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, 3-10, and 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.
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the prior art rejection, applicant argues that because Applicant's amendments overcame the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection of claim 1 in view of Epstein, and because dependent claims 3-10 each depend directly from independent claim 1, therefore no combination of Epstein and Army, Daguenet, Liu, Davis, Turner, and Seed, individually or in any combination could describe, teach or suggest all of the features of any one of claims 1, 3-10, and 20. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the amendments overcome the 102 rejection, a combination of prior arts disclose and teach all of the features of claims 1, 3-10, and 20. Applicant has not provided any reason as to why by overcoming the 102 rejection, they have overcome the 103 rejections as well. Hence, there are no arguments regarding the combination rejections as 103 rejection provided below.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein et al. (US 6,392,313), referred to hereinafter as Epstein in view of Army et al. (US 2022/0194600), referred to hereinafter as Army.
With regard to claim 1:
Epstein discloses an apparatus for use in a turbofan jet engine, the apparatus comprising: a separator portion that separates a bypass airflow path from a core airflow path (Fig. 8); a plurality of turbofan jet engine core stream diffuser vanes coupled to the separator portion and configured within the core airflow path (in Fig. 8, see where diffuser vane 22 is located. Also see Col. 7; lines 48-50); and a plurality of turbofan jet engine bypass stream diffuser vanes coupled to the separator portion and configured within the bypass airflow path (in Fig. 8, see where diffuser vane 134 is located. Also see Col. 20; lines 39-41), wherein the separator portion, the plurality of turbofan jet engine core stream diffuser vanes, and the plurality of turbofan jet engine bypass stream diffuser vanes are an integral unit (see Col. 25; lines 41-42 disclose that “These various components can be fabricated on a single substrate”).
Epstein does not appear to explicitly disclose that the separator portion, the plurality of turbofan jet engine core stream diffuser vanes, and the plurality of turbofan jet engine bypass stream diffuser vanes are three-dimensionally (3D) printed. In other words, Epstein is silent about the method of manufacturing being three-dimensional (3D) printing.
However, Army teaches a diffuser with core and bypass streams (see element 40) and further teaches making the diffuser by additive manufacturing ([0058]). Army teaches that by employing an additive manufacturing process, the cost of the components integrated into the module may be reduced compared to systems where the components are separate components. In addition, by integrating into a single cartridge or module, the module can be easily replaced in the event of damage or a failure ([0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to employ the method of manufacturing of three-dimensional (3D) printing, and make the separator portion, the plurality of turbofan jet engine core stream diffuser vanes, and the plurality of turbofan jet engine bypass stream diffuser vanes three-dimensionally (3D) printed.
With regard to claim 4, the combination of Epstein and Army further discloses that the integral unit includes a plurality of compressor components (Epstein, see Fig. 8, and Col. 8; lines 42-44).
With regard to claim 6, the combination of Epstein and Army further discloses that one or both of the plurality of turbofan jet engine core stream diffuser vanes and the plurality of turbofan jet engine bypass stream diffuser vanes include a radial channel and/or a circumferential channel to permit fluid flow there-through (Epstein, see Fig. 8 and Col. 7; line 36-40. Also note that the claim has not established a specific plane of reference for directional limitations such as “radial” and “circumferential”).
With regard to claim 10, the combination of Epstein and Army further discloses a turbofan jet engine including the apparatus of claim 1 (Epstein, Fig. 8).
With regard to claim 20:
Epstein discloses an apparatus for use in a turbofan jet engine, the apparatus comprising: means for separating a bypass air stream from a core air stream (Fig. 8); means for diffusing the core air stream (in Fig. 8, see where diffuser vane 22 is located. Also see Col. 7; lines 48-50); and means for diffusing the bypass air stream (in Fig. 8, see where diffuser vane 134 is located. Also see Col. 20; lines 39-41); wherein the means for separating, the means for diffusing the core air stream, and the means for diffusing the bypass air stream are an integral unit (see Col. 25; lines 41-42 disclose that “These various components can be fabricated on a single substrate”).
Epstein does not appear to explicitly disclose that the means for separating, the means for diffusing the core air stream, and the means for diffusing the bypass air stream are three-dimensionally (3D) printed. In other words, Epstein is silent about the method of manufacturing being three-dimensional (3D) printing.
However, Army teaches a diffuser with core and bypass streams (see element 40) and further teaches making the diffuser by additive manufacturing ([0058]). Army teaches that by employing an additive manufacturing process, the cost of the components integrated into the module may be reduced compared to systems where the components are separate components. In addition, by integrating into a single cartridge or module, the module can be easily replaced in the event of damage or a failure ([0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to employ the method of manufacturing of three-dimensional (3D) printing, and make the means for separating, the means for diffusing the core air stream, and the means for diffusing the bypass air stream three-dimensionally (3D) printed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein et al. (US 6,392,313), referred to hereinafter as Epstein in view of Army et al. (US 2022/0194600), referred to hereinafter as Army, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Daguenet (US 2007/0271924).
With regard to claim 3:
The combination of Epstein and Army discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above, and further discloses that the integral unit is 3D printed.
The combination of Epstein and Army does not appear to explicitly disclose that the integral unit is metal.
However, Daguenet teaches a diffuser (16) and further teaches that the material of the diffuser is metal ([0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, and make the integral unit from metal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein et al. (US 6,392,313), referred to hereinafter as Epstein in view of Army et al. (US 2022/0194600), referred to hereinafter as Army, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Davis et al. (US 4,228,753), referred to hereinafter as Davis.
With regard to claim 5:
The combination of Epstein and Army discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above.
The combination of Epstein and Army does not appear to explicitly disclose that one or both of the plurality of turbofan jet engine core stream diffuser vanes and the plurality of turbofan jet engine bypass stream diffuser vanes include hollow vanes to permit engine services and/or instrumentation components to pass through.
However, Davis teaches a diffuser that includes hollow vanes (28, see Fig. 8 and Col. 3; lines 31-32 regarding diffuser vanes 28 being hollow vanes) to permit engine services and/or instrumentation components to pass through.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely making diffuser vanes of one or both of the plurality of turbofan jet engine core stream diffuser vanes and the plurality of turbofan jet engine bypass stream diffuser vanes as hollow vanes, to improve similar devices in the same way and permit engine services and/or instrumentation components to pass through.
It is noted that the phrase “to permit engine services and/or instrumentation components to pass through” is a statement of the intended use/result of the invention.
Also note that, in the absence of any recitation of any specific “service”, the limitation “engine services” includes a broad category.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein et al. (US 6,392,313), referred to hereinafter as Epstein in view of Army et al. (US 2022/0194600), referred to hereinafter as Army, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Turner et al. (US 2020/0109720), referred to hereinafter as Turner.
With regard to claim 7:
The combination of Epstein and Army discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above.
The combination of Epstein and Army does not appear to explicitly disclose at least one surge chamber.
However, Turner teaches a turbine and further teaches a diffuser that comprises a surge chamber ([0011], [0102]), in order to help to reduce the risk of backflow of fluid, preventing damage, and prevent stall or reversal of fluids ([0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine prior art elements according to known methods, and add at least one surge chamber, to yield predictable results of reducing the risk of backflow of fluid, preventing damage, and preventing stall or reversal of fluids.
With regard to claim 8:
The combination of Epstein and Army discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above, and further discloses that the plurality of turbofan jet engine core stream diffuser vanes and the plurality of turbofan jet engine bypass stream diffuser vanes each include a plurality of vanes.
The combination of Epstein and Army does not appear to explicitly disclose that the plurality of vanes are not uniformly spaced.
However, Turner teaches a turbine and further teaches a diffuser with a plurality of vanes that are not uniformly spaced ([0086]). Turner teaches that any suitable number and distribution of diffuser vanes may be provided, and the diffuser vanes may be distributed equally or unequally (i.e., uniformly or ununiformly as required ([0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely arranging the plurality of vanes as not uniformly spaced, to improve similar devices in the same way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein et al. (US 6,392,313), referred to hereinafter as Epstein in view of Army et al. (US 2022/0194600), referred to hereinafter as Army, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seed (US 4,844,689).
With regard to claim 9:
The combination of Epstein and Army discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above.
The combination of Epstein and Army does not appear to explicitly disclose an interstage bypass bleed comprising first and second circumferential chambers configured to enable a substantially even pressure distribution at an offtake.
Regarding an interstage bypass bleed comprising a circumferential chamber, Seed teaches a turbine and further teaches an interstage bypass bleed comprising a circumferential chamber (48) configured to enable a substantially even pressure distribution at an offtake (Fig. 2, Col. 3; lines 16-19 and 39-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine prior art elements according to known methods, and add an interstage bypass bleed comprising a circumferential chamber configured to enable a substantially even pressure distribution at an offtake, to yield predictable results of enabling a substantially even pressure distribution at an offtake.
Regarding having first and second circumferential chambers, the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)) (MPEP 2144.04.VI.B.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to duplicate the circumferential chamber and have first and second circumferential chambers, because the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***************************************************************************************************
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein et al. (US 6,392,313), referred to hereinafter as Epstein in view of Liu et al. (CN 117139644), referred to hereinafter as Liu.
With regard to claim 1:
Epstein discloses an apparatus for use in a turbofan jet engine, the apparatus comprising: a separator portion that separates a bypass airflow path from a core airflow path (Fig. 8); a plurality of turbofan jet engine core stream diffuser vanes coupled to the separator portion and configured within the core airflow path (in Fig. 8, see where diffuser vane 22 is located. Also see Col. 7; lines 48-50); and a plurality of turbofan jet engine bypass stream diffuser vanes coupled to the separator portion and configured within the bypass airflow path (in Fig. 8, see where diffuser vane 134 is located. Also see Col. 20; lines 39-41), wherein the separator portion, the plurality of turbofan jet engine core stream diffuser vanes, and the plurality of turbofan jet engine bypass stream diffuser vanes are an integral unit (see Col. 25; lines 41-42 disclose that “These various components can be fabricated on a single substrate”).
Epstein does not appear to explicitly disclose that the separator portion, the plurality of turbofan jet engine core stream diffuser vanes, and the plurality of turbofan jet engine bypass stream diffuser vanes are three-dimensionally (3D) printed. In other words, Epstein is silent about the method of manufacturing being three-dimensional (3D) printing.
However, Liu teaches that jet engine elements can be made as three-dimensionally (3D) printed unit, the units being 3D printed with metal, which will improve the efficiency of manufacturing turbine element ([0003]), and greatly shortens the manufacturing period, improves the processing efficiency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, and employ the method of manufacturing of three-dimensional (3D) printing, and make the separator portion, the plurality of turbofan jet engine core stream diffuser vanes, and the plurality of turbofan jet engine bypass stream diffuser vanes three-dimensionally (3D) printed as integral unit, the integral unit being 3D printed with metal. Furthermore, this technique will improve the efficiency of manufacturing, greatly shortens the manufacturing period, and improves the processing efficiency.
With regard to claim 3, the combination of Epstein and Liu further discloses that the integral unit is 3D printed with metal (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
With regard to claim 4, the combination of Epstein and Liu further discloses that the integral unit includes a plurality of compressor components (Epstein, see Fig. 8, and Col. 8; lines 42-44).
With regard to claim 6, the combination of Epstein and Liu further discloses that one or both of the plurality of turbofan jet engine core stream diffuser vanes and the plurality of turbofan jet engine bypass stream diffuser vanes include a radial channel and/or a circumferential channel to permit fluid flow there-through (Epstein, see Fig. 8 and Col. 7; line 36-40. Also note that the claim has not established a specific plane of reference for directional limitations such as “radial” and “circumferential”).
With regard to claim 10, the combination of Epstein and Liu further discloses a turbofan jet engine including the apparatus of claim 1 (Epstein, Fig. 8).
With regard to claim 20:
Epstein discloses an apparatus for use in a turbofan jet engine, the apparatus comprising: means for separating a bypass air stream from a core air stream (Fig. 8); means for diffusing the core air stream (in Fig. 8, see where diffuser vane 22 is located. Also see Col. 7; lines 48-50); and means for diffusing the bypass air stream (in Fig. 8, see where diffuser vane 134 is located. Also see Col. 20; lines 39-41); wherein the means for separating, the means for diffusing the core air stream, and the means for diffusing the bypass air stream are an integral unit (see Col. 25; lines 41-42 disclose that “These various components can be fabricated on a single substrate”).
Epstein does not appear to explicitly disclose that the means for separating, the means for diffusing the core air stream, and the means for diffusing the bypass air stream are three-dimensionally (3D) printed. In other words, Epstein is silent about the method of manufacturing being three-dimensional (3D) printing.
However, Liu teaches that jet engine elements can be made as three-dimensionally (3D) printed unit, the units being 3D printed with metal, which will improve the efficiency of manufacturing turbine element ([0003]), and greatly shortens the manufacturing period, improves the processing efficiency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, and employ the method of manufacturing of three-dimensional (3D) printing, and make the make the means for separating, the means for diffusing the core air stream, and the means for diffusing the bypass air stream three-dimensionally (3D) printed as integral unit, the integral unit being 3D printed with metal. Furthermore, this technique will improve the efficiency of manufacturing, greatly shortens the manufacturing period, and improves the processing efficiency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein et al. (US 6,392,313), referred to hereinafter as Epstein in view of Liu et al. (CN 117139644), referred to hereinafter as Liu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Davis et al. (US 4,228,753), referred to hereinafter as Davis.
With regard to claim 5:
The combination of Epstein and Liu discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above.
The combination of Epstein and Liu does not appear to explicitly disclose that one or both of the plurality of turbofan jet engine core stream diffuser vanes and the plurality of turbofan jet engine bypass stream diffuser vanes include hollow vanes to permit engine services and/or instrumentation components to pass through.
However, Davis teaches a diffuser that includes hollow vanes (28, see Fig. 8 and Col. 3; lines 31-32 regarding diffuser vanes 28 being hollow vanes) to permit engine services and/or instrumentation components to pass through.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely making diffuser vanes of one or both of the plurality of turbofan jet engine core stream diffuser vanes and the plurality of turbofan jet engine bypass stream diffuser vanes as hollow vanes, to improve similar devices in the same way and permit engine services and/or instrumentation components to pass through.
It is noted that the phrase “to permit engine services and/or instrumentation components to pass through” is a statement of the intended use/result of the invention.
Also note that, in the absence of any recitation of any specific “service”, the limitation “engine services” includes a broad category.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein et al. (US 6,392,313), referred to hereinafter as Epstein in view of Liu et al. (CN 117139644), referred to hereinafter as Liu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Turner et al. (US 2020/0109720), referred to hereinafter as Turner.
With regard to claim 7:
The combination of Epstein and Liu discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above.
The combination of Epstein and Liu does not appear to explicitly disclose at least one surge chamber.
However, Turner teaches a turbine and further teaches a diffuser that comprises a surge chamber ([0011], [0102]), in order to help to reduce the risk of backflow of fluid, preventing damage, and prevent stall or reversal of fluids ([0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine prior art elements according to known methods, and add at least one surge chamber, to yield predictable results of reducing the risk of backflow of fluid, preventing damage, and preventing stall or reversal of fluids.
With regard to claim 8:
The combination of Epstein and Liu discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above, and further discloses that the plurality of turbofan jet engine core stream diffuser vanes and the plurality of turbofan jet engine bypass stream diffuser vanes each include a plurality of vanes.
The combination of Epstein and Liu does not appear to explicitly disclose that the plurality of vanes are not uniformly spaced.
However, Turner teaches a turbine and further teaches a diffuser with a plurality of vanes that are not uniformly spaced ([0086]). Turner teaches that any suitable number and distribution of diffuser vanes may be provided, and the diffuser vanes may be distributed equally or unequally (i.e., uniformly or ununiformly as required ([0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely arranging the plurality of vanes as not uniformly spaced, to improve similar devices in the same way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein et al. (US 6,392,313), referred to hereinafter as Epstein in view of Liu et al. (CN 117139644), referred to hereinafter as Liu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seed (US 4,844,689).
With regard to claim 9:
The combination of Epstein and Liu discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above.
The combination of Epstein and Liu does not appear to explicitly disclose an interstage bypass bleed comprising first and second circumferential chambers configured to enable a substantially even pressure distribution at an offtake.
Regarding an interstage bypass bleed comprising a circumferential chamber, Seed teaches a turbine and further teaches an interstage bypass bleed comprising a circumferential chamber (48) configured to enable a substantially even pressure distribution at an offtake (Fig. 2, Col. 3; lines 16-19 and 39-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine prior art elements according to known methods, and add an interstage bypass bleed comprising a circumferential chamber configured to enable a substantially even pressure distribution at an offtake, to yield predictable results of enabling a substantially even pressure distribution at an offtake.
Regarding having first and second circumferential chambers, the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)) (MPEP 2144.04.VI.B.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to duplicate the circumferential chamber and have first and second circumferential chambers, because the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent prior art disclosing similar apparatus such as US 7565796.
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 BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00am-15:00pm.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
