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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
For example, claim 1, applicant claimed “at least one jack” which means that the user can just have one jack, which is placed at a wheel jacking point to lift up the frame, while also placed at the weighing sensor jacking point to lift up the container? In addition, there are numerous usages of “and/or” in the claims that creates various scenarios or alternatives that are indefinite. Note, that these are some examples of unclear languages. Applicant is encourage to review the claims and rewrite the claims to conform with current U.S. practice.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,3,4,6,9-12,14,16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nielsen (WO 8908568 A1).
For claim 1, Nielsen discloses a system for feeding animals including cows (functional recitation to which the system of Nielsen can carry feed to feed the animals), wherein the system comprises:
with a feed carriage including:
a frame (10) with wheels (not numbered but can be seen in at least figs. 1-2) by which the feed carriage is moveable over an underlying surface including a floor (6),
a container (2) for receiving a batch of feed (functional recitation to which the container of Nielsen can receive feed if the user wishes to put feed therein), wherein the container is fitted to the frame,
a weighing system (12) for weighing feed received in the container, wherein the weighing system comprises at least one weighing sensor (20), and
at least one jack (4,44,48,56,58), which is actuatable between a lowering position and a raising position,
wherein the frame of the feed carriage comprises:
at least one wheel jacking point (area where jack 4 is placed is a point) for fitting the jack below the frame so (i) the wheel closest to the wheel jacking point is supported on the underlying surface when the jack is fitted in the lowering position at the wheel jacking point (lowering position is shown in fig. 2), and (ii) the jack fitted at the wheel jacking point lifts up the frame in order to release said wheel from the underlying surface when the jack is actuated from the lowering position to the raising position,
wherein the frame of the feed carriage further comprises:
at least one weighing sensor jacking point (where ref. 12 is placed in fig. 2 is the jacking point for the weighing sensor jack 44,48,56,58; see also the functionality of the weighing sensor jacks on pages 5-7) for fitting said jack so that (i) the container is supported on the frame by the weighing sensor when the jack is fitted in the lowering position at the weighing sensor jacking point (see fig. 2), and (ii) the jack fitted at the weighing sensor jacking point lifts up the container in order to relieve the load on the weighing sensor when the jack is actuated from the lowering position to the raising position (fig. 1; also, see the functionality of the weighing sensor jacks on pages 5-7).
For claim 3, Nielsen discloses the system according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the weighing sensor jacking point for the fitting of said jack is configured and/or adapted so the jack which is configured to be fitted at the wheel jacking point and/or is usable at the wheel jacking point can also be fitted at the weighing sensor jacking point and/or is suitable for use at the weighing sensor jacking point (the whole limitation is functional recitation to which the jacking point, being merely a point or an area, can performed the intended function of allowing a jack or other structural element be mounted in that point or area; also, the jacks and the jacking points of Nielsen can and do perform the intended function because they have the structures to do so).
For claim 4, Nielsen discloses the system according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the at least one jack, the at least one wheel jacking point and the at least one weighing sensor jacking point are configured to, when the jack is fitted at the wheel jacking point and is in the raising position, said jack is supported on the underlying surface and lifts the frame in order to release said wheel from the underlying surface, and when the jack is fitted at the weighing sensor jacking point and is in the raising position, said jack is supported on the frame and lifts the container in order to relieve the load on said weighing sensor (functional recitation to which the jacks and points of Nielsen can and do perform the intended function because they have the structures to do so).
For claim 6, Nielsen discloses the system according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the container is lifted by the at least one jack to a distance above the weighing sensor in order to release said weighing sensor when said jack is fitted at the weighing sensor jacking point and is in the raising position (as stated on pages 5-7 for the operational of the weighing sensor jacks).
For claim 9, Nielsen discloses the system according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the at least one jack is detachably fitted at the wheel jacking point or at the weighing sensor jacking point (all parts are detachable because at one point, they are assembled somehow so can be disassembled as in any machinery; also, fig. 2 shows the jack 4 can move from one location near the outside of the wheels and then to a location closer to the weighing sensor location).
For claim 10, Nielsen discloses the system according to claim 9, and further discloses wherein said jack, after the detachment thereof, is moveable from said wheel jacking point or weighing sensor jacking point to the other jacking point and is detachably fittable at said other jacking point (all parts are detachable because at one point, they are assembled somehow so can be disassembled as in any machinery; also, fig. 2 shows the jack 4 can move from one location near the outside of the wheels and then to a location closer to the weighing sensor location).
For claim 11, Nielsen discloses the system according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the system comprises a plurality of jacks, and wherein all the jacks are of identical design (there are at least two jacks 4 shown and they are identical).
For claim 12, Nielsen discloses the system according to claim 11, and further discloses wherein a number of jacks (fig. 1 shows 2 jacks but it is implied that there are 4 jacks to lift four sides of the vehicle in order to balance the lift) is equal to or greater than the number of weighing sensors and/or the number of weighing sensor jacking points and/or the number of wheels and/or the number of wheel jacking points (fig. 1 shows 2 jacks but it is implied that there are 4 jacks to lift four sides of the vehicle in order to balance the lift, thus, at these jacks, there are same number of wheel jacking points, for they are merely space or area that can be called points).
For claim 14, the claimed limitations are the same or similar to the above claim 1, thus, please see the explanation for claim 1 with Nielsen’s invention. The only different is the preamble of a feed carriage for feeding animals, which Nielsen discloses a feed carriage as shown in fig. 1 with the container and the carriage.
For claim 16, Nielsen discloses a method of using the system according to claim 1 (as described in the above), wherein the method comprises:
fitting, at a first location, the at least one jack in the lowering position at the at least one weighing sensor jacking point (point where ref. 12 is mounted),
actuating said jack from the lowering position to the raising position in order to lift up the container so as to relieve the load on the at least one weighing sensor (see pages 5-7 for operation of the weighing sensor jacks (44,48,56,58,etc.),
securing the feed carriage to a loading floor of a transport device (the truck or vehicle as shown in fig. 1)) including a lorry (see fig. 1),
transporting the feed carriage by the transport device from the first location to a second location (with the truck or vehicle as shown in fig. 1),
actuating, at the second location, said jack from the raising position to the lowering position (raising and lowing positions can be seen from fig. 1 to fig. 2 for jacks 4, and raising and lower positions can be read on pages 5-7 for the weighing sensor jacks 44,48,56,58,etc.) in order for the container to be supported on the frame by said weighing sensor (20),
detaching said jack in the lowering position, moving said jack from said weighing sensor jacking point to the at least one wheel jacking point, and fitting the jack at said wheel jacking point (as shown in fig. 2, the jack 4 can move left and right from ref. 8 in one position to another position, the one position can be near ref. 12 at the weighing sensor jacking point and then to the wheel jacking point at the two wheels as shown), and
actuating said jack from the lowering position to the raising position in order to lift up the frame in order to release the wheel closest to said wheel jacking point from the underlying surface (figs. 1-2 as shown by the arrows up and down for lifting the wheels).
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.
Claims 2,5,7,8,15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen (as above) in view of Siebelink et al. (EP 2845473 A1).
For claim 2, Nielsen teaches the system according to claim 1, but is silent about wherein the feed carriage includes a feed dispensing device for laterally dispensing feed from the container to distribute feed along one or more feed fences including in an animal shed.
Siebelink et al. teach a system for feeding animals comprising a feed carriage includes a feed dispensing device (6,34,34’,38,etc.) for laterally dispensing feed from a container (3) to distribute feed along one or more feed fences including in an animal shed (col. 1, lines 1-58). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a feed dispensing device and container as taught by Siebelink et al. be carried on the system of Nielsen in the event the user wishes to use the system of Nielsen for feeding animal, since Nielsen’s system has the structural capability of being used to carry feed in container for animals.
For claim 5, Nielsen teaches the system according to claim 1, but is silent about wherein the weighing system comprises at least three weighing sensors and the system comprises at least three jacks, and wherein the frame of the feed carriage comprises at least three weighing sensor jacking points for fitting a respective one of the jacks so that (i) the container is supported on the frame by the weighing sensors (10) sensors when the jacks are fitted in the lowering position at the weighing sensor jacking points, and (ii) the jacks fitted at the weighing sensor jacking points lift the container in order to relieve the load on the weighing sensors when the jacks are actuated from the lowering position to the raising position. In addition to the above, Siebelink et al. teach a system for feeding animals comprising a frame of the feed carriage has one front wheel (24) and two rear wheels (22). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a three wheel-configuration with one front wheel and two rear wheels as taught by Sieblink et al. in place of the four wheel-configuration of Nielsen, depending on the user’s preference of frame configuration of 3 wheels or 4 wheels based on the load or container being carried. In addition, as modified with Sieblink’s 3-wheels configuration, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the weighing system of Nielsen as modified by Sieblink et al. comprises at least three weighing sensors and at least three jacks, and wherein the frame of the feed carriage comprises at least three weighing sensor jacking points for fitting a respective one of the jacks, depending on the wheel configuration, in this case, 3-wheels configuration, which would require at least three weighing sensors, at least three jacks, and at least three weighing sensor jacking points, so as to evenly lift the carriage at the three wheels locations and to obtain accurate weight readings in those locations.
For claim 7, Nielsen teaches the system according to claim 1, but is silent about wherein the feed carriage comprises at least three wheels and the system comprises at least three jacks, and wherein the frame of the feed carriage comprises at least three wheel jacking points for fitting a respective one of the jacks below the frame so that (i) the wheels are supported on the underlying surface when the jacks are fitted in the lowering position at the wheel jacking points, and (ii) the jacks fitted at the wheel jacking points lift up the frame in order to release the wheels from the underlying surface when said jacks are actuated from the lowering position to the raising position. Siebelink et al. teach a system for feeding animals comprising the feed carriage comprises at least three wheels (22,24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a three wheel-configuration with one front wheel and two rear wheels as taught by Sieblink et al. in place of the four wheel-configuration of Nielsen, depending on the user’s preference of frame configuration of 3 wheels or 4 wheels based on the load or container being carried. In addition, as modified with Sieblink’s 3-wheels configuration, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least three jacks and at least three wheel jacking points in the system of Nielsen as modified by Sieblink et al., depending on the wheel configuration, in this case, 3-wheels configuration, which would require at least three jacks and at least three wheel jacking points, so as to evenly lift the carriage at the three wheels locations and to obtain accurate weight readings in those locations.
For claim 8, Nielsen teaches the system according to claim 1, but is silent about wherein the frame of the feed carriage has one front wheel and two rear wheels, wherein the front wheel extends substantially in a longitudinal central plane of the feed carriage, and the rear wheels are fitted next to each other at a distance from the longitudinal central plane and are rotatable about a common axis of rotation, wherein the frame of the feed carriage includes a first and second rear wheel jacking point for fitting a first and second jack below the frame in order to, in the raising position thereof, release the respective rear wheels from the underlying surface, and with a front wheel jacking point for fitting a third jack below the frame in order to, in the raising position thereof, release the front wheel from the underlying surface, and wherein, as seen in a direction from the rear wheels towards the front wheel, the first rear wheel jacking point extends behind the axis of rotation of the rear wheels and the second rear wheel jacking point extends in front of the axis of rotation of the rear wheels. In addition to the above, Siebelink et al. teach a frame of the feed carriage has one front wheel (24) and two rear wheels (22), wherein the front wheel extends substantially in a longitudinal central plane of the feed carriage (see fig. 5A, even though the wheels are not shown, the front wheel is where ref. 27 is pointing at, and the two rear wheels are where refs. 34,34’ are pointing at in correlation with fig. 1; from fig. 5A, an imaginary longitudinal central plane will runs through the front wheel and the two rear wheels will be at distances from the central plane), and the rear wheels are fitted next to each other at a distance from the longitudinal central plane (from fig. 5A, an imaginary longitudinal central plane will runs through the front wheel and the two rear wheels will be at distances from the central plane) and are rotatable about a common axis of rotation (with the wheel axle), wherein the frame of the feed carriage includes a first and second rear wheel jacking point (points are merely area or any surface that can be selected for mounting a jack or other equipment as desired). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a three wheel-configuration with one front wheel and two rear wheels as taught by Sieblink et al. in place of the four wheel-configuration of Nielsen so as to define a longitudinal central plane of the feed carriage, and the rear wheels are fitted next to each other at a distance from the longitudinal central plane and are rotatable about a common axis of rotation as taught by Sieblink et al., depending on the user’s preference of frame configuration of 3 wheels or 4 wheels based on the load or container being carried. The combination of Nielsen as modified by Sieblink et al. would result in wherein the frame of the feed carriage includes a first and second rear wheel jacking point (any area or surface in the rear wheels area) for fitting a first and second jack below the frame in order to, in the raising position thereof, release the respective rear wheels from the underlying surface (as taught in the concept of Nielsen using the jacks), and with a front wheel jacking point (as relied on with the 3 wheel-configuration of Sieblink et al.) for fitting a third jack below the frame in order to, in the raising position thereof, release the front wheel from the underlying surface (as taught in the concept of Nielsen using the jacks), and wherein, as seen in a direction from the rear wheels towards the front wheel, the first rear wheel jacking point extends behind the axis of rotation of the rear wheels and the second rear wheel jacking point extends in front of the axis of rotation of the rear wheels.
For claim 15, Nielsen teaches the feed carriage according to claim 14, but is silent about wherein the feed carriage comprises at least three wheels, and wherein the weighing system comprises at least three weighing sensors, wherein the frame of the feed carriage comprises at least three wheel jacking points and at least three weighing sensor jacking points for the fitting of a respective jack, and wherein the wheel jacking points and the weighing sensor jacking points of the frame are configured in such a way that (i) the wheels are supported on the underlying surface when three jacks are fitted in the lowering position at the wheel jacking points, and (ii) said jacks fitted at the wheel jacking points lift up the frame in order to release the wheels from the underlying surface when said jacks are actuated from the lowering position to the raising position, and (iii) the container is supported on the frame by the weighing sensors when these same jacks are fitted in the lowering position at the weighing sensor jacking points, and (iv) said jacks fitted at the weighing sensor jacking points lift up the container in order to relieve the load on the weighing sensors when the jacks are actuated from the lowering position to the raising position. In addition to the above, Sieblink et al. teach a feed carriage comprises at least three wheels (22,24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ at least three wheels as taught by Sieblink et al. in place of the four wheel-configuration of Nielsen, depending on the user’s preference of frame configuration of 3 wheels or 4 wheels based on the load or container being carried. Nielsen as modified by Sieblink et al. is silent about wherein the weighing system comprises at least three weighing sensors. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least three weighing sensors in the system of Nielsen as modified by Sieblink et al., depending on the accuracy level of weigh data the user wishes to obtain because the more weighing sensors, the better accuracy level of readings so as to average out mathematically for the weight. The combination of Nielsen as modified by Sieblink et al. would result in wherein the frame of the feed carriage comprises at least three wheel jacking points (points are merely space or area, thus, where the wheels are located, that area can be called points or space or portion, etc.; for the three points, as relied on with Sieblink et al.’s three wheels, the three points exist there) and at least three weighing sensor jacking points (points are merely space or area, thus, where the wheels are located, that area can be called points or space, etc.; for the three points, as relied on with Sieblink et al.’s three wheels, and Nielsen shows weighing sensor 20 at wheels locations, thus, three p weighing sensor jacking points exist there) for the fitting of a respective jack, and wherein the wheel jacking points and the weighing sensor jacking points of the frame are configured in such a way that (i) the wheels are supported on the underlying surface when three jacks are fitted in the lowering position at the wheel jacking points (functional recitation to which the wheel jacking points and the weighing sensor jacking points can and do perform the intended function, for they are merely space or area so any equipment can be attached thereto to support the equipment), and (ii) said jacks fitted at the wheel jacking points lift up the frame in order to release the wheels from the underlying surface when said jacks are actuated from the lowering position to the raising position (functional recitation to which the jacks of Nielsen can and do perform the intended function of lift up the frame in order to release the wheels from the underlying surface when said jacks are actuated from the lowering position to the raising position), and (iii) the container is supported on the frame by the weighing sensors when these same jacks are fitted in the lowering position at the weighing sensor jacking points (functional recitation to which the container in Nielsen can and does perform the intended function of is supported on the frame by the weighing sensors when these same jacks are fitted in the lowering position at the weighing sensor jacking points), and (iv) said jacks fitted at the weighing sensor jacking points lift up the container in order to relieve the load on the weighing sensors when the jacks are actuated from the lowering position to the raising position (functional recitation to which the jacks in Nielsen can and do perform the intended function of lift up the container in order to relieve the load on the weighing sensors when the jacks are actuated from the lowering position to the raising position).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen (as above) in view Van Den Berg (US 20100230183 A1).
For claim 13, Nielsen teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the feed carriage is autonomous.
Van Den Berg teaches a system for feeding animals comprising a feed carriage (1) that is autonomous. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the feed carriage of Nielsen be autonomous as taught by Van Den Berg in order to provide unmanned automated feed distribution to the animals, thus, reducing human labor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20010055524 A1 teaches Minibulk quantities, e.g., 500-6000 pounds, of dry, free-flowing feed for large animals, e.g., horses, are delivered to small farms and ranches, e.g., less than fifteen horses, located remote from a distribution center for the feed by a method comprising the steps of: A. Filling a container sealable to the environment with a minibulk quantity of dry, free-flowing, manufactured animal feed at a distribution center for the feed, the container equipped with at least one sealable opening through which the feed can be loaded into and unloaded from the container; B. Transporting the filled container to the site remote from the center; C. Positioning the filled container onto a support rack at a location remote from the manufacturing center, the filled container positioned upon the support rack in a manner such that the feed flows under the force of gravity to the at least one sealable opening of the container; D. Recovering a container depleted of feed from the remote site; and E. Returning the container depleted of feed to the manufacturing center for refilling with feed.
ES 1067279 U teaches a system for feeding animals such as cows (7), characterized in that it comprises: A feed cart (1), so that said feed cart (1) comprises: An autonomous vehicle (50), A container (20) for containing food (9), such that the container has at least one opening (21) for filling and emptying the container (20), and the container (20) is substantially cylindrical and rotatable around an axial axis (22), A filling station (2) for filling the container (20) of the food cart (1), A storage (3) for at least one kind of food (9), and A conveyor (4), intended to transport at least one kind of food (9) from storage (3) to the filling station (2).
GB 2139911 A teaches an apparatus (1) which is particularly for mixing and dispensing animal feed and for trailing behind an agricultural tractor comprises a container (2) mounted on a chassis framework (3, Fig. 1) with ground engaging wheels (4, Fig. 1). The container (2) has a mixing compartment (9) and a dispensing compartment (10). A mixing rotor (45) mixes the animal feed in the mixing compartment (9), and the feed is discharged through a dispensing outlet (55) in the dispensing compartment (10) by an auger (57). A closure member (26) which is provided between the compartments (9) and (10) can be lowered to isolate them from each other when mixing the animal feed (Fig. 5), or raised to allow discharge of the mixed feed (shown here). The closure member (26) is moved by an hydraulic ram (29, Fig. 6). Helical blades or augers may also be used as the mixing means (45).
WO 2023094226 A1 teaches a robotic driver for agricultural jobs, comprising a chassis (1) and a functional unit mounted on the chassis. The chassis (1) has supports (18) that support the functional unit, at least one of the supports (18) being equipped with a force sensor (183) that detects a force exerted on the chassis (1) by the functional unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SON T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6889. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 to 4:00.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/Son T Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
