DETAILED ACTION
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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 17, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed September 17, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 21 are pending in the application with claims 19 and 20 being withdrawn and claim 21 being newly added. The amendment to the claims has overcome 35 USC 112 rejections set forth in the last Final Action mailed May 29, 2026.
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 14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chris Pasquali (“Component Breakdown of Sealless High Pressure Pump Skids” – herein after Chris) in view of Pemberton, Steve V. (US 2016/0238009 – herein after Pemberton).
In reference to claim 14, Chris teaches a base plate system (see image on page 1), comprising:
a base plate (see fig. A below) configured to support a pump bearing frame (holes labeled “H3” are capable of supporting pump bearing frame) [note the disclosure on page 2, left column: “If we do not have an adapter for the pump model or motor size, proper alignment is achieved based upon the design of the baseplate. Our baseplate models are designed for specific pump and motor sizes, having pre drilled mounting holes with threaded nuts welded onto its underside to enable all fastening to be done from the topside”] and a motor adaptor [holes labeled “H1” are capable of receiving a motor adapter],
wherein the base includes a top planar section (see fig. A below: bottom picture, top image) that is configured to receive bolted connections (in holes “H1”, “H3”) to secure a bottom surface of the pump bearing frame and a bottom surface of the motor adaptor to the base plate to enable axial alignment of a motor assembly drive and the pump bearing frame (base plate is capable of having these claimed features),
wherein the base plate (see fig. A below) comprises mounting holes (“H1”) extending longitudinally along the top planar section (these holes “H1” are space apart such that they extend longitudinally along the top planar section), the mounting holes (“H1”) being configured to receive the bolted connections for the motor adaptor in multiple different locations along a length of the base plate [holes H1 are capable of receiving a motor adapter; the provision of these holes 134 allows the base to have the claimed capability of receiving the bolted connections (such as “b1” shown in top picture of fig. A below) for the motor adaptor in multiple different locations along a length of the base plate].
PNG
media_image1.png
1016
1478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
942
943
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. A: Edited images of Chris to show claim interpretation.
Chris does not teach claimed details related to a motor adaptor.
However, Pemberton teaches a base plate system, comprising:
a base plate configured to support a motor adaptor (see fig. B below);
the motor adaptor configured to support a motor assembly (28), the motor adaptor including:
a first planar section (see fig. B below) with a first set of slots (see fig. B below) to receive bolted connections (labeled “b1” in fig. B below) for the motor assembly (28),
a second planar section (see fig. B below; also shown as “shaded section” for convenience) that is substantially perpendicular to the first planar section, and
a flange (see fig. B below) configured to be secured to the base plate, wherein the first planar section and the second planar section form a cavity (see fig. B below) between the base plate and the first planar section when the motor adaptor is secured to the base plate;
wherein the motor adaptor supports weight of the motor assembly (28).
PNG
media_image3.png
888
1256
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. B: Edited fig. 3 of Pemberton to show claim interpretation.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the motor adaptor as taught by Pemberton for supporting Chris’s motor since Pemberton’s motor adaptor allows for adjusting a position of the motor (note: motor position is considered to be adjustable in view of elongated “first set of slots” in fig. B above).
In reference to claim 17, Chris teaches the base plate system, wherein the base plate is configurable to receive differently sized motor adaptors (the asserted base plate of Chris is capable of receiving differently sized motor adaptors).
In reference to claim 18, Chris teaches the base plate system, wherein the base plate is configurable to receive differently sized pump bearing frames (the asserted base plate of Chris is capable of receiving differently sized pump bearing frames).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chris in view of Pemberton and further in view of LaBarge, III, William E. (US 2009/0264209 – herein after LaBarge; cited by applicant on IDS dated 09/18/2025).
Regarding claim 15,
Chris, as modified, teaches the base plate system, further comprising (see Chris) a coupling guard (“coupling guard”) configured to fit over a coupling (“shaft coupling”) between the motor assembly and the pump bearing frame [note the following disclosure on page 2: “The actual coupling of pump-to-motor is typically through the use of a “shaft coupling”…... Hydra-Cell pumps for flow rates up to 20 GPM can be attached to the motor to ensure proper shaft alignment. These “pump-motor-adapters” are an epoxy coated cast aluminum spool with one end machined to align with cap screws on the shaft side of the pump and the other end matches-up with the NEMA cap screw pattern… If we do not have an adapter for the pump model or motor size, proper alignment is achieved based upon the design of the baseplate. Our baseplate models are designed for specific pump and motor sizes, having pre drilled mounting holes with threaded nuts welded onto its underside to enable all fastening to be done from the topside.. Systems which are “flex coupled”, meaning without using a pump-motor-adapter, benefit from the Wanner Engineering baseplate design as they’ve already figured-out the appropriate elevation for the pump/motor. The baseplates for these systems come with a coupling guard to prevent accidental contact with the pump and motor shafts”].
Chris, as modified, remains silent on the base plate system, wherein the coupling guard includes multiple overlapping panels configured for adjusting a length of the coupling guard.
However, LaBarge teaches a coupling guard (20) configured to fit over a coupling (15) between the motor assembly (16) and the pump bearing frame (17), wherein the coupling guard includes multiple overlapping panels (21, 23 or 22, 24 or 21-24,44+50) configured for adjusting a length of the coupling guard (in view of disclosure in col. 4, lines 1-17).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the coupling guard as taught by LaBarge in the modified base plate system of Chris for providing “a coupling guard that covers all sides of a power coupling, and that is telescopingly adjustable in length and also adjustable in height”, as recognized by LaBarge (see ¶11).
Regarding claim 16,
Chris, as modified, teaches the base plate system, wherein each of the multiple overlapping panels (21-24,44+50; see figs. 1-2 of LaBarge) includes a base flange (42, see fig. 2) with second slots (labeled “s2”; see fig. C below) and wherein the second slots are configured to align with mounting holes (“H2”, in fig. A above) in the base plate (of Chris) and receive threaded fasteners (labeled “F”; see fig. C below) therethrough.
PNG
media_image4.png
696
632
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. C: Edited fig. 2 of LaBarge to show claim interpretation.
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 1, 2, 7 – 9, 13 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 3 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,610. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the patents encompass and would read on the limitations of the pending application. The claims of the instant application are a broader form of the claims set forth in the ‘610 patent.
Instant application
US 12,188,610
1. A base plate system, comprising:
a base plate configured to support a pump bearing frame and a motor adaptor;
the motor adaptor configured to support a motor assembly, the motor adaptor including:
a first planar section with a first slot,
a second planar section, and
a flange configured to be secured to the base plate, wherein the first planar section and the second planar section form a cavity between the base plate and the first planar section when the motor adaptor is secured to the base plate; and
a mounting lug slidably disposed within the cavity, the mounting lug configured to receive a hold-down bolt extending through the first slot, wherein the mounting lug is configured to be secured to a jackscrew lug such that the mounting lug is in contact with a first surface of the second planar section facing toward the cavity and the jackscrew lug is in contact with a second surface of the second planar section facing away from the cavity, wherein the motor adaptor and the mounting lug collectively configured to support a weight of the motor assembly.
1. A base plate system, comprising:
a base plate including: adaptor mounting holes, and pump mounting holes configured to align with a pump bearing frame;
a motor adaptor configured to support a motor assembly, the motor adaptor including:
a first planar section with a first slot,
a second planar section with a second slot that is aligned with the first slot, and
a flange with openings configured to align with at least some of the adaptor mounting holes, wherein the first planar section and the second planar section form a cavity between the base plate and the first planar section when the motor adaptor is secured to the base plate;
a mounting lug slidably disposed within the cavity, the mounting lug configured to receive a hold-down bolt extending through the first slot and to receive fasteners extending through the second slot; and a jackscrew lug configured to be secured to the mounting lug, wherein the jackscrew lug is further configured to receive a jackscrew directed toward the motor assembly, wherein the motor adaptor is secured to the base plate at the openings of the flange that are aligned with the at least some of the adaptor mounting holes, and wherein the mounting lug is configured to slide within the cavity to receive the hold-down bolt along a length of the first slot and the fasteners for the jackscrew lug along a length of the second slot.
2. The base plate system of claim 1, further comprising:
a coupling guard configured to fit over a coupling between the motor assembly and the pump bearing frame,
wherein the coupling guard includes multiple overlapping panels configured for adjusting a length of the coupling guard.
2. The base plate system of claim 1, further comprising: a coupling guard configured to fit over a coupling between the motor assembly and the pump bearing frame, wherein the base plate further comprises coupling guard mounting holes, and wherein the coupling guard is configured to be mounted using the coupling guard mounting holes.
3. The base plate system of claim 2, wherein the coupling guard includes multiple overlapping panels configured for adjusting a length of the coupling guard.
7. The base plate system of claim 1, further comprising:
a jackscrew lug configured to be secured to the mounting lug,
wherein the motor adaptor further includes a third slot in the second planar section, and wherein the mounting lug is configured to receive a fastener extending through the third slot to secure the jackscrew lug to the mounting lug.
8. The base plate system of claim 7, wherein the jackscrew lug is further configured to receive a jackscrew directed toward the motor assembly, when the jackscrew lug is secured to the mounting lug.
1. A base plate system, comprising:
…
the motor adaptor including:
…
a second planar section with a second slot that is aligned with the first slot,
…
a mounting lug slidably disposed within the cavity, the mounting lug configured to receive a hold-down bolt extending through the first slot and to receive fasteners extending through the second slot; and a jackscrew lug configured to be secured to the mounting lug,
wherein the jackscrew lug is further configured to receive a jackscrew directed toward the motor assembly,
wherein the motor adaptor is secured to the base plate at the openings of the flange that are aligned with the at least some of the adaptor mounting holes, and wherein the mounting lug is configured to slide within the cavity to receive the hold-down bolt along a length of the first slot and the fasteners for the jackscrew lug along a length of the second slot.
9. The base plate system of claim 1, wherein the second planar section is substantially perpendicular to the first planar section.
9. The base plate system of claim 1, wherein the second planar section is perpendicular to the first planar section.
13. The base plate system of claim 1, wherein the first planar section and the second planar section are formed from a same steel plate [In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitation “are formed from a same steel plate” has not been given patentable weight].
21. The base plate system of claim 1, wherein the first slot extends in a direction aligning with a longitudinal dimension of the second planar section.
1. A base plate system, comprising:
…
the motor adaptor including:
…
a second planar section with a second slot that is aligned with the first slot,
…
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 3 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,610 in view of LaBarge, III, William E. (US 2009/0264209 – herein after LaBarge; cited by applicant on IDS dated 09/18/2025).
Regarding claim 3, ‘610 remains silent on the base plate system, “wherein each of the multiple overlapping panels includes a base flange with second slots and wherein the second slots are configured to align with mounting holes in the base plate and receive threaded fasteners therethrough”.
However, Labarge teaches a coupling guard (20) configured to fit over a coupling (15) between the motor assembly (16) and the pump bearing frame (17), wherein the coupling guard includes multiple overlapping panels (21, 23 or 22, 24 or 21-24,44+50) configured for adjusting a length of the coupling guard (in view of disclosure in col. 4, lines 1-17) and wherein each of the multiple overlapping panels (21-24,44+50; see figs. 1-2 of LaBarge) includes a base flange (42, see fig. 2) with second slots (labeled “s2”; see fig. C above) and wherein the second slots are configured to align with mounting holes in the base plate and receive threaded fasteners (labeled “F”; see fig. C above) therethrough.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the multiple overlapping panels in the base plate system of ‘610 with a base flange having second slots as taught by Labarge for the purpose of securing the panels to the base plate.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 3 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,610 in view of Powell, Jack Joseph (US 6,190,261 – herein after Powell; cited by applicant on IDS dated 09/18/2025).
Regarding claim 4, ‘610 remains silent on the base plate system, “wherein each of the multiple overlapping panels includes a side wall and a vented portion, wherein the side wall extends up from the base plate and the vented portion is located above the coupling when the coupling guard is installed between the motor assembly and the pump bearing frame”.
However, Powell teaches the coupling guard (20, in fig. 5) includes multiple overlapping panels (30, 40) having a side wall (formed of flange portions 36, 46 and legs 50, see fig. 2) and a vented portion (28) [see col. 4, lines 9-10: “Additionally, the first guard portion 30 and the second guard portion 40 include ventilation ports 28 formed therein”], wherein the side wall extends up from the base plate (60, in fig. 1) and the vented portion (28 in panel 30) is located above (in view of figs. 1, 2, 5) the coupling (18) when the coupling guard (20) is installed between the motor assembly (12) and the pump bearing frame (14).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the side wall and vented portions as taught by Powell on multiple overlapping panels of the coupling guard in the base plate system of ‘610 for the purpose of securing the panels to the base plate and for the purpose of temperature control since couplings generate heat during operation, especially under high loads.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 3, 8 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,610 in view of Chris Pasquali (“Component Breakdown of Sealless High Pressure Pump Skids” – herein after Chris).
Regarding claim 5, ‘610 remains silent on the base plate system, “wherein the base plate is configurable to receive differently sized motor adaptors”.
However, Chris teaches a base plate that is configurable to receive differently sized motor adaptors (see fig. A above: various holes such as “H1” are capable of receiving differently sized motor adaptors).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the base plate in the base plate system of ‘610 to receive differently sized motor adaptors as a matter of design choice. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 6, ‘610 remains silent on the base plate system, “wherein the base plate is configurable to receive differently sized pump bearing frames”.
However, Chris teaches a base plate that is configurable to receive differently sized pump bearing frames (see fig. A above: various holes such as “H2”, “H3” are capable of receiving differently sized pump bearing frames).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the base plate in the base plate system of ‘610 to receive differently sized pump bearing frames as a matter of design choice. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 3 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,610 in view of Pemberton, Steve V. (US 2016/0238009 – herein after Pemberton).
Regarding claim 10, ‘610 remains silent on the base plate system, “wherein the first planar section of the motor adaptor includes multiple first slots configured to align with holes of multiple different motor assembly feet sizes”.
However, Pemberton teaches a base plate system wherein the first planar section (see fig. B above) of the motor adaptor includes multiple first slots (labeled “first set of slots”) configured to align with holes of multiple different motor assembly feet sizes (fasteners labeled “b1” passes through feet’s of the motor assembly into the first set of slots; shape of these first set of slots makes them capable of aligning with holes of multiple different motor assembly feet sizes).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first planar section in the base plate system of ‘610 to include multiple first slots configured to align with holes of multiple different motor assembly feet sizes as a matter of design choice. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 11, ‘610 remains silent on the base plate system, “wherein the flange is parallel to the first planar section”.
However, Pemberton teaches a base plate system wherein the flange (see fig. B above) is parallel to the first planar section.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the base plate system of ‘610 for having the flange parallel to the first planar section as a matter of design choice. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 3 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,610 in view of Copanas et al. (US 10,465,836 – herein after Copanas; cited by applicant on IDS dated 09/18/2025).
Regarding claim 12, ‘610 remains silent on the base plate system, “wherein the motor adaptor configured to support the motor assembly includes at least two identical motor adaptors”.
However, Copanas teaches the motor adaptor (see figs. 1-2) configured to support the motor assembly (18) includes at least two identical motor adaptors (each motor adaptor = component with features 30, 28 & component with feature 24).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the motor adaptor in the base plate system of ‘610 to include at least two identical motor adaptors since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 13 would be allowable upon overcoming the nonstatutory double patenting rejections.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The newly cited reference of Jiang teaches a motor adaptor (see figs. 4 – 9) similarly to that of Coponas, as previously discussed in the last office action. However, the prior arts of record alone or in combination fails to specifically teach the base plate system, wherein “the mounting lug is configured to be secured to a jackscrew lug such that the mounting lug is in contact with a first surface of the second planar section facing toward the cavity and the jackscrew lug is in contact with a second surface of the second planar section facing away from the cavity”, as in claim 1.
Claims 2 – 13 depend on claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed September 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot.
The amendment to independent claim 1 changed the scope of the claim. As a result, this claim and its dependent claims would be allowable, as discussed above, upon overcoming the nonstatutory double patenting rejections.
The amendment to independent claim 14 changed the scope of the claim. As a result, new grounds of rejection is made over newly found references of Chris and Pemberton.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIRAG JARIWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 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, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/CHIRAG JARIWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
