DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Firstly, Examiner suggests overcoming the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections herein. Thereafter, Examiner suggests incorporating more claim language (i.e. structural and/or functional) in light of the specification to overcome the prior art rejection and advance prosecution. Examiner believes including language to specifically define some of the unique structural features (e.g., “the shoe”) and/or incorporating additional elements, such as, but not limited to a plurality of spring elements directly coupled to/associated with each of the arms of the stabbing guide may be beneficial in advancing prosecution, preferably towards an allowance. Examiner is open to discussing potential claim language in light of the specification to expedite prosecution.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities and should likely read as follows: “[...] a first arm and a second arm which are in pivoting association with the main body, and [[where]]wherein the main body is associated with the middle portion, the first arm is associated with the first side portion, and the second arm is associated with the second side portion...”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities and should likely read as follows: “[...] positioning the tubular stabbing guide, via an arm, beside a coupling fastened to a first tubular installed in a well bore, and wherein the tubular stabbing guide is perpendicular to the point of rotation of the first tubular...”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities and should likely read as follows: “[...] positioning the robotic tubular stabbing guide, via a robotic arm, perpendicularly to a first tubular vertically installed in a well bore, and wherein a coupling is fixed to the top of the first tubular, and wherein a second tubular fixed to the top of the coupling;
pushing the tubular stabbing guide, via the arm, onto the second tubular where a first guide associated with a first side of the tubular stabbing guide and a second guide associated with a second side of the tubular stabbing guide include geometry which directs force from the tubular stabbing guide being pressed against the second tubular in a direction perpendicular to the point of rotation of the second tubular and causes the first side and second side to spread apart to enclose the second tubular in an interior cavity of the tubular stabbing guide and closing the tubular stabbing guide around the second tubular...”. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (and, similarly claims 8 & 15) cites: “[...] a cylindrical tubular guide including a middle portion, a first side portion, and a second side portion... the top of the middle portion, the first side portion, and the second side portion having an inwardly angled surface relative to an axis passing through a center of the cylindrical guide and the bottom of the middle portion, the first side portion, and the second side portion having an inner surface colinear to the axis”. For clarity purposes, these structural elements/portions is recommended to be incorporated within the instant specification, without adding any new matters.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 (and, similarly claim 16) cite: “[...] wherein the robotic tubular stabbing guide protects the threads of the first tubular while installing the second tubular with the coupling.” Examiner notes that though there is support for the limitation corresponding to the term “protect”, the claims fail to satisfy the written description test in regard to how exactly the guide “protects” the threads. “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved…”. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010). See MPEP 2163.03, subsection V.
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 1 and 4-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (and, similarly claims 8 & 15) cite: “[...] the top of the middle portion...”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner has confusion as to whether “the top” is meant to correspond to the middle portion only, or if it was meant to also correspond to another element/elements previously recited. For examination purposes, the Examiner will give its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the instant specification and will assume for the first interpretation. Due to claims 1, 8, & 15 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected.
Claim 8 (and, similarly claim 15) cites: “[...] positioning the robotic tubular stabbing guide, via an arm, beside a coupling fastened to a first tubular installed in a well bore, and wherein the tubular stabbing guide is perpendicular to the point of rotation of the first tubular...”
Examiner notes that the claim construes multiple interpretations corresponding to stabbing guide being “perpendicular to the point of rotation of the first tubular”, making the claim indefinite as to what the metes and bounds of the limitation are. Examiner notes that one skilled in the art would be confused as to how a point (singular) of rotation defines a specific axis, since technically the point can correspond to multiple axes, such as, but not limited to, axis of rotation, vertical axis, lateral axis, etc. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “the point” was not previously recited causing confusion as to whether “the point” is meant to correspond to just the rotation of the first tubular or another element. Examiner will take its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the instant specification and will assume for the limitation to read as follows: “[...] positioning the robotic tubular stabbing guide, via an arm, beside a coupling fastened to a first tubular installed in a well bore, and wherein the tubular stabbing guide is perpendicular to the [[point of rotation of the]] first tubular...” (see support in paragraph [0067] of the instant specification).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton (US Publication Number 2009/0038857 A1; herein “Hamilton”) in view of Saunders et al. (US Publication Number 2023/0003090 A1; herein “Saunders”).
In regard to claim 1, Hamilton discloses: A tubular stabbing guide (as shown in figures 1-2) for oil and gas well application (abstract and paragraphs [0001, 0007-0010]), comprising:
a mount (6) adapted to connect to an arm (i.e., comprising 15 — paragraphs [0009-0010] and figures 1-2);
a main body (5) associated with the mount (paragraphs [0009-0010] and figures 1-2);
a cylindrical tubular guide (i.e., comprising 23, 26, 27, 30, 31) including a middle portion, a first side portion, and a second side portion (as shown in the annotated figure 9 below which all intrinsically comprise a radial inner mating portion of the );
a first arm (27a) and a second arm (27b) which are in pivoting association with the main body, and [[where]]wherein the main body is associated (i.e., structurally and functionally) with the middle portion, the first arm is associated (i.e., structurally and functionally) with the first side portion, and the second arm is associated (i.e., structurally and functionally) with the second side portion (paragraphs [0009-0015]); and
a first guide (i.e., slanted surface of 27a which first makes contact with 4) associated with the side of the first arm opposite the middle portion and a second guide (i.e., slanted surface of 27b which first makes contact with 4) associated with the side of the second arm opposite the middle portion, wherein the first guide and the second guide include geometry which directs force from the tubular stabbing guide being pressed against a tubular (4) in a direction perpendicular to the point of rotation of the tubular and causes the first side portion and second side portion to spread apart (paragraphs [0009-0015] and figures 7-9).
PNG
media_image1.png
675
1204
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Hamilton is silent in regard to: A robotic tubular stabbing guide; and
the top of the middle portion, the first side portion, and the second side portion having an inwardly angled surface relative to an axis passing through a center of the cylindrical guide and the bottom of the middle portion, the first side portion, and the second side portion having an inner surface colinear to the axis.
Nonetheless, Saunders teaches a hydraulic stabbing guide comprising an arm (64a) to extend and retract the guide (at least paragraphs [0001, 0033-0034] and figures 3-14), similar to that of Hamilton. Saunders teaches that the stabbing guide can be robotically controlled (paragraphs [0001, 0032-0034, 0042]). Furthermore, Saunders teaches the top of the middle portion, the first side portion, and the second side portion having an inwardly angled surface relative to an axis passing through a center of the cylindrical guide and the bottom of the middle portion, the first side portion, and the second side portion having an inner surface colinear to the axis (as shown in figure 8 | see also paragraph [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the hydraulic stabbing guide mechanism, as taught by Hamilton, to be robotic, as taught by Saunders, to yield the predictable result of opening and closing the guide simply by motion of the guide relative to the tubular (meeting the same end-result), as Saunders teaches that “a robot, user, tool arm, or other manipulating device” are known alternatives. See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
Furthermore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the top and bottom inner surface of the middle, first side, and second side portions of the cylindrical tubular guide, as taught by Hamilton, to include for an inwardly angled surface relative to an axis passing through a center of the cylindrical guide, and an inner surface colinear to the axis, respectively, as taught by Saunders, for physically guiding a pin end of the tubular to the center of the guide and into a box end of a lower tubular (paragraph [0039] of Saunders).
In regard to claim 4, Hamilton further discloses: wherein the first arm and the second arm are biased into a closed position by at least one biasing element (the arms 27 intrinsically comprise a biasing element which allows for retraction when the pipe is within the cylindrical tubular guide, as shown from the transitioning from figure 8 to figure 9 — paragraphs [0013-0015] and figures 7-9).
In regard to claim 5, Hamilton further discloses: wherein the first arm biases a first section of the cylindrical tubular guide and the second arm biases a second section of the cylindrical tubular guide (paragraphs [0013-0015] and figures 7-9).
In regard to claim 6, Hamilton further discloses: wherein the first arm includes a first shoe portion curved and extending outwardly away from the cylindrical tubular guide (Examiner notes that the end of 27a is depicted to be “shoe portion” — paragraphs [0013-0015] and figures 7-9).
In regard to claim 7, Hamilton further discloses: wherein the second arm includes a second shoe portion curved and extending outwardly away from the cylindrical tubular guide (Examiner notes that the end of 27b is depicted to be “shoe portion” — paragraphs [0013-0015] and figures 7-9).
In regard to claim 15, Hamilton discloses: A method for operating a robotic tubular stabbing guide (as shown in figures 1-2) to uninstall a tubular (i.e., 4 and/or 2 — abstract and paragraphs [0001, 0007-0010, 0013-0017]), the method comprising:
positioning the tubular stabbing guide, via an arm (i.e., comprising 15 — paragraphs [0009-0010] and figures 1-2), perpendicularly to a first tubular (2) vertically installed in a well bore (figures 1-2), and wherein a coupling is fixed to the top of the first tubular (paragraphs [0009-0015] and figures 7-9), and wherein a second tubular (4) fixed to the top of the coupling (paragraphs [0009-0015]);
pushing the tubular stabbing guide, via the arm, onto the second tubular where a first guide (27a) associated with a first side of the tubular stabbing guide and a second guide (27b) associated with a second side of the tubular stabbing guide include geometry which directs force from the tubular stabbing guide being pressed against the second tubular in a direction perpendicular to the [[point of rotation of the]] second tubular and causes the first side and second side to spread apart to enclose the second tubular in an interior cavity (i.e., space within the guide which grapples the tubular) of the tubular stabbing guide and closing the tubular stabbing guide around the second tubular (paragraphs [0009-0015] and figures 7-9);
lowering the robotic tubular stabbing guide along the length of the second tubular and the coupling until a bottom rim of the robotic tubular stabbing guide is aligned (i.e., longitudinally aligned) with a bottom thread (i.e., of 2) of the first tubular (paragraphs [0009-0015] and figures 7-9);
uninstalling the second tubular from the coupling while the tubular stabbing guide secures the coupling and the first tubular (paragraphs [0011-0017] and figures 7-9); and
removing the tubular stabbing guide from contact with the first tubular and the coupling (paragraphs [0011-0017] and figures 7-9).
However, Hamilton is silent in regard to: A method for operating a robotic tubular stabbing guide to uninstall a tubular;
Nonetheless, Saunders teaches a hydraulic stabbing guide comprising an arm (64a) to extend and retract the guide (at least paragraphs [0001, 0033-0034] and figures 3-14), similar to that of Hamilton. Saunders teaches that the stabbing guide can be robotically controlled (paragraphs [0001, 0032-0034, 0042]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the hydraulic stabbing guide mechanism, as taught by Hamilton, to be robotic, as taught by Saunders, to yield the predictable result of opening and closing the guide simply by motion of the guide relative to the tubular (meeting the same end-result), as Saunders teaches that “a robot, user, tool arm, or other manipulating device” are known alternatives. See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
In regard to claim 17, Hamilton further discloses: wherein pushing the robotic tubular stabbing guide on the second installed tubular causes the robotic stabbing guide to convert from a closed position to an open position (paragraphs [0013-0017]).
In regard to claim 18, Hamilton further discloses: wherein closing the robotic tubular stabbing guide around the second installed tubular, causes the robotic stabbing guide to convert from the open position to the closed position via at least one biasing element (the arms 27 intrinsically comprise a biasing element which allows for retraction when the pipe is within the cylindrical tubular guide, as shown from the transitioning from figure 8 to figure 9 — paragraphs [0013-0015] and figures 7-9).
In regard to claim 19, Hamilton further discloses: wherein pushing the robotic tubular stabbing guide onto the second installed tubular further comprises a wing of the robotic tubular stabbing guide contacting the second tubular to inform the conversion of the robotic tubular stabbing guide to the open position (Examiner notes that the ends of 27 is depicted to be “wings”, absent specific structural detail — paragraphs [0013-0015] and figures 7-9).
In regard to claim 20, Hamilton further discloses: wherein securing the coupling and the first tubular includes preventing any rotation (paragraphs [0013-0017]).
Claim(s) 8 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton (US Publication Number 2009/0038857 A1; herein “Hamilton”) in view of Saunders et al. (US Publication Number 2023/0003090 A1; herein “Saunders”) in further view of Arp et al (US Publication Number 2015/0354297 A1; herein “Arp”).
In regard to claim 8, Hamilton discloses: A method for operating a tubular stabbing guide (as shown in figures 1-2) to install a tubular (i.e., 4 and/or 2 — abstract and paragraphs [0001, 0007-0010]), the method comprising:
positioning the tubular stabbing guide, via an arm (i.e., comprising 15 — paragraphs [0009-0010] and figures 1-2), beside a coupling (i.e., pin portion of 11) fastened to a first tubular (4), and wherein the tubular stabbing guide is perpendicular to [[the point of rotation of]] the first tubular (paragraphs [0009-0015] and figures 7-9);
pushing, via the arm, the tubular stabbing guide into the coupling which causes a first guide (27a) associated with a first side of the tubular stabbing guide and a second guide (27b) associated with a second side of the tubular stabbing guide to direct the force generated by the arm to open the stabbing guide and allow the coupling to enter a central cavity (i.e., space within the guide which grapples the tubular) of the tubular stabbing guide until a bottom of the tubular stabbing guide is aligned (i.e., longitudinally aligned) with a bottom thread (11) of the first tubular and the stabbing guide is closed (paragraphs [0009-0015] and figures 7-9).
However, Hamilton is silent in regard to: A method for operating a robotic tubular stabbing guide to install a tubular;
positioning the tubular stabbing guide, via an arm, beside a coupling fastened to a first tubular installed in a well bore, and wherein the tubular stabbing guide is perpendicular to the point of rotation of the first tubular;
stabbing a second tubular through the top of the stabbing guide, which aligns the second tubular with the coupling;
installing the second tubular with the coupling; and
removing the tubular stabbing guide from contact with the first tubular, the second tubular, and the coupling.
Nonetheless, Saunders teaches a hydraulic stabbing guide comprising an arm (64a) to extend and retract the guide (at least paragraphs [0001, 0033-0034] and figures 3-14), similar to that of Hamilton. Saunders teaches that the stabbing guide can be robotically controlled (paragraphs [0001, 0032-0034, 0042]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the hydraulic stabbing guide mechanism, as taught by Hamilton, to be robotic, as taught by Saunders, to yield the predictable result of opening and closing the guide simply by motion of the guide relative to the tubular (meeting the same end-result), as Saunders teaches that “a robot, user, tool arm, or other manipulating device” are known alternatives. See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
Furthermore, Hamilton is silent in regard to: positioning the tubular stabbing guide, via an arm, beside a coupling fastened to a first tubular installed in a well bore, and wherein the tubular stabbing guide is perpendicular to the point of rotation of the first tubular;
stabbing a second tubular through the top of the stabbing guide, which aligns the second tubular with the coupling;
installing the second tubular with the coupling; and
removing the tubular stabbing guide from contact with the first tubular, the second tubular, and the coupling.
Nonetheless, Arp teaches a stabbing guide (abstract, paragraphs [0024-0029], and figures 1-3), similar to that of Hamilton. Arp teaches that the stabbing guide (10) can be used to hold a tubular/coupler (200) which is installed in a wellbore (as shown in figure 1), while a second tubular (100) is stabbed into the first tubular/coupler (paragraphs [0024-0029], and figures 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the usage of the stabbing guide, as taught by Hamilton, with that of Arp, to yield the predictable result of aligning and mating threaded connections during installation of pipe and other tubular goods (paragraph [0004] of Arp), as it is known to use stabbing guide(s) to install tubulars in different manners, meeting the same end-result. See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
In regard to claim 10, in view of the modification of the preceding claim, Hamilton further discloses: removing the robotic (i.e., as taught by Saunders) tubular stabbing guide by moving the robotic tubular stabbing guide, via the robotic arm, in a direction which is perpendicular with an alignment of the first tubular and the second tubular (paragraphs [0011-0017] of Hamilton).
In regard to claim 11, Hamilton further discloses: wherein moving the robotic tubular stabbing guide in the direction causes the robotic stabbing guide to initiate conversion from a closed position to an open position while in contact with the first tubular, the second tubular, and the coupling (paragraphs [0011-0017] and figures 7-9).
In regard to claim 12, Hamilton further discloses: wherein moving the robotic tubular stabbing guide in the direction until no longer in contact with the first tubular, the second tubular, and the coupling causes the robotic stabbing guide to convert from the open position to the closed position (paragraphs [0011-0017] and figures 7-9).
In regard to claim 13, Hamilton in view of Saunders and Arp discloses claim 8 herein.
However, the modification is silent in regard to: guiding of the second tubular, an inwardly angled surface on an interior rim of the robotic tubular stabbing guide, wherein the inwardly angled surface is relative to an axis passing through a center of the robotic tubular stabbing guide.
Nonetheless, Saunders teaches a hydraulic stabbing guide comprising an arm (64a) to extend and retract the guide (at least paragraphs [0001, 0033-0034] and figures 3-14), similar to that of Hamilton. Saunders teaches the top of the middle portion, the first side portion, and the second side portion having an inwardly angled surface relative to an axis passing through a center of the cylindrical guide and the bottom of the middle portion, the first side portion, and the second side portion having an inner surface colinear to the axis (as shown in figure 8 | see also paragraph [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the interior rim of the robotic stabbing guide, as taught by Hamilton in view of Saunders, to include for an inwardly angled surface relative to an axis passing through a center of the guide, as taught by Saunders, for physically guiding a pin end of the tubular to the center of the guide and into a box end of a lower tubular (paragraph [0039] of Saunders).
In regard to claim 14, Hamilton further discloses: wherein the robotic tubular stabbing guide is in a closed position, wherein the closed position is maintained by at least one biasing element (the arms 27 intrinsically comprise a biasing element which allows for retraction when the pipe is within the cylindrical tubular guide, as shown from the transitioning from figure 8 to figure 9 — paragraphs [0013-0015] and figures 7-9).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NEEL PATEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00AM-5:00PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/NEEL GIRISH PATEL/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676