DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 14 October 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 6, 8, 14, and 16 were previously withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-13, 15, and 17-20 are being considered.
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
The Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the claim(s) rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are found persuasive.
A new grounds of rejection is included below, commensurate with the Office’s original position pertaining to the 103 rejection for claims 7 and 15.
The Applicant's arguments pertaining to the claim(s) rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, in combination with the amendments, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues Kroger as modified by Hsu does not disclose, “the second angle non-parallel to the longitudinal axis, wherein the first angle and the second angle cooperatively deflect an incoming object away from the core air flowpath and toward the bypass airflow passage.” (Amended limitation(s) added to the independent claims 1, 9, and 17.) This is not found persuasive since Kroger explicitly discloses, “the second angle non-parallel to the longitudinal axis,” and discloses the same and/or over lapping ranges of the second angle (see Col. 10, lines 14-37). Secondly, Hsu is relied upon for the first angle as claimed by the Instant Application, and the Applicant has failed to argue against the combination of Kroger and Hsu resulting in the first angle that is non-parallel to the radius of the nacelle. The combination of Kroger and Hsu discloses the same structures as the Instant Application. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the effects of said structures would be the same as the effects of the structures of the Instant Application. Thus the combination results in the limitation, “wherein the first angle and the second angle cooperatively deflect an incoming object away from the core air flowpath and toward the bypass airflow passage,” in as much as the Instant Application.
The Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the remaining dependent claims are not found persuasive for at least the same reasons as explained above.
A new grounds of rejection is included below, commensurate with the Office’s original position pertaining to the 103 rejection for claims 7 and 15.
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: no 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-13, 15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroger et al (US 10815886), hereafter referred to as Kroger, in view of Hsu et al (US 10344711), hereafter referred to as Hsu.
Regarding Claim 1, Kroger discloses the following:
A turbofan (38) engine comprising:
a fan (38) comprising a plurality of fan blades (40);
a turbomachine (FIG. 1, also see Col. 1, lines 12-40 which lists the compressor, turbine, and combustor sections, as well as the flowpath) operably coupled to the fan (38) for driving the fan (38), the turbomachine (FIG. 1, also see Col. 1, lines 12-40 which lists the compressor, turbine, and combustor sections, as well as the flowpath) comprising a compressor section, a combustion section, and a turbine section in serial flow order and together defining a core air flowpath;
a nacelle (50) surrounding and at least partially enclosing the fan (38), the nacelle (50) defining a radius, a longitudinal axis, and a circumferential direction extending about the longitudinal axis, the nacelle (50) comprising an inner wall (FIG. 1) defining a bypass airflow passage between the inner wall and the turbomachine; and
an inlet pre-swirl vane (100, FIG. 2, FIG. 5-6; The Examiner notes, FIG. 2 and FIG. 5-6 of Kroger are identical to FIG. 2 and FIG. 6-7 of the Instant Application and FIG. 3-4 show the same vane spacing, only perpendicular instead of angled vanes) located upstream of the plurality of fan blades (40) and defining a chord, the inlet pre-swirl vane (100, FIG. 2, FIG. 5-6; The Examiner notes, FIG. 2 and FIG. 5-6 of Kroger are identical to FIG. 2 and FIG. 6-7 of the Instant Application and FIG. 3-4 show the same vane spacing, only perpendicular instead of angled vanes) coupled to the nacelle (50), wherein the inlet pre-swirl vane (100, FIG. 2, FIG. 5-6; The Examiner notes, FIG. 2 and FIG. 5-6 of Kroger are identical to FIG. 2 and FIG. 6-7 of the Instant Application and FIG. 3-4 show the same vane spacing, only perpendicular instead of angled vanes) is angled at a first angle (as seen in FIG. 2-3, the first angle is shown to be parallel to the engine centerline) with respect to the radius of the nacelle (50), and wherein the chord of the inlet pre-swirl vane (100, FIG. 2, FIG. 5-6; The Examiner notes, FIG. 2 and FIG. 5-6 of Kroger are identical to FIG. 2 and FIG. 6-7 of the Instant Application and FIG. 3-4 show the same vane spacing, only perpendicular instead of angled vanes) is angled at a second angle (128, FIG. 5-6) with respect to the longitudinal axis of the nacelle (50),
the second angle (128, FIG. 5-6) non-parallel to the longitudinal axis (see Col. 10, lines 14-37), wherein the first angle and the second angle cooperatively deflect an incoming object away from the core air flowpath and toward the bypass airflow passage (in as much as the Instant Application, since the same angled structures are disclosed), and
wherein the inlet pre-swirl vane (100, FIG. 2, FIG. 5-6; The Examiner notes, FIG. 2 and FIG. 5-6 of Kroger are identical to FIG. 2 and FIG. 6-7 of the Instant Application and FIG. 3-4 show the same vane spacing, only perpendicular instead of angled vanes) is one of a plurality of part span inlet guide vanes (100) extending from the nacelle (50) upstream of the plurality of fan blades (40) and aft of an inlet of the nacelle (50), wherein at least a portion of the plurality of part span inlet guide vanes (100) are non-uniformly spaced (as seen in FIG. 4; Col. 9, lines 55-65) between adjacent ones of the plurality of part span inlet guide vanes (100) in the circumferential direction.
Kroger does not explicitly disclose the following:
the first angle non-parallel to the radius of the nacelle.
However Hsu the Examiner notes the following:
the first angle (θ, FIG. 4, also see Col. 4, lines 25-40) is non-parallel with respect to the radius of the nacelle (20) (as seen in FIG. 4; Abstract discloses the vanes may be normal or at an angle to the inside surface of the nacelle; Col. 4, lines 25-40 disclose the pre-swirl vane may be oriented in either the clockwise or counter clockwise directions) direction from an inlet of the nacelle (20)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the vanes that are perpendicular to the radial axis, as disclosed by Kroger, with the angled pre-swirl vanes as disclosed by Hsu, with the reasonable expectation of successfully disrupting the propagation of acoustic reflections leading to turbofan flutter. (see Hsu, Abstract). The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the perpendicular vane angle of Kroger with the angled vane arrangement of Hsu yields the predictable result of reducing flutter (i.e. substituting one known vane angle to reduce blade flutter for another known vane angle to reduce blade flutter). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Regarding Claim 2, Kroger as modified by Hsu discloses the following:
The turbofan (38) engine of claim 1,
wherein the plurality of part span inlet guide vanes (100) comprises a first part span inlet guide vane (100) located adjacent a second part span inlet guide vane (100) and a third part span inlet guide vane (100) located adjacent the second part span inlet guide vane, (100) and wherein a first circumferential spacing is defined between the first and second part span inlet guide vanes in the circumferential direction, and wherein a second circumferential spacing is defined between the second and third part span inlet guide vanes in the circumferential direction, wherein the first circumferential spacing is different than the second circumferential spacing (as seen in FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Kroger as modified by Hsu discloses the following:
The turbofan (38) engine of claim 2,
wherein the first circumferential spacing is at least twenty percent greater than the second circumferential spacing (Col. 9, lines 55-65).
Regarding Claim 4, Kroger as modified by Hsu discloses the following:
The turbofan (38) engine of claim 2,
wherein the first circumferential spacing is at least twenty-five percent greater than the second circumferential spacing (Col. 9, lines 55-65).
Regarding Claim 5, Kroger as modified by Hsu discloses the following:
The turbofan (38) engine of claim 2,
wherein the first circumferential spacing is at least thirty percent greater than the second circumferential spacing (Col. 9, lines 55-65).
Regarding Claim 7, Kroger as modified by Hsu discloses the following:
The turbofan (38) engine of claim 1,
Hsu continues to teach the following:
wherein the inlet pre-swirl vane (50, FIG. 2-4) is angled at the first angle (θ, FIG. 4, also see Col. 4, lines 25-40) with respect to the radius of the nacelle (20) in a clockwise (as seen in FIG. 4; Abstract discloses the vanes may be normal or at an angle to the inside surface of the nacelle; Col. 4, lines 25-40 disclose the pre-swirl vane may be oriented in either the clockwise or counter clockwise directions) direction from an inlet of the nacelle (20).
Regarding Claim 9, Kroger discloses the following:
A nacelle (50) assembly for a turbofan (38) engine, the turbofan (38) engine comprising a fan (38) including a plurality of fan blades (40), the nacelle (50) assembly comprising:
a nacelle (50) surrounding and at least partially enclosing the fan (38), the nacelle (50) defining a radius, a longitudinal axis, and a circumferential direction extending about the longitudinal axis, the nacelle comprising an inner wall defining a bypass airflow passage between the inner wall and the turbomachine (FIG. 1); and
an inlet pre-swirl vane (100, FIG. 2, FIG. 5-6; The Examiner notes, FIG. 2 and FIG. 5-6 of Kroger are identical to FIG. 2 and FIG. 6-7 of the Instant Application and FIG. 3-4 show the same vane spacing, only perpendicular instead of angled vanes) located upstream of the plurality of fan blades (40) and defining a chord, the inlet pre-swirl vane (100, FIG. 2, FIG. 5-6; The Examiner notes, FIG. 2 and FIG. 5-6 of Kroger are identical to FIG. 2 and FIG. 6-7 of the Instant Application and FIG. 3-4 show the same vane spacing, only perpendicular instead of angled vanes) coupled to the nacelle (50), wherein the inlet pre-swirl vane (100, FIG. 2, FIG. 5-6; The Examiner notes, FIG. 2 and FIG. 5-6 of Kroger are identical to FIG. 2 and FIG. 6-7 of the Instant Application and FIG. 3-4 show the same vane spacing, only perpendicular instead of angled vanes) is angled
at a first angle with respect to the radius of the nacelle (50), and wherein the chord of the inlet pre-swirl vane (100, FIG. 2, FIG. 5-6; The Examiner notes, FIG. 2 and FIG. 5-6 of Kroger are identical to FIG. 2 and FIG. 6-7 of the Instant Application and FIG. 3-4 show the same vane spacing, only perpendicular instead of angled vanes) is angled at a second angle (128, FIG. 5-6) with respect to the longitudinal axis of the nacelle (50),
the second angle (128, FIG. 5-6) non-parallel to the longitudinal axis (see Col. 10, lines 14-37), wherein the first angle and the second angle cooperatively deflect an incoming object away from the core air flowpath and toward the bypass airflow passage (in as much as the Instant Application, since the same angled structures are disclosed),
wherein the inlet pre-swirl vane (100, FIG. 2, FIG. 5-6; The Examiner notes, FIG. 2 and FIG. 5-6 of Kroger are identical to FIG. 2 and FIG. 6-7 of the Instant Application and FIG. 3-4 show the same vane spacing, only perpendicular instead of angled vanes) is one of a plurality of part span inlet guide vanes (100) extending from the nacelle (50) upstream of the plurality of fan blades (40) and aft of an inlet of the nacelle (50),
wherein at least a portion of the plurality of part span inlet guide vanes (100) are non-uniformly spaced (as seen in FIG. 4; Col. 9, lines 55-65) between adjacent ones of the plurality of part span inlet guide vanes (100) in the circumferential direction.
Kroger does not explicitly disclose the following:
the first angle non-parallel to the radius of the nacelle.
However Hsu the Examiner notes the following:
the first angle (θ, FIG. 4, also see Col. 4, lines 25-40) is non-parallel with respect to the radius of the nacelle (20) (as seen in FIG. 4; Abstract discloses the vanes may be normal or at an angle to the inside surface of the nacelle; Col. 4, lines 25-40 disclose the pre-swirl vane may be oriented in either the clockwise or counter clockwise directions) direction from an inlet of the nacelle (20)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the vanes that are perpendicular to the radial axis, as disclosed by Kroger, with the angled pre-swirl vanes as disclosed by Hsu, with the reasonable expectation of successfully disrupting the propagation of acoustic reflections leading to turbofan flutter. (see Hsu, Abstract). The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the perpendicular vane angle of Kroger with the angled vane arrangement of Hsu yields the predictable result of reducing flutter (i.e. substituting one known vane angle to reduce blade flutter for another known vane angle to reduce blade flutter). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Regarding Claim 10, Kroger as modified by Hsu discloses the following:
The nacelle (50) assembly of claim 9,
wherein the plurality of part span inlet guide vanes (100) comprises a first part span inlet guide vane (100) located adjacent a second part span inlet guide vane (100) and a third part span inlet guide vane (100) located adjacent the second part span inlet guide vane, (100) and wherein a first circumferential spacing is defined between the first and second part span inlet guide vanes in the circumferential direction, and wherein a second circumferential spacing is defined between the second and third part span inlet guide vanes in the circumferential direction, wherein the first circumferential spacing is different than the second circumferential spacing (as seen in FIG. 4; Col. 9, lines 55-65).
Regarding Claim 11, Kroger as modified by Hsu discloses the following:
The nacelle (50) assembly of claim 10,
wherein the first circumferential spacing is at least twenty percent greater than the second circumferential spacing (see Col. 9, lines 55-65).
Regarding Claim 12, Kroger as modified by Hsu discloses the following:
The nacelle (50) assembly of claim 10,
wherein the first circumferential spacing is at least twenty-five percent greater than the second circumferential spacing. (see Col. 9, lines 55-65)
Regarding Claim 13, Kroger as modified by Hsu discloses the following:
The nacelle (50) assembly of claim 10,
wherein the first circumferential spacing is at least thirty percent greater than the second circumferential spacing. (see Col. 9, lines 55-65)
Regarding Claim 15, Kroger as modified by Hsu discloses the following:
The nacelle assembly of claim 9,
Hsu continues to teach the following:
wherein the inlet pre-swirl vane (50, FIG. 2-4) is angled at the first angle (θ, FIG. 4, also see Col. 4, lines 25-40) with respect to the radius of the nacelle (20) in a clockwise (as seen in FIG. 4; Abstract discloses the vanes may be normal or at an angle to the inside surface of the nacelle; Col. 4, lines 25-40 disclose the pre-swirl vane may be oriented in either the clockwise or counter clockwise directions) direction from an inlet of the nacelle (20).
Regarding Claim 17, Kroger discloses the following:
A turbofan (38) engine comprising:
a fan (38) comprising a plurality of fan blades (40);
a turbomachine (FIG. 1, also see Col. 1, lines 12-40 which lists the compressor, turbine, and combustor sections, as well as the flowpath) operably coupled to the fan (38) for driving the fan (38), the turbomachine (FIG. 1, also see Col. 1, lines 12-40 which lists the compressor, turbine, and combustor sections, as well as the flowpath) comprising a compressor section, a combustion section, and a turbine section in serial flow order and together defining a core air flowpath;
a nacelle (50) surrounding and at least partially enclosing the fan (38), the nacelle (50) defining a radius, a longitudinal axis, and a circumferential direction extending about the longitudinal axis, the nacelle comprising an inner wall defining a bypass airflow passage between the inner wall and the turbomachine (see FIG. 1);
and a plurality of part span inlet guide vanes (100) extending from the nacelle (50) upstream of the plurality of fan blades (40) and aft of an inlet of the nacelle (50), wherein at least a portion of the plurality of part span inlet guide vanes (100) are non-uniformly spaced (as seen in FIG. 4; Col. 9, lines 55-65) between adjacent ones of the plurality of part span inlet guide vanes (100) in the circumferential direction,
wherein each of the plurality of part span inlet guide vanes define a swirl angle (130, see FIG. 5-6; Col. 10, line 51 to Col. 11, line 30) at a trailing edge of the respective part span inlet guide vane, and wherein the first angle and the swirl angle cooperatively deflect an incoming object away from the core air flowpath and toward the bypass airflow passage (in as much as the Instant Application, since the same angled structures are disclosed).
Kroger does not explicitly disclose the following:
the first angle non-parallel to the radius of the nacelle.
However Hsu the Examiner notes the following:
the first angle (θ, FIG. 4, also see Col. 4, lines 25-40) is non-parallel with respect to the radius of the nacelle (20) (as seen in FIG. 4; Abstract discloses the vanes may be normal or at an angle to the inside surface of the nacelle; Col. 4, lines 25-40 disclose the pre-swirl vane may be oriented in either the clockwise or counter clockwise directions) direction from an inlet of the nacelle (20)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the vanes that are perpendicular to the radial axis, as disclosed by Kroger, with the angled pre-swirl vanes as disclosed by Hsu, with the reasonable expectation of successfully disrupting the propagation of acoustic reflections leading to turbofan flutter. (see Hsu, Abstract). The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the perpendicular vane angle of Kroger with the angled vane arrangement of Hsu yields the predictable result of reducing flutter (i.e. substituting one known vane angle to reduce blade flutter for another known vane angle to reduce blade flutter). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Regarding Claim 18, Kroger as modified by Hsu discloses the following:
The turbofan (38) engine of claim 17,
wherein the plurality of part span inlet guide vanes (100) comprises a first part span inlet guide vane (100) located adjacent a second part span inlet guide vane (100) and a third part span inlet guide vane (100) located adjacent the second part span inlet guide vane, (100) and wherein a first circumferential spacing is defined between the first and second part span inlet guide vanes in the circumferential direction, and wherein a second circumferential spacing is defined between the second and third part span inlet guide vanes in the circumferential direction, wherein the first circumferential spacing is different than the second circumferential spacing (as seen in FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 19, Kroger as modified by Hsu discloses the following:
The turbofan (38) engine of claim 18,
wherein the first circumferential spacing is at least twenty percent greater than the second circumferential spacing (see Col. 9, lines 55-65).
Regarding Claim 20, Kroger as modified by Hsu discloses the following:
The turbofan (38) engine of claim 17,
wherein the plurality of part span inlet guide vanes (100) includes a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first portion of the plurality of part span inlet guide vanes (100) are angled at a first angle (as seen in FIG. 2-3, the first angle is shown to be parallel to the engine centerline) with respect to the radius of the nacelle (50), and wherein the second portion of the plurality of part span inlet guide vanes (100) are angled at a second angle (128, FIG. 5-6) with respect to the radius of the nacelle (50), wherein the first angle is different than the second angle (128, FIG. 5-6).
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