engine produces a substantial percentage of a full-throttle thrust, as taught by AAPA, in order to satisfy safety requirements (AAPA, p. 1, ll. 21-29).
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Barkowsky teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, but Barkowsky fails to teach the idle speed is greater than or equal to an overheat limit speed for which, when the engine spool is rotating at said overheat limit speed while the rotary machine is generating the current electrical power, the temperature of the gas at the outlet of the gas turbine engine is equal to a predetermined maximum temperature.
AAPA teaches (pp. 1-2 of specification) the idle speed must be such that the majority of full-throttle thrust must be able to be reestablished within about 8 seconds and that this speed depends on a maximum acceleration rate determined by (a) resistive torque on the spool (due in part to the generation of electrical power in the rotary machine) and (b) high temperatures at the outlet of the combustion chamber with this resistive torque.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barkowsky’s propulsion system such that the idle speed is greater than or equal to an overheat limit speed for which, when the engine spool is rotating at said overheat limit speed while the rotary machine is generating the current electrical power, the temperature of the gas at the outlet of the gas turbine engine is equal to a predetermined maximum temperature, as taught by AAPA, in order for the propulsion system to be capable of reestablishing the majority of full-throttle thrust from idle, with resistance from the rotary machine applied, in view of rising gas temperatures from the combustion chamber due to the acceleration (AAPA; p. 1, ll. 30-32, p. 2, ll. 1-27).
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Barkowsky teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 4, but Barkowsky fails to teach the idle speed is equal to the maximum of the acceleration limit speed and of the overheat limit speed.
AAPA teaches (pp. 1-2 of specification) the idle speed must be such that the majority of full-throttle thrust must be able to be reestablished within about 8 seconds and that this speed depends on a maximum acceleration rate determined by (a) resistive torque on the spool (due in part to the generation of electrical power in the rotary machine) and (b) high temperatures at the outlet of the combustion chamber with this resistive torque.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barkowsky in view of AAPA’s propulsion system such that the idle speed is equal to the maximum of the acceleration limit speed and of the overheat limit speed, in order to provide the fastest recovery of full-throttle thrust for safety reasons (AAPA; p. 1, ll. 30-32, p. 2, ll. 1-27).
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Barkowsky teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, but Barkowsky fails to teach the maximum authorized power is less than or equal to an acceleration limit power for which the engine spool, accelerating to the stall limit from the current engine speed while the rotary machine is generating said acceleration limit power, reaches without stalling, in an allotted time less than or equal to 10 seconds, a target speed at which the gas turbine engine produces a substantial percentage of a full-throttle thrust.
AAPA teaches (pp. 1-2 of specification) the idle speed must be such that the majority of full-throttle thrust must be able to be reestablished within about 8 seconds and that this speed depends on a maximum acceleration rate determined by (a) resistive torque on the spool (due in part to the generation of electrical power in the rotary machine) and (b) high temperatures at the outlet of the combustion chamber with this resistive torque. Thus, as taught by AAPA, the maximum power that should be generated by the rotary machine must permit the required acceleration to recover the majority of full-throttle thrust within about 8 seconds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barkowsky’s propulsion system such that the maximum authorized power is less than or equal to an acceleration limit power for which the engine spool, accelerating to the stall limit from the current engine speed while the rotary machine is generating said acceleration limit power, reaches without stalling, in an allotted time less than or equal to 10 seconds, a target speed at which the gas turbine engine produces a substantial percentage of a full-throttle thrust, as taught by AAPA, in order to provide the recovery of the majority of full-throttle thrust within about 8 seconds for safety reasons (AAPA; p. 1, ll. 30-32, p. 2, ll. 1-27).
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Barkowsky teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, but Barkowsky fails to teach the maximum authorized power is less than or equal to an overheat limit power for which, when the engine spool is rotating at the current speed while the rotary machine is generating said overheat limit power, the temperature of the gas at the outlet of the gas turbine engine is equal to a predetermined maximum temperature.
AAPA teaches (pp. 1-2 of specification) the idle speed must be such that the majority of full-throttle thrust must be able to be reestablished within about 8 seconds and that this speed depends on a maximum acceleration rate determined by (a) resistive torque on the spool (due in part to the generation of electrical power in the rotary machine) and (b) high temperatures at the outlet of the combustion chamber with this resistive torque. Thus, as taught by AAPA, the maximum power that should be generated by the rotary machine must permit the required acceleration to recover the majority of full-throttle thrust within about 8 seconds without increasing the combustion gas temperature to an unacceptable level.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barkowsky’s propulsion system such that the maximum authorized power is less than or equal to an overheat limit power for which, when the engine spool is rotating at the current speed while the rotary machine is generating said overheat limit power, the temperature of the gas at the outlet of the gas turbine engine is equal to a predetermined maximum temperature, as taught by AAPA, in order to provide the recovery of the majority of full-throttle thrust within about 8 seconds for safety reasons without combustion gases reaching unacceptable temperatures (AAPA; p. 1, ll. 30-32, p. 2, ll. 1-27).
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Barkowsky teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 7, but Barkowsky fails to teach the maximum authorized power is equal to the minimum of the acceleration limit power and the overheat limit power.
AAPA teaches (pp. 1-2 of specification) the idle speed must be such that the majority of full-throttle thrust must be able to be reestablished within about 8 seconds and that this speed depends on a maximum acceleration rate determined by (a) resistive torque on the spool (due in part to the generation of electrical power in the rotary machine) and (b) high temperatures at the outlet of the combustion chamber with this resistive torque. Thus, as taught by AAPA, the maximum power that should be generated by the rotary machine must permit the required acceleration to recover the majority of full-throttle thrust within about 8 seconds without increasing the combustion gas temperature to an unacceptable level.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barkowsky in view of AAPA’s propulsion system such that the maximum authorized power is equal to the minimum of the acceleration limit power and the overheat limit power, as taught by AAPA, in order to provide the recovery of the majority of full-throttle thrust within about 8 seconds for safety reasons without combustion gases reaching unacceptable temperatures (AAPA; p. 1, ll. 30-32, p. 2, ll. 1-27).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J WALTHOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m. Eastern.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/SCOTT J WALTHOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights