DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 14 January 2026.
Claims 5-6 are canceled by the Applicant.
Claims 1-4 and 7-20 are currently pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted was/were considered by the Examiner.
Response to Remarks
The arguments in response to the drawing objection(s) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are not found persuasive. While the drawing has been amended with apparent labels for the claimed angles, there is no clear representation of what reference plane, axis, or otherwise from which the angles are to be measured. In other words, it is not clear what the labeled angles are supposed to be measured from. It is further noted, it appears the arrow for θ_tip,in appears to be pointing to a hub outlet portion of the blade hub.
The arguments in response to the specification objection(s) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are found persuasive. The Examiner withdraws the original specification objection(s), it is noted however, upon further review of the specification, a new objection is included below.
The arguments in response to the claim(s) interpretation under 35 U.S.C § 112(f) have been fully considered and are found persuasive. The Examiner withdraws the original 112(f) invocation(s). It is noted, the original inclusion was inadvertent. A new 112(f) invocation/interpretation is included below.
The arguments in response to the claim(s) rejection under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are not found persuasive. The Examiner notes the Applicant’s explanation of the inlet angle and outlet angle introduced new matter that is not in the disclosure, thus the arguments are not found persuasive. The Applicant’s conclusory statement that paragraph [0032] clearly defines the inlet and outlet angles is not found persuasive.
The arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
The Applicant’s remarks pertaining to “single piece construction” are not found persuasive. Once assembled, the different fan housings of Hoffman can be considered to be integral, or in other words of a single piece construction (see for example FIG. 7 of Hoffman). In re Morris, Fed. Cir. 1997 affirmed the Board's decision that "the term 'integral' is a relatively broad term inclusive of means for maintaining parts in a fixed relationship as a single unit." The use of fasteners, adhesives, press fitting, and the like can all possibly be considered making structures "integral" or "integrally formed" absent any special definition in the spec. In this instance the term “single piece construction” is considered to be synonymous with structures that are integrally formed, and the assembled Hoffman stages and cone are considered integral, or of a single piece construction, when assembled as shown in figure 7.
A new grounds for rejection is included in this Office Action, necessitated by amendment, commensurate with the original rejection.
The arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are not found persuasive.
The Applicants remarks pertaining to claims 17 and 19 which allege the specification provides support for the inlet and outlet angles having criticality are not found persuasive, since paragraph [0018] states:
“Benefits, other advantages, and solutions to problems are described below with regard to specific embodiments. However, the benefits, advantages, solutions to problems, and any feature(s) that may cause any benefit, advantage, or solution to occur or become more pronounced are not to be construed as a critical, required, or essential feature of any or all the claims.” (Emphasis added.)
It is further noted, the Applicant’s remarks pertaining to the inlet and outlet angles providing optimization (claims 17 and 19) are not found persuasive, since the specification only relates optimization to the fan assembly when the dimensionless flow coefficient C is in a range from about 0.3 to about 0.5 (see [0036]), which is not claimed.
The Applicant’s remarks pertaining to, “Hoffman’s blower which does not have an optimized flow coefficient,” are not found persuasive for three reasons. Firstly, the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language, as the optimized flow coefficient is not claimed. Secondly, the Applicant has mischaracterized the optimized flow coefficient, which does not depend on or result from the inlet and outlet angles (see [0036]). Rather paragraph [0036] discloses:
The flow coefficient is calculated by the following equation:
Φ
=
q
/
(
A
)
ω
R
where q represents flow (m3/s), A represents cross sectional area at the fan (m2), ω represents speed (rad/sec) and R represents fan tip radius (meters) measured at a blade tip 136. Stated differently, the numerator q/(A) is the axial velocity at the fan (meters per second).
Thirdly, the Applicant has mischaracterized the rejection of record, since the rejection of record stated that “without explicit support for the relative dimensions of the claim(s) providing a critical result, it appears Hoffman would perform equally well with the relative values as claimed by Applicant.” (Emphasis added.) Because the Instant Application did not disclose the claimed angles provided criticality, and as seen above explicitly disclosed to the contrary, MPEP § 2144.04, IV, A was used to make an obviousness rejection that modified Hoffman to have the same relative dimensions as claimed by Applicant.
The original rejection(s) is/are included in this Office Action.
The Arguments pertaining to the dependent claims are not found persuasive for at least the same reasons as explained above.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “inlet angle” and “outlet angle” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 12-15, 17, and 19. No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraphs [0025, 28] of the specification refers to “coupling features 120,” which are one or more apertures or openings for receiving a fastener, e.g., screw. However the specification then goes on to use the same terminology to represent a different structure(s) having a different reference character, “coupling features 214,” which connects the shaft 218 to the receiver 216. The Examiner recommends utilizing different terminology, for example, “coupling member.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
Examiner note: the following 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
A. "Coupling features" first introduced in claim 4:
The coupling features provide the function of providing a structure for the fasteners to connect the housing segments 118. The coupling features 120 may protrude or extend from an outer surface 122 of each housing segment 118. The coupling features 120 may include but are not limited to one or more apertures or openings for receiving a fastener, e.g., screw, therethrough; or an equivalent thereof (see [0025, 28]).
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 12-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 12-15, 17, and 19:
The term “inlet angle” and “outlet angle” in claims 12-15, 17, and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “inlet angle” and “outlet angle” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is noted, the “inlet angle” and “outlet angle” are not defined relative to any other structure, and thus it is not clear to what angle the “inlet angle” and “outlet angle” is supposed to refer. For purposes of examination, the language “inlet angle” is interpreted to be defined as the angle between a local axis of the blade at the leading edge and the axis of rotation; and “outlet angle” is interpreted to be defined as the angle between a local axis of the blade at the trailing edge and the axis of rotation.
Regarding claims 18 and 20:
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected by virtue of dependence on rejected claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoffman (US 20180087513), hereafter referred to as Hoffman.
Regarding Claim 1, Hoffman discloses the following:
A blower comprising:
a blower housing (FIG. 1-3);
an air inlet (28; FIG. 1);
an air outlet (62; FIG. 2); and
a fan assembly (50) disposed between the air inlet (28; FIG. 1) and the air outlet (62; FIG. 2),
wherein the fan assembly (50) comprises a multi-stage fan (54; FIG. 3),
wherein the multi-stage fan (54; FIG. 3) comprises a plurality of axial fans (100, alternatively 300) mounted on a drive shaft (52; see for example [0033]) and a plurality of stator fans (112, alternatively 312) arranged in series with the axial fans (100, alternatively 300),
wherein each axial fan (100, alternatively 300) and each stator fan (112, alternatively 312) comprises an inlet side and an outlet side, wherein the inlet side is disposed nearer to the air inlet than the outlet side, and wherein the outlet side is disposed nearer to the air outlet than the inlet side (see FIG. 3, 6, 8),
wherein each axial fan (100, alternatively 300) comprises a plurality of blades (108) each having a blade tip, and
wherein each stator fan (112, alternatively 312) comprises a stackable housing segment (112 or 312; see [0032]; see FIG. 1-8),
wherein each of the stackable housing segments (112 or 312; see [0032]; see FIG. 1-8) are coupled together in series to form the blower housing (FIG. 1-3),
wherein a distal stator fan (112 in combination with 82) of the plurality of stator fans (112, alternatively 312) is disposed closest to the air outlet (62; FIG. 2), the distal stator fan (112 in combination with 82) including an outlet cone (82; FIG. 3) extending toward the air outlet (62; FIG. 2) formed from single piece construction (as seen in FIG. 7, the assembled components can be considered a single piece construction, i.e. integral) with the distal stator fan (112 in combination with 82).
Regarding Claim 2, Hoffman discloses the following:
The blower of claim 1,
wherein the blower housing (FIG. 1-3) houses the plurality of stator fans (112, alternatively 312) and the plurality of axial fans (100, alternatively 300).
Regarding Claim 3, Hoffman discloses the following:
The blower of claim 1,
wherein an outer surface of each stackable housing segment (112 or 312; see [0032]; see FIG. 1-8) forms an outer surface of the blower housing (FIG. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 4, Hoffman discloses the following:
The blower of claim 1,
wherein each stackable housing segment (112 or 312; see [0032]; see FIG. 1-8) includes one or more coupling features (see FIG. 1-2; [0032]).
Regarding Claim 7, Hoffman discloses the following:
The blower of claim 1,
wherein each respective stator fan and stackable housing segment (112 or 312; see [0032]; see FIG. 1-8) are formed from single piece construction as seen in FIG. 3, 8).
Regarding Claim 16, Hoffman discloses the following:
An outdoor power tool comprising:
a power head (20) comprising a power head housing (24, see [0027]), a power source, a motor powered by the power source (see [0027]), and a drive shaft (52; see for example [0033]) extending from the motor and rotatably driven by the motor, wherein the power source and the motor are disposed within the power head housing (24, see [0027]) and the drive shaft (52; see for example [0033]) extends from the power head housing (24, see [0027]); and
a blower attachment comprising the blower of claim 1 (see above).
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.
Claims 8-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US 20180087513), hereafter referred to as Hoffman.
Regarding Claim 8-15, Hoffman discloses the following:
The blower of claim 1, 9, 12, and 14 (respectively);
Hoffman does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the blower housing comprises a diameter less than about 140 mm (claim 8); wherein each axial fan comprises a hub surrounding the drive shaft, wherein the hub comprises a diameter in a range from about 50 mm to about 75 mm (claim 9); wherein each axial fan comprises a maximum diameter in a range from about 100 mm to about 140 mm (claim 10); wherein each blade comprises a chord length from an inlet side of the blade to an outlet side of the blade in a range from about 30 mm to about 50 mm (claim 11); further wherein a blade hub inlet angle at the hub is greater than a blade hub outlet angle of each blade at the hub claim 12); wherein the blade hub inlet angle is in a range from about 40 degrees to about 55 degrees and/or the blade hub outlet angle is in a range from about 20 degrees to about 30 degrees (claim 13); wherein a blade tip inlet angle at the inlet side of the blade tip is greater than a blade tip outlet angle at the outlet side of the blade tip (claim 14); wherein the blade tip inlet angle is in a range from about 58 degrees to about 70 degrees and/or the blade tip outlet angle is in a range from about 50 degrees to about 55 degrees (claim 15);
However the Examiner notes following:
Hoffman discloses a multistage blower having a housing, a hub surrounding the drive shaft, blades having inlet and outlet angles at the tip and hub, but is silent on the specific dimensions of the aforementioned structures. In other words, Hoffman discloses the same structure as the Applicant, except the relative dimensions claimed. The Instant Application has not disclosed the limitation(s) of: wherein the blower housing comprises a diameter less than about 140 mm (claim 8); wherein each axial fan comprises a hub surrounding the drive shaft, wherein the hub comprises a diameter in a range from about 50 mm to about 75 mm (claim 9); wherein each axial fan comprises a maximum diameter in a range from about 100 mm to about 140 mm (claim 10); wherein each blade comprises a chord length from an inlet side of the blade to an outlet side of the blade in a range from about 30 mm to about 50 mm (claim 11); further wherein a blade hub inlet angle at the hub is greater than a blade hub outlet angle of each blade at the hub claim 12); wherein the blade hub inlet angle is in a range from about 40 degrees to about 55 degrees and/or the blade hub outlet angle is in a range from about 20 degrees to about 30 degrees (claim 13); wherein a blade tip inlet angle at the inlet side of the blade tip is greater than a blade tip outlet angle at the outlet side of the blade tip (claim 14); wherein the blade tip inlet angle is in a range from about 58 degrees to about 70 degrees and/or the blade tip outlet angle is in a range from about 50 degrees to about 55 degrees (claim 15); provides any criticality. Note that the mere existence of these relative dimensions themselves in the claim cannot impart criticality as any multistage blower could be described in such a way. Therefore without explicit support for the relative dimensions of the claim(s) providing a critical result, it appears Hoffman would perform equally well with the relative values as claimed by Applicant. Since the courts have held that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blower, as disclosed by Hoffman, by utilizing the specific value(s) (relative dimensions) as described above, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing actual dimensions to construct a blower. (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A).
Regarding Claims 17 and 19, Hoffman discloses the following:
A blower comprising:
a blower housing (FIG. 1-3);
an air inlet (28; FIG. 1);
an air outlet (62; FIG. 2); and
a fan assembly (50) disposed between the air inlet (28; FIG. 1) and the air outlet (62; FIG. 2),
wherein the fan assembly (50) comprises a three-stage fan,
wherein the three-stage fan comprises three axial fans (100, alternatively 300) mounted on a drive shaft (52; see for example [0033]) and three stator fans (112, alternatively 312) arranged in series with the axial fans (100, alternatively 300),
wherein each axial fan (100, alternatively 300) and each stator fan (112, alternatively 312) comprises an inlet (28; FIG. 1) side and an outlet (62; FIG. 2) side, wherein the inlet (28; FIG. 1) side is disposed nearer to the air inlet (28; FIG. 1) than the outlet (62; FIG. 2) side, and wherein the outlet (62; FIG. 2) side is disposed nearer to the air outlet (62; FIG. 2) than the inlet (28; FIG. 1) side,
wherein each axial fan (100, alternatively 300) comprises a plurality of blades (108) each having a blade tip,
Hoffman does not disclose the following:
wherein a blade hub inlet angle at the hub is greater than a blade hub outlet angle of each blade at the hub (claim 17);
wherein a blade tip inlet angle at the inlet side of the blade tip is greater than a blade tip outlet angle at the outlet side of the blade tip (claim 19);
However the Examiner notes following:
Hoffman discloses a multistage blower having a housing, a hub surrounding the drive shaft, blades having inlet and outlet angles at the tip and hub, but is silent on the specific dimensions of the aforementioned structures. In other words, Hoffman discloses the same structure as the Applicant, except the relative dimensions claimed. The Instant Application has not disclosed the limitation(s) of: wherein a blade hub inlet (28; FIG. 1) angle at the hub is greater than a blade hub outlet (62; FIG. 2) angle of each blade at the hub (claim 17); wherein a blade tip inlet (28; FIG. 1) angle at the inlet (28; FIG. 1) side of the blade tip is greater than a blade tip outlet (62; FIG. 2) angle at the outlet (62; FIG. 2) side of the blade tip (claim 19); provides any criticality. Note that the mere existence of these relative dimensions themselves in the claim cannot impart criticality as any multistage blower could be described in such a way. Therefore without explicit support for the relative dimensions of the claim(s) providing a critical result, it appears Hoffman would perform equally well with the relative values as claimed by Applicant. Since the courts have held that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blower, as disclosed by Hoffman, by utilizing the specific value(s) (relative dimensions) as described above, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing actual dimensions to construct a blower. (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A).
Regarding Claims 18 and 20, Hoffman discloses the following:
An outdoor power tool comprising:
a power head (20) comprising a power head housing (24, see [0027]), a power source, a motor powered by the power source (see [0027]), and a drive shaft (52; see for example [0033]) extending from the motor and rotatably driven by the motor, wherein the power source and the motor are disposed within the power head housing (24, see [0027]) and the drive shaft (52; see for example [0033]) extends from the power head housing (24, see [0027]); and
a blower attachment comprising the blower of claim 17 (see above);
a blower attachment comprising the blower of claim 19 (see above).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745