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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment and/or arguments submitted on 02/10/2026 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 15-18, 21-27 are pending:
Claims 3, 6, 11, 13-14, 19-20 are canceled
Claims 25-27 are new
Response to Arguments
Applicant added claims 25-27. Please see the following action details as the response to new claims 25-27 and the previously presented claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 15-18, 21-24 after further consideration.
No arguments were provided.
Claim Interpretation - Language
Language and/or terms in the claims are interpreted as follows:
“substantially” in the context of angles will be read as defined in Para99, +/- 15 or 10 degrees
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that 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:
“processing device” first recited in claim 1
Corresponding structure
Electronic calculating unit, as informed by Para113
Or equivalents
“speaker device” first recited in claim 1
Corresponding structure
A speaker, as informed by Para120
Or equivalents
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 § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 12, 23, 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 10,637,085) in view of Klima (US 2021/0164488) and Kim (DE 10 2020 131 729).
Claim 1
Jung discloses:
“A motor vehicle (Fig1, fuel cell vehicle; C6L50-58) comprising at least one fuel cell (Fig1, fuel cell stack 2) and a supply assembly configured to supply the fuel cell with a fuel and a compressible reagent for reacting with the fuel in the fuel cell with generation of electric power (Fig1, air supplying unit 3, humidifier 5; C7L1-14), wherein the supply assembly comprises a centrifugal compressor configured to compress the reagent and comprising an impeller having in turn (C7L7-10):
…”
Jung is silent to any particular structural details to the disclosed air compressor impeller of the air supplying unit. Jung is further silent to the sensor/processing device/speaker device limitations as presented.
Klima teaches:
“… (best seen Fig1/2/4, impeller 10)
a shaft portion (radially central hub portion of impeller 10 called body 12) extending along an inlet axis (axis A, with flow inlet end 14);
a circumferential edge extending ringwise around the inlet axis (best seen Fig2, flow outlet end 15 circumferential edge);
a connecting portion extending from the shaft portion to the circumferential edge (body 12 of impeller 10 that forms hub and base of impeller);
first blades (first blades 12a) and second blades (second blades 12b) projecting from the connecting portion (blades 12a/b project from hub and form channels along surface 13 of hub body 12), of which each of the second blades is arranged between two corresponding first blades to form two respective radial flow channels for the reagent (best seen Fig1/4, each second blade 12b is between two first blades 12a forming two channels on either side of each second blade 12b); and
the first and second blades having respective profiles along respective curvilinear abscissae with shapes equal to each other and located uniformly distributed according to a period or angular step around the inlet axis (best seen Fig1/4, each first blade 12a is shaped and rotationally distributed equally with each first blade 12a, each second blade 12b is shaped and rotationally distributed equally with each second blade 12b),
wherein the profiles of the first blades and second blades have first lengths equal to each other and second lengths equal to each other, respectively (best seen Fig1/4, respectively each blade 12a/b has equal length to the other blades 12a/b respectively), and wherein the second lengths are smaller than the first lengths (best seen Fig1/4, second blades 12b are smaller in length than first blades 12a);
…”
Kim teaches:
“…
the motor vehicle (Fig1, fuel cell vehicle 10, active sound generation device 40) further comprising:
a sensor (Fig2, microphone 42) configured to pick up a sound (Fig2, microphone 42) produced by an operation of the centrifugal compressor (Fig1, microphone 42 is part of active sound generation device 40, and Para31 “The microphone 42 is arranged in such a way that it can pick up a sound signal generated by an air intake device, in particular by an air compressor”) and to generate a sound signal containing information about the frequencies of said sound (Para13 “The device for determining a sound signal from the air intake device is preferably designed in such a way that it only determines sound signals from the air intake device that are above a specific volume threshold and/or in a specific frequency range.”);
a processing device (Fig2, control unit 43) configured to process the sound signal (Para38, “The processing of the recorded sound signal into a corresponding counter-sound signal can preferably be performed by a control unit. This then communicates between the loudspeaker arrangement and the device for determining a sound signal of the air inlet device.”); and
a speaker device (Fig2, loudspeaker 41) configured to emit a sound corresponding to the sound signal processed by the processing device (Para35, Step 200, “In the second step 200, an anti-sound signal for reducing or compensating for the sound signal generated by the air inlet device is emitted through a loudspeaker arrangement with at least one loudspeaker.”).”
Kim further teaches (Para8/Abstract) that the counter-sound arrangement of the active sound generation device makes a muffler superfluous which further provides the advantage of additional installation space.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
to look to the prior art to select a known air blower impeller, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to practice the disclosure of Jung, and Klima teaches a known in the art compressor impeller; and
to modify the arrangement Jung to add the active sound generation device arrangement of Kim as mapped above, as such an active sound generation device arrangement provides the advantage of making a muffler superfluous which results in additional installation space saved; and
the resulting combination has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Jung with a known in the art compressor impeller as taught by Klima that will work to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to actually practice the disclosure of Jung, while saving installation space by the removal of the muffler due to the addition of the active sound generation device as taught by Kim.
Claim 2
The combination of Jung, Klima, and Kim discloses: “The motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the profiles are respectively defined by bases extending at least at the connecting portion and/or by free ends opposite the bases (Klima: best seen Fig1/2/4, profile of blades 12a/b each have free end and a connecting portion to surface 13 of hub body 12).”
Claim 4
The combination of Jung, Klima, and Kim discloses: “The motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the profiles of the first blades and the second blades have respective ends at the shaft portion (Klima: best seen Fig1/4, profile of blades 12a/b each have respective ends at the inlet shat portion of hub body 12).”
Claim 5
The combination of Jung, Klima, and Kim discloses: “The motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the first and second blades have respective leading edges respectively forming with the shaft portion (Klima: best seen Fig1/4, blades 12a/b each have leading edges 16a/b respectively formed off hub body 12) or with the connecting portion substantially equal angles of attack with each other (Klima: best seen Fig4/1, blades 12a/b have substantially equal angles of attack for a given axial location along hub body 12).”
Claim 25
The combination of Jung, Klima, and Kim discloses: “The motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the impeller further comprises splitter baffles (Klima: best seen Fig1/2/4, third blades 12c), each of which is protruding from the connecting portion (Klima: best seen Fig1/2/4, each third blades 12c protrudes from surface 13 of hub body 12) and arranged to further divide a portion of a corresponding one of the radial flow channels in two parts (Klima: best seen Fig1/2/4, third blades 12c is located between first and second blades 12a/b such that each third blade 12c splits each corresponding channel on surface 13 in two).
Claim 12
Jung discloses:
“A motor vehicle (Fig1, fuel cell vehicle; C6L50-58), comprising:
at least one fuel cell (Fig1, fuel cell stack 2);
a supply assembly configured to supply the fuel cell with a fuel and a compressible reagent for reacting with the fuel in the fuel cell with generation of electric power (Fig1, air supplying unit 3, humidifier 5; C7L1-14), wherein the supply assembly comprises a centrifugal compressor configured to compress the reagent (C7L7-10), wherein the centrifugal compressor comprises an impeller (C7L7-10), and wherein the impeller comprises:
…”
Jung is silent to any particular structural details to the disclosed air compressor impeller of the air supplying unit. Jung is further silent to the sensor/processing device/speaker device limitations as presented.
Klima teaches:
“… (best seen Fig1/2/4, impeller 10)
a shaft (radially central hub portion of impeller 10 called body 12) extending along an axis (axis A, with flow inlet end 14);
a circumferential edge extending ringwise around the axis (best seen Fig2, flow outlet end 15 circumferential edge);
a connecting portion extending from the shaft to the circumferential edge (body 12 of impeller 10 that forms hub and base of impeller);
first blades (first blades 12a) projecting from the connecting portion (first blades 12a project from hub and form channels along surface 13 of hub body 12), wherein each first blade is defined by the same first profile along a curvilinear abscissae, wherein the first profile has a first length (best seen Fig1/4, each first blade 12a is shaped equally with each first blade 12a and has a first length); and
second blades (second blades 12b) projecting from the connecting portion (second blades 12b project from hub and form channels along surface 13 of hub body 12), wherein each second blade is defined by the same second profile along a curvilinear abscissae, wherein the second profile has a second length (best seen Fig1/4, each second blade 12b is shaped equally with each second blade 12b and has a second length), wherein the second length is shorter than the first length (best seen Fig1/4, second blades 12b are smaller in length than first blades 12a), wherein each of the second blades is arranged between two corresponding first blades to form two respective radial flow channels for the reagent (best seen Fig1/4, each second blade 12b is between two first blades 12a forming two channels on either side of each second blade 12b), and wherein the first and second blades are uniformly distributed according to a period or angular step around the axis (best seen Fig1/4, each first blade 12a is rotationally distributed equally with each first blade 12a, each second blade 12b is rotationally distributed equally with each second blade 12b).”
Kim teaches:
“…
a sensor (Fig2, microphone 42) configured to pick up a sound (Fig2, microphone 42) produced by an operation of the centrifugal compressor (Fig1, microphone 42 is part of active sound generation device 40, and Para31 “The microphone 42 is arranged in such a way that it can pick up a sound signal generated by an air intake device, in particular by an air compressor”) and to generate a sound signal containing information about the frequencies of said sound (Para13 “The device for determining a sound signal from the air intake device is preferably designed in such a way that it only determines sound signals from the air intake device that are above a specific volume threshold and/or in a specific frequency range.”);
a speaker device (Fig2, loudspeaker 41) configured to emit a sound (Para35, Step 200, “In the second step 200, an anti-sound signal for reducing or compensating for the sound signal generated by the air inlet device is emitted through a loudspeaker arrangement with at least one loudspeaker.”) based on the sound signal (Para38, “The processing of the recorded sound signal into a corresponding counter-sound signal can preferably be performed by a control unit. This then communicates between the loudspeaker arrangement and the device for determining a sound signal of the air inlet device.”).”
Kim further teaches (Para8/Abstract) that the counter-sound arrangement of the active sound generation device makes a muffler superfluous which further provides the advantage of additional installation space.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
to look to the prior art to select a known air blower impeller, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to practice the disclosure of Jung, and Klima teaches a known in the art compressor impeller; and
to modify the arrangement Jung to add the active sound generation device arrangement of Kim as mapped above, as such an active sound generation device arrangement provides the advantage of making a muffler superfluous which results in additional installation space saved; and
the resulting combination has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Jung with a known in the art compressor impeller as taught by Klima that will work to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to actually practice the disclosure of Jung, while saving installation space by the removal of the muffler due to the addition of the active sound generation device as taught by Kim.
Claim 23
The combination of Jung, Klima, and Kim discloses: “The motor vehicle according to claim 12, wherein the first profile (Klima: best seen Fig1, first blade 12a is clearly shown having an end opposite the trialing edge 17a at the shaft portion near where reference character 13 points) and the second profile (Klima: best seen Fig1, second blade 12b at top of figure that is indicated by second trailing edge 17b reference character is clearly shown having an opposite end at the shaft portion near where reference character 13 points) have respective ends at the shaft portion (Klima: best seen Fig1 near where reference character 13 indicates for both firs/second blades).
Claim 26
The combination of Jung, Klima, and Kim discloses: “The motor vehicle according to claim 12, wherein the impeller further comprises splitter baffles (Klima: best seen Fig1/2/4, third blades 12c), each of which is protruding from the connecting portion (Klima: best seen Fig1/2/4, each third blades 12c protrudes from surface 13 of hub body 12) and arranged to further divide a portion of a corresponding one of the radial flow channels in two parts (Klima: best seen Fig1/2/4, third blades 12c is located between first and second blades 12a/b such that each third blade 12c splits each corresponding channel on surface 13 in two).”
Claim(s) 24, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 10,637,085) in view of Klima (US 2021/0164488).
Claim 24
Jung discloses:
“A motor vehicle (Fig1, fuel cell vehicle; C6L50-58), comprising:
at least one fuel cell (Fig1, fuel cell stack 2); and
a supply assembly configured to supply the fuel cell with a fuel and a compressible reagent for reacting with the fuel in the fuel cell with generation of electric power (Fig1, air supplying unit 3, humidifier 5; C7L1-14), wherein the supply assembly comprises a centrifugal compressor configured to compress the reagent (C7L7-10), wherein the centrifugal compressor comprises an impeller (C7L7-10), and wherein the impeller comprises:
…”
Jung is silent to any particular structural details to the disclosed air compressor impeller of the air supplying unit. Jung is further silent to the sensor/processing device/speaker device limitations as presented.
Klima teaches:
“… (best seen Fig1/2/4, impeller 10)
a shaft (radially central hub portion of impeller 10 called body 12) extending along an axis (axis A, with flow inlet end 14);
a circumferential edge extending ringwise around the axis (best seen Fig2, flow outlet end 15 circumferential edge);
a connecting portion extending from the shaft to the circumferential edge (body 12 of impeller 10 that forms hub and base of impeller);
first blades (first blades 12a) projecting from the connecting portion (first blades 12a project from hub and form channels along surface 13 of hub body 12), wherein each first blade is defined by the same first profile along a curvilinear abscissae (best seen Fig1, see curve of first profiles), wherein the first profile has a first length (best seen Fig1/4, each first blade 12a is shaped equally with each first blade 12a and has a first length); and
second blades (second blades 12b) projecting from the connecting portion (second blades 12b project from hub and form channels along surface 13 of hub body 12), wherein each second blade is defined by the same second profile along a curvilinear abscissae (best seen Fig1, see curve of second profiles), wherein the second profile has a second length (best seen Fig1/4, each second blade 12b is shaped equally with each second blade 12b and has a second length), wherein the second length is shorter than the first length (best seen Fig1/4, second blades 12b are smaller in length than first blades 12a), wherein each of the second blades is arranged between two corresponding first blades to form two respective radial flow channels for the reagent (best seen Fig1/4, each second blade 12b is between two first blades 12a forming two channels on either side of each second blade 12b), and wherein the first and second blades are uniformly distributed according to a period or angular step around the axis (best seen Fig1/4, each first blade 12a is rotationally distributed equally with each first blade 12a, each second blade 12b is rotationally distributed equally with each second blade 12b), and
wherein the first profile (best seen Fig1, first blade 12a is clearly shown having an end opposite the trialing edge 17a at the shaft portion near where reference character 13 points) and the second profile (best seen Fig1, second blade 12b at top of figure that is indicated by second trailing edge 17b reference character is clearly shown having an opposite end at the shaft portion near where reference character 13 points) have respective ends at the shaft portion (best seen Fig1 near where reference character 13 indicates for both firs/second blades).”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select a known air blower impeller, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to practice the disclosure of Jung, and Klima teaches a known in the art compressor impeller, and the resulting combination has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Jung with a known in the art compressor impeller as taught by Klima that will work to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to actually practice the disclosure of Jung.
Claim 27
The combination of Jung and Klima discloses: “The motor vehicle according to claim 24, wherein the impeller further comprises splitter baffles (Klima: best seen Fig1/2/4, third blades 12c), each of which is protruding from the connecting portion (Klima: best seen Fig1/2/4, each third blades 12c protrudes from surface 13 of hub body 12) and arranged to further divide a portion of a corresponding one of the radial flow channels in two parts (Klima: best seen Fig1/2/4, third blades 12c is located between first and second blades 12a/b such that each third blade 12c splits each corresponding channel on surface 13 in two).”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7-10, 21, 22, 15-18 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.
Claim 7 requires that the sound signal be transposed by a constant transposition gain. Such a modification to the anti-counter-sound signal of Kim would violate the basic working properties of the device of Kim, as the purpose of Kim is to result in a reduction of apparent noise to the point where the device Kim renders the muffler unnecessary. However, the transposing the frequency of the processed sound signal by a constant transposition gain would result in the sound produced over the loudspeakers no longer producing the anti-count-sound result that is central to the device of Kim.
Claims 8-10, 21, 22 each require transposing the frequency of the processed sound signal downwards. Such a modification to the anti-counter-sound signal of Kim would violate the basic working properties of the device of Kim, as the purpose of Kim is to result in a reduction of apparent noise to the point where the device Kim renders the muffler unnecessary. However, the transposing the frequency of the processed sound signal downwards would result in the sound produced over the loudspeakers no longer producing the anti-count-sound result that is central to the device of Kim.
Claims 15-18 are dependent upon Claim 22, and further contain the same issues as discussed in Claims 7 and 8-10, 21, 22 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571 272 9059. 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.
/JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761