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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, and 23 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.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the one or more heat dissipation airflow inlets". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11-14, 18, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everst US 5,809,653 in view of Nakano US 2016/00281819 and Tokumaru US 6,105,206.
Re claim 1, 23, Everts discloses a garden blower [figs. 1-3, 6] comprising:
an extension rod [16, 20, 72] configured to extend a preset distance along a longitudinal direction;
an air duct portion 92 including an air inlet and an air outlet [fig. 6];
a motor configured to provide a driving force for the garden blower [“the blower 90 includes a motor housing 92, an electric motor within the housing, a blower fan operatively connected to the motor, and a blower tube 94 operatively connected to the motor housing for directing air from the blower fan to a desired location outside the system for blowing leaves or debris”];
a power supply configured to provide energy for the motor [“[i]n operation, electric current from the battery in the housing 14 travels through the first electrical conductor, the first electrical connector, the second electrical connector, and the second electrical conductor to the electric motor.”], the power supply comprises one or more battery packs [“[a] battery powered tool includes a housing adapted to carry a battery”];
a fan disposed inside the air duct portion and driven by the motor to rotate around a fan axis and generate an airflow [“the blower 90 includes a motor housing 92, an electric motor within the housing, a blower fan operatively connected to the motor, and a blower tube 94 operatively connected to the motor housing for directing air from the blower fan to a desired location outside the system for blowing leaves or debris”];
an operating handle 18, provided for a user to hold during operation, wherein the operating handle and the air duct portion are disposed at directions of two different ends of the extension rod [figs. 2, 6], the air duct portion 92 being disposed at a front end of the extension rod [fig. 6], the operating handle 18 being disposed at a rear end of the extension rod [fig. 2]; and
a rear housing 14 disposed at the rear end of the extension rod 16, the rear housing being configured to at least partially surround the extension rod [fig. 2] and defining an accommodating chamber therein; and
wherein the extension rod [16, 50] is located outside the air duct portion 92.
Everts does not teach a control board configured to control the motor to rotate, the control board being disposed in the accommodating chamber and located outside the extension rod; and one or more heat dissipation airflow outlets in the extension rod; and one or more battery pack mounting portions configured to mount one or more battery packs.
However, Nakano teaches a similar assembly with an extension rod 40 [fig. 1] and a control board 13 [fig. 3] to control the motor 151 to rotate, the control board 13 being disposed in an accommodating chamber located outside the extension rod 40. Nakano also teaches a battery mounting portion 11a [fig. 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nakano in the blower of Everts in order to yield the predictable result of controlling the motor at the battery housing with a rechargeable mounted battery.
Furthermore, Tokumaru teaches heat dissipation airflow outlets 51 [fig. 5] in the extension rod.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tokamaru in the blower of Everts in order to yield the predictable result of efficiently using external air for cooling the control board before flowing the same air into the blower’s fan.
Re claims 2-5, 11, Everts, Nakano, and Tokumaru teach the invention as discussed above for claim 1. but are silent as to wherein a length of the air duct portion is not greater than 500 mm, and a maximum cross-sectional area of the air duct portion in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction is less than or equal to 65x102 mm2 and greater than or equal to 22x102 mm2; wherein a diameter of the motor is not greater than 45 mm; wherein a diameter of the fan is greater than or equal to 32 mm and less than or equal to 67 mm; wherein in a state in which the power supply is removed from the garden blower, a weight of the garden blower is not greater than 1.5 kg; and a ratio of a length of the air duct portion in the longitudinal direction to a length of the garden blower in the longitudinal direction is less than or equal to 60%..
Tokumaru further teaches that the garden blower is lightweight (see Col. 3: Line: 29 – 31) and the battery pack may add an additional weight from about 18 to 27 pounds (about 8 – 12 kgs, see Col. 5: Lines 14 - 17). The weight of the garden blower varies based on the size of the blower and battery pack, among other things. Ideally the garden blower with battery pack is sized appropriately for the user to carry it and ergonomically hold the garden blower with little to no strain while maintaining the area to be blown. Thus, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above.
It is noted that since the general conditions of the claim (i.e., having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Everts, Nakano, and Tokumaru, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation (and MPEP 2144.05 II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to provide the limitations above since such a modification would involve a mere change in size, proportion, shape, and/or weight of a component (see MPEP 2144.04 IV A B).
Re claims 12-14, Everts, Nakano, and Tokumaru teach the garden blower according to claim 11.
Tokamaru further teaches wherein the garden blower further comprises a flow guiding cone [fig. 2] and stationary blades that are disposed inside the air duct portion and configured to guide an airflow to move toward the air outlet, wherein: the air duct portion, the motor, the fan, the flow guiding cone, and the stationary blades are defined as a first assembly located at the front end of the extension rod. Everts further teaches the one or more battery packs are defined as a second assembly located at the rear end of the extension rod.
With regards to specifics of a ratio of a weight of the second assembly to a weight of the first assembly does not exceed 1.5; wherein a ratio of the weight of the first assembly to a total weight of the garden blower in which the one or more battery packs are mounted is not greater than 0.5; and wherein the weight of the first assembly is less than or equal to 1.2 kg, it is noted that the weights of the first, second, and total assembly are well-known recognized result effective variables. These variables are based on common sense parameters including weight of the battery pack depending on voltage and composition, user’s fatigue and injury risk, improvement of portability and maneuverability, enhanced of control and precision, advancement in materials and technology, and ergonomics design principles, among others. Thus, the claimed limitations are recognized as result effective variables, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above.
Since the general conditions of the claim (i.e., having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by the combination, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation (and MPEP 2144.05 II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the limitations of the claims, since such a modification would involve mere change in size, proportion, shape, and/or weight of a component (see MPEP 2144.04 IV A B).
Re claim 18, Everts, Nakano, and Tokumaru the garden blower according to claim 1.
Nakano further teaches a projection of the control board 13 on a plane perpendicular to an axial direction of the fan is located within a range [absent of any specific range, this limitation has little patentable weight] of a projection of the air inlet on the plane perpendicular to the axial direction of the fan.
Claim(s) 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everst US 5,809,653 in view of Nakano US 2016/00281819 and Tokamaru US 6,105,206 and in further view of Liu US 2019/0211830 A1.
Re claims 6-9, Everts, Nakano, and Tokumaru teach the garden blower according to claim 1 but are silent to a rotational speed of the motor is configured to be higher than 35000 rpm and lower than or equal to 80000 rpm in a manner in which a ratio of a maximum output power of the motor connected to the garden blower to the weight of the garden blower that is not combined with the power supply is not less than 400 W/kg and in which a ratio of a maximum air speed of the garden blower to a diameter of the fan is not less than 2.5 mph/mm; the output power of the motor is 600W to 1600W; and a weight of the garden blower that is not combined with the power supply is not greater than 1.5 kg.
Liu teaches a garden blower having a rotational speed of the motor configured to be higher than 35000 rpm and lower than or equal to 80000 rpm (rotary speed of the motor is larger than or equal to 25000 rpm and smaller than or equal to 100000 rpms, see ¶ [0032]).
Liu further teaches a garden blower having the output power of the motor is 600W to 1600W (fan shaft power, 688 W, see table parameters [0113]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the combination with the teachings of a rotational speed of the motor, and output of the motor, as suggested and taught by Liu, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 I and to provide improved efficiency which can improve longevity and reliability.
In regards to the maximum output power of the motor connected to the garden blower to the weight of the garden blower that does not include the power supply is not less than 400 W/kg; the weight of the garden blower that is not combined with the power supply is not greater than 1.5 kg, and a ratio of a maximum air speed of the garden blower to a diameter of the fan is not less than 2.5 mph/mm, these limitations vary based on the size of fan, the intended movement of debris to be blown by users, the weight of the garden blower, the size of the blower and battery pack, user’s fatigue and injury risk, improvement of portability and maneuverability, enhanced of control and precision, advancement in materials and technology, and ergonomics design principles, among others. Ideally the diameter is sized appropriately for the fan for proper air flow, power output, and speed of the air allows for the movement of heavier or smaller objects without fatiguing the user. Also, ideally the garden blower not combined with the battery pack is sized appropriately for the user to carry it and ergonomically hold the garden blower with little to no strain while maintaining the area to be blown. Thus, the claimed limitations are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (i.e., having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by the combination, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the claimed limitations, since such modifications would involve a mere change in the size, proportion, shape, and/or weight of components within the garden blower and the garden blower without the battery pack (see MPEP 2144.04 IV A B).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everst US 5,809,653 in view of Nakano US 2016/00281819 and Tokamaru US 6,105,206 and in further view of Guo et al (US 20060244320 A1), and Sawada (US 5099162 A) and Kusama (US 20080073992A1).
Re claim 10, Everts, Nakano, and Tokumaru teach the garden blower according to claim 1 but are silent to , wherein: the motor is a coreless motor, and a stator and a rotor are disposed in the coreless motor, wherein the stator comprises, a casing, a stator lamination stack, and a winding coil, the stator lamination stack comprises a plurality of annular magnetic conductive sheets, and the winding coil is directly wound by an enameled wire and forms a cylindrical shape to accommodate the rotor; and the rotor comprises a rotating shaft and a magnetic ring disposed on a periphery of the rotating shaft.
However, Guo et al teaches a brushless motor having a coreless assembly, wherein the motor is a coreless motor (brushless motor having a coreless assembly, Fig. 1: 1), and a stator (combination of coreless wound stator, Fig. 2: 13, permanent magnets, 141 and 141a, and collar plates, 14 and 14a) and a rotor (combination of axle, 12 and bearings, 121) are disposed in the coreless motor (disposed in, see Fig. 3), wherein the stator (coreless wound stator, 13) comprises a casing (collar plates, 14 and 14a), a stator lamination stack (permanent magnets, 141 and 141a), and a winding coil (131, coil is winding coreless wound stator, 13, see Fig. 2), the stator lamination stack comprises a plurality of annular magnetic conductive sheets (permanent magnets, 141 and 141a are annular, see Fig. 2), and the winding coil (131) is directly wound and forms a cylindrical shape to accommodate the rotor (coil, 131 is circular in shape and is incased in coreless wound stator, 13 with its thickness which makes it form a cylindrical shape, see Fig. 2); and the rotor comprises a rotating shaft (axle, 12 that is movable and allows for rotation, see [0005] and [0006]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the combination with replacing the motor with the teachings of a coreless motor, and a stator and a rotor are disposed in the coreless motor, wherein the stator comprises a casing, a stator lamination stack, and a winding coil, the stator lamination stack comprises a plurality of annular magnetic conductive sheets, and the winding coil is directly wound by an enameled wire and forms a cylindrical shape to accommodate the rotor; and the rotor comprises a rotating shaft and a magnetic ring disposed on a periphery of the rotating shaft, because it allows for a motor with a simple structure providing high power density and of high rotation speed with high usage-efficiency and small mechanical loss (Guo et al.: [0006]).
In addition, Sawada teaches motor utilizing coil of superconducting material, the coil wound by an enameled wire (coil wire with a ceramic thin film, see Col 4: Lines 1 - 6).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the combination with the coil wound by an enameled wire, because it helps to prevent the influence of perfect diamagnetism caused by Meissner effect for use in an electric equipment involving a motor (Sawada: Col. 2: Lines 62 - 68).
Lastly, Kusama teaches a coreless motor, a magnetic ring disposed on a periphery of the shaft (a first annular attraction magnet, Fig. 1: 21 is fixed on the top end of the motor shaft, 12 see Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the combination with a magnetic ring disposed on a periphery of the rotating shaft, which would be in opposing attraction to the annular magnets, because it functions to position the rotor in the axial direction with respect to the stator, which keeps the concentricity between the rotor and the stator from degradation and in turns prevents the degradation of the motor properties (Kusama: [0016] and [0017]).
Claim(s) 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everst US 5,809,653 in view of Nakano US 2016/00281819 and Tokamaru US 6,105,206 and in further view of Yoon et al (KR 101764337 B1).
Re claim 15, Everts, Nakano, and Tokumaru teach the garden blower according to claim 1.
Tokumaru further teaches the garden blower according to claim 1, wherein: the air duct portion (17) comprises a main air blowing tube (main air blowing tube is the air duct portion, 17 as is represented in applicant’s disclosure) and an auxiliary air blowing tube (duct extension, 8: 59) disposed in communication with the main air blowing tube (in communication with main air blowing tube, as seen in Fig. 9), the air inlet (23) is formed on a first end of the main air blowing tube (on first end of main tube, 17, see Fig. 2), and a second end of the main air blowing tube (17) is provided with a main air blowing port opposite to the air inlet (the area in which the air enters the inlet on a second end, opposite of that inlet, 23, see annotated Fig. 2, below),
PNG
media_image1.png
276
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 – Tokumaru et al: illustrates a main air blowing port
the auxiliary air blowing tube (duct extension, 8: 59) is provided with an auxiliary air inlet in communication with the main air blowing port (inlet side of duct extension, 59 is in communication with area in which the air enters the inlet an is opposite of that inlet, 23, see annotated Fig. 2, above) and a nozzle located on a front end of the auxiliary air inlet in the longitudinal direction (as best understood nozzle in disclosure forms the air outlet, which is shown in annotated Fig. 8 below) located on front end,
the nozzle forms the air outlet (see annotated Fig. 8 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
253
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 – Tokumaru et al: illustrates auxiliary air inlet, outlet, and nozzle
The combination does not teach a gap between the main air blowing port and the auxiliary air inlet, so that an external airflow can enter the auxiliary air blowing tube from the gap.
However, Yoon et al teaches a fan apparatus for blowing air having a gap between the main air blowing port and the auxiliary air inlet (gap between small-diameter exhaust nozzle, Fig. 3: 160 and large-diameter exhaust nozzle, 170; see Fig. 3), so that an external airflow can enter the auxiliary air blowing tube from the gap (external air-flow, 190-4 and enter the auxiliary air blowing tube, large-diameter exhaust nozzle, 170). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the combination by replacing the auxiliary air blowing tube with the teachings of a gap between the main air blowing port and the auxiliary air inlet, so that an external airflow can enter the auxiliary air blowing tube from the gap as taught by Yoon et al. because it improves blowing efficiency by employing a two-stage exhaust nozzle (Yoon et al.: [0001]).
Re claim 17, Everts, Nakano, and Tokumaru teach the garden blower according to claim 15.
Tokumaru further teaches wherein: the garden blower has a first operating mode (variable speed switch, 45 for on/off for flow and no – flow, see Col. 4: Lines 62 – 67) in which external air enters from the air inlet and is blown outward from the main air blowing port (as best understood if the air enters the inlet, 23 and is blown outward towards the air outlet, 25 it will also be blown outward from the main air blowing port, see annotated Fig. 2, above) and a second operating mode (variable speed switch, 45 with a turbo button for high-speed “burst” mode, see Col. 4: Lines 67 and Col. 5: Lines 1 - 2) in which external air enters from the air inlet and is blown outward from the air outlet (as best understood if the air enters the inlet, 23 it is then blown outward from the air outlet, 25, see Col. 1: Lines 43 - 46), the garden blower selectively operates in the first operating mode or the second operating mode (variable speed switch, 45 allows operator to alternatively switch from on/off and turbo button for “burst mode”, see Col. 4: Lines 62 - 67 and Col. 5: Lines 1 – 2), the garden blower provides an air speed not lower than 130 mph in the first operating mode (peak air speed achieved is about 180 mph, which is not lower than 130 mph, see Col. 4: lines 26 – 27), and the garden blower provides an air volume not less than 300 cfm in the second operating mode (peak air flow rate is above 300 cfm at about 380 cfm, see Col. 4: Lines 27 – 30).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everst US 5,809,653 in view of Nakano US 2016/00281819 and Tokamaru US 6,105,206 and Yoon et al (KR 101764337 B1), and in further view of Liu et al (US 20190211830 A1) and as evidenced by U.S Department of Energy (PTO-892-U).
Re claim 16, Everts, Nakano, and Tokumaru teach the garden blower according to claim 15.
Tokumaru further teaches wherein: an airflow diffused from the air inlet to the air outlet comprises a high-speed region surrounding a rotation axis of the fan and a low-speed region on a periphery of the high-speed region, the high-speed region flowing outward from the air outlet is defined as a high-speed wake region, (as best understood the area between the inlet, 23 and outlet, 25 can provide for a low and high speed area as indicated variable switch, 45 in which the operator can vary from an airflow in an on/off state and a high speed air flow in a “burst mode”, see Col. 4: Lines 62 – 67 and Col. 5: Lines 1 - 2), and having a motor (19). the auxiliary air blowing tube (duct extension, 59) and is configured to increase the duct’s length when desirable (see Col. 6: Lines 39 – 42).
The combination does not explicitly teach a ratio of a length of the high-speed wake region that extends outward beyond the air outlet to a length of the auxiliary air blowing tube is set to between 1.1 and 1.5 based on configurations that a rotational speed of the motor is higher than 35000 rpm and lower than or equal to 120000 rpm and the length of the auxiliary air blowing tube is greater than or equal to 100 mm and less than or equal to 160 mm.
Regarding the ratio of a length of the high-speed wake region that extends outward beyond the air outlet to a length of the auxiliary air blowing tube is set to between 1.1 and 1.5, these are performance characteristics based on the type of motor and its performance of pushing air out of the external end of the tool. The motor can vary in the different rpms required to move different amounts of air and the length of the auxiliary air blowing tube varies in the art based on the extension needed for the end of the nozzle to be closer to the ground and the length needed on the amount of air to achieve the laminar/turbulent velocity profile required that shows a region change, as evidenced by known thermodynamics and fluid flow given in the diagram, Fig. 5, below. Thus, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (i.e.., having the claimed structure as recited above) is taught by the combination and evidenced by the US Department of Energy (see fig. below), it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide a ratio of a length of the high-speed wake region that extends outward beyond the air outlet to a length of the auxiliary air blowing tube is set to between 1.1 and 1.5 based on configurations that a rotational speed of the motor is higher than 35000 rpm and lower than or equal to 120000 rpm and the length of the auxiliary air blowing tube is greater than or equal to 100 mm and less than or equal to 160 mm. Further in the instant application on pages 4, 17 and 49 of 53 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations, since such a modification would involve a mere change in the size, proportion, shape, and/or weight of the component (see MPEP 2144.04 IV A B).
PNG
media_image3.png
475
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to the configurations of the motor, the combination does not teach, configurations that a rotational speed of the motor is higher than 35000 rpm and lower than or equal to 120000.
However, Liu et al teaches a garden blower having configurations that a rotational speed of the motor is higher than 35000 rpm and lower than or equal to 120000 (rotary speed of the motor is larger than or equal to 25000 rpm and smaller than or equal to 100000 rpms, see [0032]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the combination with the teachings of configurations that a rotational speed of the motor is higher than 35000 rpm and lower than or equal to 120000 as taught by Liu et al because it provides an improved efficiency which can improve longevity and reliability.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos A. Rivera whose telephone number is (571)270-5697. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -4PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/C. A. RIVERA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights