DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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) 1-2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng CN106442177A in view of Chelminski US 3379273 in further view of Wakefield US 3638752 in further view of Ruegg US 20110180020.
Cheng discloses:
1. A pressure wave generator comprising a pressure chamber (11), as well a closure element (17) which, in a closed position, closes the pressure chamber with respect to the outlet (14) and, in an open position, allows a working medium to flow out of the pressure chamber into the outlet (14); an actuator (16) by which the closure element can be brought from the closed position into the open position (see e.g. 0033 and Figs 2-3) and from the open position into the closed position (see e.g. 0033 and Figs 2-3); wherein the pressure wave generator is configured to repeatedly (see e.g. "high repeatability of the test" in 0012) perform the following steps: filling the pressure chamber with a gaseous working medium (see e.g. 0026-0027); moving the actuator and thereby moving the closure element in an opening direction to open the pressure chamber with respect to the outlet (see e.g. 0033); discharging the pressurized working medium from the pressure chamber through the outlet (see e.g. 0033); wherein the pressure chamber radially surrounds the closure opening such that the pressurized working medium flows radially inwards and then axially out of the pressure wave generator (see e.g. annotated Fig 2 herein).
Regarding the limitations: ”wherein a volume of the pressure chamber is more than three liters; wherein an area at the narrowest point of the outlet is more than twenty square centimeters; wherein a stroke of the closure element during the opening and closing movement is between thirty and one hundred and fifty millimeters”, these limitations would be met by merely scaling up/down the size of the apparatus of Cheng which makes them obvious as per MPEP 2144.04IV. A. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to scale up/down the pressure wave generator of Cheng as modified above to gain the benefit of enabling the generation of pressure wave of a desired magnitude.
Regarding the limitations at a pressure of over one hundred bar and within a discharge time period of less than fifteen milliseconds, these limitations are a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed pressure wave generator apparatus is intended to be employed. Claim 1 is an apparatus claim and the apparatus of Cheng is structurally capable of being employed in the claimed manner (filled at a pressure of over one hundred bar and discharging in less than 15 milliseconds) and therefore Cheng meets the limitations of the apparatus claim. See MPEP 2114 II.: A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Additionally, these claimed design parameters are known in the art for use in pressure wave generators. For example:
Chelminski discloses filled at a pressure of over one hundred bar (see e.g. "In preparation for firing, gas under pressure, for example 2,000 p.s.i. is introduced through the fill port 90 into the chamber 113 within the cylinder 97" in col 8 lines 23-25).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to utilize a pressure of over one hundred bar in the pressure wave generator of Cheng as taught by Chelminski to gain the benefit of enabling the generation of pressure wave of a desired magnitude.
Wakefield discloses a volume of the pressure chamber is more than 3 liters (see e.g. claim 12). In e.g. col 5 lines 30-32, Wakefield also discloses "The gas in main chamber 102 is allowed up to about 10 milliseconds to discharge, leaving a residual pressure in main chamber 102”.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to utilize a pressure chamber of more than 3 liters and a discharge time of less than 15 milliseconds in the pressure wave generator of Cheng as modified above to gain the benefit of using a known pressure chamber volume for pressure wave generators and the benefit of using a known discharge time for pressure wave generators.
Ruegg discloses wherein an area at a narrowest point of the outlet is more than twenty square centimeters (see 0037).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to utilize an outlet of more than twenty square centimeters
as taught by Ruegg in the system of Cheng as modified above to gain the benefit of a known outlet size for pressure wave generators.
Cheng discloses a stroke length (see e.g. Figs 2-3) and thus discloses the general conditions of the claim. For Cheng the stroke length of the closure element is a result effective variable that results in a desired outlet opening area for the path of the pressurized fluid discharge. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a stroke length of between thirty and one hundred and fifty millimeters (for example 80mm as taught by Ruegg in 0037) to achieve a desired outlet discharge area for the path of the pressurized fluid discharge since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art [In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ233, 235 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP 2144.05 Il - Optimization of Ranges]. It is noted that applicant has not provided any evidence of unexpected results corresponding to the entire claimed range as per MPEP 2144.05 III A.
Applicant argues Cheng does not disclose wherein the pressure chamber radially
surrounds the closure opening such that the pressurized working medium flows radially inwards
and then axially out of the pressure wave generator. It appears to be apparent that Cheng does
disclose these limitations as detailed above. Thus, the examiner does not understand
applicant's arguments. In any event, Ruegg also discloses the pressure chamber radially
surrounds the closure opening such that the pressurized working medium flows radially inwards
and then axially out of the pressure wave generator (see annotated Fig 1 herein).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to utilize the pressure chamber radially surrounds the closure
opening such that the pressurized working medium flows radially inwards and then axially out
of the pressure wave generator as taught by Ruegg in the system of Cheng as modified above to gain the benefit of using a known discharge configuration for pressure wave generators.
PNG
media_image1.png
435
777
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cheng as modified above discloses (all references to Cheng unless noted otherwise):
2. The pressure wave generator according to claim 1, wherein a closure area of a closure opening, which is respectively closed and opened by the closure element, is at least as large as the area at the narrowest point of the outlet (see e.g. annotated Fig 2 herein).
Regarding claim 4, Cheng as modified above does not disclose wherein, during the opening movement of the closure element starting from an end position in which the closure element closes the closure opening, the closure element opens the closure opening only after covering a minimum distance which is different from zero.
However, Ruegg discloses during the opening movement of the closure element starting from an end position in which the closure element closes the closure opening, the closure element opens the closure opening only after covering a minimum distance which is different from zero (see e.g. Fig 1).
A simple substitution of one known closure element design for another with the predictable result of opening/closing a pressure chamber has been held obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to utilize the closure element design of Ruegg as a simple substitution in the system of Cheng as modified above to gain the benefit of decreasing the opening pressure required to open the closure element.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng CN106442177A in view of Chelminski US 3379273 in further view of Wakefield US 3638752 in further view of Ruegg US 20110180020 in further view of Muller US 20210199284.
Cheng as modified above does not disclose the limitations of claim 3.
In Fig 10, Muller discloses wherein the closure element (70) is hollow cylindrical (see e.g. Fig 10) and is arranged to close or open a closure opening corresponding to a cylindrical surface (see e.g. Fig 10).
A simple substitution of one known closure element design for another with the predictable result of opening/closing a pressure chamber has been held obvious as per MPEP 2143 I (B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to utilize the closure element design of Muller as a simple substitution in the system of Cheng as modified above to gain the benefit of decreasing the opening pressure required to open the closure element.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng CN106442177A in view of Chelminski US 3379273 in further view of Wakefield US 3638752 in further view of Osofsky US 5197323 in further view of Ruegg US 20110180020.
Cheng discloses:
5. A pressure wave generator comprising a pressure chamber (11), and a closure element (17) which, in a closed position, closes the pressure chamber with respect to the outlet (14) and, in an open position, allows a working medium to flow out of the pressure chamber into the outlet (14); an actuator (16) by which the closure element can be brought from the closed position into the open position (see e.g. 0033 and Figs 2-3) and from the open position into the closed position (see e.g. 0033 and Figs 2-3); wherein the pressure wave generator is configured to repeatedly (see e.g. "high repeatability of the test" in 0012) perform the following steps: filling the pressure chamber with a gaseous working medium (see e.g. 0026-0027); moving the actuator and thereby moving the closure element in an opening direction to open the pressure chamber with respect to the outlet (see e.g. 0033), and discharging the pressurized working medium from the pressure chamber through the outlet (see e.g. 0033); wherein the pressure chamber radially surrounds the closure opening such that the pressurized working medium flows radially inwards and then axially out of the pressure wave generator (see e.g. annotated Fig 2 herein).
Regarding the limitations at a pressure of over one hundred bar and within a discharge time period of less than fifteen milliseconds, these limitations are a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed pressure wave generator apparatus is intended to be employed. Claim 1 is an apparatus claim and the apparatus of Cheng is structurally capable of being employed in the claimed manner (filled at a pressure of over one hundred bar and discharging in less than 15 milliseconds) and therefore Cheng meets the limitations of the apparatus claim. See MPEP 2114 II.: A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Additionally, these claimed design parameters are known in the art for use in pressure wave generators. For example:
Chelminski discloses filled at a pressure of over one hundred bar (see e.g. "In preparation for firing, gas under pressure, for example 2,000 p.s.i. is introduced through the fill port 90 into the chamber 113 within the cylinder 97" in col 8 lines 23-25).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to utilize a pressure of over one hundred bar in the pressure wave generator of Cheng as taught by Chelminski to gain the benefit of enabling the generation of pressure wave of a desired magnitude.
Wakefield discloses "The gas in main chamber 102 is allowed up to about 10 milliseconds to discharge, leaving a residual pressure in main chamber 102”.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to scale up/down the pressure wave generator of Cheng as modified above to gain the benefit of enabling the generation of pressure wave of a desired magnitude and period.
Cheng does not disclose a heater, which is arranged to heat a working medium supplied to the pressure chamber or a working medium present in the pressure chamber, wherein the heater is an electric heater; during filling, or after filling and before opening the pressure chamber: heating the working medium supplied to the pressure chamber or located in the pressure chamber, in particular to a temperature of 200 degrees Celsius to 450 degrees Celsius.
Osofsky discloses a heater 55, which is arranged to heat a working medium supplied to the pressure chamber or a working medium present in the pressure chamber (see e.g. "Gas from the supply system 50 is then heated to the proper superheat temperature in the pebble-bed heater 55 and used to pressurize the driver with superheated pressurized gas" in col 8 lines 56-59), in particular wherein the heater is an electric heater (see e.g. col 9 lines 33-35); during filling, or after filling and before opening the pressure chamber (see e.g. "the drivers containing a gas at a predetermined temperature and pressure as may be needed to generate the shockwave" in col 7 lines 51-53): heating the working medium supplied to the pressure chamber or located in the pressure chamber (see e.g. "Gas from the supply system 50 is then heated to the proper superheat temperature in the pebble-bed heater 55 and used to pressurize the driver with superheated pressurized gas" in col 8 lines 56-59), in particular to a temperature of 200 degrees Celsius to 450 degrees Celsius (see e.g. col 4 lines 64-67).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to utilize an electric heater to heat the air to a desired pressure
and temperature as taught by Osofsky in the system of Cheng to gain the benefit of ensuring the air is at a predetermined temperature and pressure as may be needed to generate a shockwave as taught by Osofsky in col 7 lines 51-53.
Applicant argues Cheng does not disclose wherein the pressure chamber radially
surrounds the closure opening such that the pressurized working medium flows radially inwards
and then axially out of the pressure wave generator. It appears to be apparent that Cheng does
disclose these limitations as detailed above. Thus, the examiner does not understand
applicant's arguments. In any event, Ruegg also discloses the pressure chamber radially
surrounds the closure opening such that the pressurized working medium flows radially inwards
and then axially out of the pressure wave generator (see annotated Fig 1 herein).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to utilize the pressure chamber radially surrounds the closure
opening such that the pressurized working medium flows radially inwards and then axially out
of the pressure wave generator as taught by Ruegg in the system of Cheng as modified above to gain the benefit of using a known discharge configuration for pressure wave generators.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng CN106442177A in view of Ruegg US 20110180020.
Cheng discloses (citations made to the translation):
6. A pressure wave generator comprising a pressure chamber (11), as well as a closure element (17) which, in a closed position, closes the pressure chamber with respect to the outlet (14) and, in an open position, allows a working medium to flow out of the pressure chamber into the outlet (14); an actuator (5, 10, 16) by which the closure element can be brought from the closed position into the open position and from the open position into the closed position (see e.g. 0028, 0033 and Figs 2-3); the actuator is a pneumatic actuator (see e.g. 0023) which comprises a first piston surface (left side of 16) which acts against a gaseous control medium in a first volume (5), wherein a pressure in the first volume causes an actuator force on the first piston surface in a first direction (rightward in Figs 2-3); a second piston surface (right side of 16) which acts against the control medium in a second volume (10), wherein a pressure in the second volume on the second piston surface causes an actuator force in a second direction opposite to the first direction (leftward in Figs 2-3); wherein the closure element can be brought from the closed position into the open position by the pneumatic actuator and can also be brought from the open position into the closed position by the pneumatic actuator (see 0028 and 0033); wherein the pressure wave generator is configured to repeatedly perform the following steps: filling the pressure chamber with a gaseous working medium at a pressure of over one hundred bar; moving the actuator and thereby moving the closure element in an opening direction to open the pressure chamber with respect to the outlet, and discharging the pressurized working medium from the pressure chamber through the outlet within a discharge time period of less than fifteen milliseconds (Claim 6 is an apparatus claim and these limitations are a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed”. See MPEP 2114 II.: A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim”. Cheng is structurally capable of being employed in the claimed manner [Cheng is structurally capable of being filled to the claimed pressure, opening the outlet in the claimed manner, and discharging in the claimed discharge time] and therefore Cheng meets the limitation of the apparatus claim.); wherein the step of opening the pressure chamber comprises the following steps: discharging at least part of the control medium from the first volume, by opening an inlet/outlet opening of the first volume, and thereby opening the pressure chamber; by a faster pressure drop in the first volume than in the second volume, moving the actuator in the second direction and thereby moving the closure element in an opening direction to open the pressure chamber with respect to the outlet, and discharging the working medium from the pressure chamber through the outlet (Claim 6 is an apparatus claim and these limitations are a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed”. See MPEP 2114 II.: A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim”. Cheng is structurally capable of being employed in the claimed manner [Valves 7, 9 of Cheng allow for adjustment of pressures in the chamber 5 and 10 such that the actuator operates the closure element in the claimed manner] and therefore Cheng meets the limitations of the apparatus claim); wherein the pressure chamber radially surrounds the closure opening such that the pressurized working medium flows radially inwards and then axially out of the pressure wave generator (see e.g. annotated Fig 2 herein).
Applicant argues Cheng does not disclose wherein the pressure chamber radially
surrounds the closure opening such that the pressurized working medium flows radially inwards
and then axially out of the pressure wave generator. It appears to be apparent that Cheng does
disclose these limitations as detailed above. Thus, the examiner does not understand
applicant's arguments. In any event, Ruegg also discloses the pressure chamber radially
surrounds the closure opening such that the pressurized working medium flows radially inwards
and then axially out of the pressure wave generator (see annotated Fig 1 herein).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to utilize the pressure chamber radially surrounds the closure
opening such that the pressurized working medium flows radially inwards and then axially out
of the pressure wave generator as taught by Ruegg in the system of Cheng as modified above to gain the benefit of using a known discharge configuration for pressure wave generators.
PNG
media_image2.png
544
541
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Cheng as modified above discloses (all references to the translation of Cheng unless noted otherwise):
7. The pressure wave generator according to claim 6, wherein the step of opening the pressure chamber further comprises the following steps before discharging at least part of the control medium from the first volume; filling the first volume with a pressurized gaseous control medium, by means of a filling valve; pressure compensation between the first volume and the second volume by a throttle and thereby, due to a surface difference of the first piston surface and the second piston surface, moving the actuator in the first direction and thereby moving a closing element in a closing direction and closing the pressure chamber; filling the pressure chamber with a gaseous working medium (Claim 7 is an apparatus claim and these limitations are a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed”. See MPEP 2114 II.: A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim”. Cheng is structurally capable of being employed in the claimed manner [In 0043 Cheng discloses “The auxiliary chamber exhaust chamber 5 is provided with exhaust chamber valve 7”. In 0023 Cheng discloses “the auxiliary air chamber exhaust chamber is provided with an exhaust chamber air valve” specifying the gas used is air and thus the actuator is a pneumatic actuator. Thus, valve 7 is structurally capable of operating as a filling valve for filling the chamber 5. Valve 9 is structurally capable of acting as a throttle for pressure compensation between chambers 5 and 10 and due to the surface area difference at the left and right surfaces of the piston 16 due to 13 as in Figs 2-3 would be structurally capable of moving the closing element in the closing direction in the manner claimed, and the pressure chamber 11 is capable of being filled with a gas via valve 12 as per 0049 and therefore Cheng meets the limitations of the apparatus claim).
8. (New) The pressure wave generator according to claim 7, wherein the filling valve is a compressed air valve (In 0043 Cheng discloses “The auxiliary chamber exhaust chamber 5 is provided with exhaust chamber valve 7”. In 0023 Cheng discloses “the auxiliary air chamber exhaust chamber is provided with an exhaust chamber air valve” specifying the gas used is air and thus the actuator is a pneumatic actuator. Thus, valve 7 is structurally capable of controlling compressed air into or out of the chamber 5 and therefore meets the limitations of a compressed air valve.). If applicant is attempting to claim a valve operated by compressed air (i.e. a pneumatically operated valve), the examiner takes official notice that pneumatic valves are commonly known in the art by name and before eth effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to utilize a pneumatically operated valves in the system of Cheng to gain the benefit of utilizing the already available compressed air used in the system of Cheng (see air throughout Cheng) as a readily available power source for operating the valves of the pressure wave generator system of Cheng (including valves 7 and 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 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.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 6-8 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues the examiner does not give limitations of claim 6-8 patentable weight. This is incorrect. Nowhere in the rejection of claims 6-7 did the examiner state that any limitations would not be given patentable weight. In fact, the examiner gives the limitations proper patentable weight as per MPEP 2114 II wherein the structure of Cheng is evaluated as being structurally capable of the carrying out the manner of employing the claimed apparatus in claims 6-8. It is noted that applicant did not provide any arguments or any evidence that the structure of Cheng is structurally incapable of carrying out the claimed manner of employing the claimed apparatus (i.e. is “configured to” carry out the claimed manner of employing the claimed apparatus”). Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
In 0043 Cheng discloses “auxiliary chamber damping chamber 10 is provided with a damping chamber valve 9”. In 0023, Cheng discloses “the auxiliary air chamber damping chamber is provided with a damping cavity air valve” specifying the gas used is air and thus the actuator is a pneumatic actuator. In 0043 Cheng discloses “The auxiliary chamber exhaust chamber 5 is provided with exhaust chamber valve 7”. In 0023 Cheng discloses “the auxiliary air chamber exhaust chamber is provided with an exhaust chamber air valve” specifying the gas used is air and thus the actuator is a pneumatic actuator. Applicant has not argued against this or provided any evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Due to 13, the surface area of 16 in 5 is different from surface area of 16 in 10. Movement of 16 is influenced by this difference in surface area. Valve 9 is capable of acting as a throttle and performing pressure compensating between 5 and 10 which would cause a closing movement due to the difference in surface area. Applicant has not argued against this or provided any evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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 THOMAS ANDREW FINK whose telephone number is (571)270-3373. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi can be reached on (571) 270-7878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4373.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Thomas Fink/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights