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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 12/17/25. As directed by the amendment: claims 1 and 4 have been amended, claims 16-17 have been added, and no claims have been cancelled. As such, claims 1-17 are pending in the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the language “the sleeve member” (line 1-2) is objected to for not maintaining consistency in claim terminology; Examiner suggests amending to read –the garment member--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sifferlin (2019/0183724) in view of Schubert et al. (2012/0059294) and Rudashevsky et al. (4,788,968).
Regarding claim 1, Sifferlin discloses a garment assembly (see Fig. 1-6, abstract, para. 0065 for example, garment assembly 100/200/300/400/500/600 with like reference characters for each embodiment) which includes a garment member that includes an inner surface and an outer surface (see Fig. 1 for example, garment member 110 with inner and outer layers as shown, see para. 0065 for example), a power source (see Fig. 1, power source 170, see para. 0066, in the form of batteries), a vibration motor positioned adjacent the inner surface of the garment member electrically coupled to the power source to vibrate against the inner surface of the garment (see Fig. 1 for example, vibration devices 160 & 165, see para. 0066, para. 0071 disclosing “wiring”), and a stop member secured to at least one of the inner surface and the outer surface, the stop member disposed between the first vibration motor and the power source (see Fig. 1 and 4, stop member 163 which is between power source 170 and vibration motors 160 & 165, see para. 0066 and 0071; wiring 163 is a stop member as it reads on the limitations as claimed and it provides a limit, or stop distance due to its length, between power source and vibration motors, it is secured to both the inner and outer surfaces via being encased in the material of the sleeve). Sifferlin is silent as to the vibration motor being a vibrational linear motor and which the linear motor includes a shaft member with a distal reciprocating end and a magnet and reciprocating with an adjustable stroke length between 1 mm and 3 mm to generate a vibration pattern; however, Schubert discloses a similar wearable device which includes a vibrating motor in the form of a linear vibration motor (see Schubert para. 0013, 0015, 0041 and 0044, in particular 0044 which discloses that the vibration element can be various types of vibration elements including a linear electro-magnetic actuator, a linear vibration motor) and the vibration motor of Schubert has an adjustable stroke length (see Schubert para. 0056) and the stroke length being between 1 mm and 3 mm (see Schubert para. 0038 which discloses amplitude of vibration being between 1 micron and 15 mm, thus with the adjustable amplitude of para. 0056, 1 mm and 3 mm being completely within this range, the adjustable stroke length including between 1 mm and 3 mm), and Rudashevsky teaches a linear electro-magnetic actuator/motor which includes a shaft member with a reciprocating distal end and a magnet (see Rudashevsky Fig. 1, col. 2 ln. 64 through col. 3 ln. 57, shaft member 2, magnet 4). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Sifferlin device’s vibration element to be a linear motor type vibration element with adjustable stroke length between 1 mm and 3 mm for vibration pattern, as taught by Schubert, including shaft with reciprocating distal end and magnet elements, as taught by Rudashevsky, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and would produce predictable results (i.e. replacement of one known vibration element for another to provide vibration) and in order to provide a desired vibrational profile for the user (Schubert para. 0056 and 0038).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Sifferlin device’s first linear motor incudes a coil assembly having a central opening and reciprocating shaft which reciprocates within the opening (see Rudashevsky Fig. 1, coil assembly 3, central opening shown, shaft member 2 reciprocating therein).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Sifferlin device’s shaft member includes a base secured to the magnet with the magnet positioned at least partially within the central opening of the coil assembly and the distal end of the shaft member is part of the base (see Rudashevsky Fig. 1, shaft member 2 including a bottom portion secured to magnet 4 positioned within central opening defined by coil assembly 3 with distal end 2 part of the shaft assembly/member)
Regarding claim 7, the modified Sifferlin device’s garment member includes a sleeve member including a central opening configured to receive a body part of a wearer such that the inner surface of the garment member is adjacent the body part when the sleeve member is received on the body part (see Sifferlin Fig. 1 showing sleeve member type garment with central opening, see Fig. 4 showing the sleeve/garment being worn on a body part of a wearer, see para. 0065 for example).
Claim(s) 6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sifferlin, Schubert, and Rudashevsky as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Connor et al. (6,537,235).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Sifferlin device is silent as to the garment member including first and second layers knitted together to define the first space and not connected at the first space; however, this appears to be a product-by-process limitation which MPEP 2113 I states: “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966, (Fed. Cir. 1985). Furthermore, Connor teaches a similar vibration therapy garment which includes multiple layers knitted together to attach the layers and not connected in the areas defining spaces for components to be housed (see Connor Fig. 1-2, col. 2 ln. 56 through col. 3 ln. 8 for example). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Sifferlin device to be knitted together to define interior spaces for housing therapeutic elements, as taught by Connor, as this is a well-known method of producing such a therapeutic garment assembly and would have been obvious to try and one would expect the modified Sifferlin device to perform equally as well being produced in this manner.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Sifferlin device includes a control module associated with the sleeve member (see Sifferlin para. 0033 “controller”, para. 0060 “controller”), the power source being a battery (see Sifferlin para. 0066) including as part of the control module (it powers the controller and taken in combination with the controller is a ‘control module’), the vibration motor in electrical communication with the control module (see Sifferlin para. 0065-0066 for example). Sifferlin is silent as to the control module including a docking station with a battery portion and a control portion secured to the inner surface of the sleeve, a battery space defined between the battery portion and sleeve and includes a battery opening open to the exterior to allow removal of the battery; however, Connor teaches a similar vibration therapy device which includes these features (see Connor Fig. 1-2, control module/docking station 30 located in pocket/opening 41 which allows for removal thereof for removal replacement of batteries). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Sifferlin device’s control module to be of the type taught by Connor, being docked on the garment, in order to provide a portable and consolidated design, i.e. providing all the components within the garment assembly.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Sifferlin device includes plural vibration elements and thus plural vibration assembly pockets (see Sifferlin Fig. 1, vibration elements 160 and 165), but is silent as to the sleeve formed by a knitting process; however, this appears to be a product-by-process limitation which MPEP 2113 I states: “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966, (Fed. Cir. 1985). Furthermore, Connor teaches a similar vibration therapy garment which includes multiple layers formed by knitting (see Connor Fig. 1-2, col. 2 ln. 56 through col. 3 ln. 8 for example). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Sifferlin device to be knitted together to define interior spaces for housing therapeutic elements, as taught by Connor, as this is a well-known method of producing such a therapeutic garment assembly and would have been obvious to try and one would expect the modified Sifferlin device to perform equally as well being produced in this manner.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Sifferlin device further includes a second linear motor with the pocket including plural pocket fingers with the linear motors positioned therein (see Sifferlin Fig. 1 and para. 0066, plural vibration elements 160 and 165 encased within the garment, modified in view of Schubert/Rudashevsky to be linear actuator type vibration motors, see also Connor Fig. 1 showing plural pockets with fingers for components).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sifferlin, Schubert, and Rudashevsky as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lach et al. (2018/0228689).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Sifferlin device is silent as to the sleeve member including a plurality of inflatable chambers associated therewith; however, Lach teaches a similar device including a garment/sleeve which includes both vibration and plural inflatable chambers (see Lach Fig. 6-9, para. 0035, inflatable portion 23, para. 0039, inflatable rings 36a, para. 0041 compression elements 34 which are inflated and deflated). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Sifferlin device’s garment/sleeve to include both vibration and plural inflatable chambers, as taught by Lach, in order to provide enhanced therapeutic effect (via both vibration and compression/inflation therapy modalities).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sifferlin, Schubert, and Rudashevsky as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Trapp (2017/0119620).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Sifferlin device is silent as to the garment assembly being waterproof or water resistant; however, Trapp teaches a similar garment assembly which is waterproof or water resistant (see Trapp Fig. 1 and para. 0074). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Sifferlin device’s garment to be waterproof or water resistant, as taught by Trapp, in order to provide protection for the electronic components located within the garment assembly.
Note: the following are an alternate rejection for a more comprehensive examination based on a different interpretation of the claims, in particular the stop member.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sifferlin (2019/0183724) in view of Schubert et al. (2012/0059294), Rudashevsky et al. (4,788,968), and Brink (2007/0245444).
Regarding claim 1, Sifferlin discloses a garment assembly (see Fig. 1-6, abstract, para. 0065 for example, garment assembly 100/200/300/400/500/600 with like reference characters for each embodiment) which includes a garment member that includes an inner surface and an outer surface (see Fig. 1 for example, garment member 110 with inner and outer layers as shown, see para. 0065 for example), a power source (see Fig. 1, power source 170, see para. 0066, in the form of batteries), and a vibration motor positioned adjacent the inner surface of the garment member electrically coupled to the power source to vibrate against the inner surface of the garment (see Fig. 1 for example, vibration devices 160 & 165, see para. 0066, para. 0071 disclosing “wiring”). Sifferlin is silent as to the vibration motor being a vibrational linear motor and which the linear motor includes a shaft member with a distal reciprocating end and a magnet and reciprocating with an adjustable stroke length between 1 mm and 3 mm to generate a vibration pattern; however, Schubert discloses a similar wearable device which includes a vibrating motor in the form of a linear vibration motor (see Schubert para. 0013, 0015, 0041 and 0044, in particular 0044 which discloses that the vibration element can be various types of vibration elements including a linear electro-magnetic actuator, a linear vibration motor) and the vibration motor of Schubert has an adjustable stroke length (see Schubert para. 0056) and the stroke length being between 1 mm and 3 mm (see Schubert para. 0038 which discloses amplitude of vibration being between 1 micron and 15 mm, thus with the adjustable amplitude of para. 0056, 1 mm and 3 mm being completely within this range, the adjustable stroke length including between 1 mm and 3 mm), and Rudashevsky teaches a linear electro-magnetic actuator/motor which includes a shaft member with a reciprocating distal end and a magnet (see Rudashevsky Fig. 1, col. 2 ln. 64 through col. 3 ln. 57, shaft member 2, magnet 4). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Sifferlin device’s vibration element to be a linear motor type vibration element with adjustable stroke length between 1 mm and 3 mm for vibration pattern, as taught by Schubert, including shaft with reciprocating distal end and magnet elements, as taught by Rudashevsky, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and would produce predictable results (i.e. replacement of one known vibration element for another to provide vibration) and in order to provide a desired vibrational profile for the user (Schubert para. 0056 and 0038). The modified Sifferlin device is silent as to including a stop member secured to at least one of the inner surface and the outer surface; however, Brink teaches a garment member with embedded electronic device(s) and including a stop member secured to at least one of an inner and outer surface (see Brink Fig. 2b, stop member 290, para. 0031; Fig. 3, stop member 310, para. 0032; stop members provided to secure wiring within channels of the garment member and secured to at least one of the inner and outer surface). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Sifferlin device to include a stop member, as taught by Brink, in order to secure the wiring (163 of Sifferlin, para. 0066, 0071) in place (Brink para. 0031 and 0032). The modified Sifferlin device’s stop member (see Brink) is disposed between the first linear motor and the power source (see Sifferlin Fig. 1 and 4, stop member of Brink provided to secure wiring 163 of Sifferlin and thus provide between vibration motors 160 & 165 and power source 170).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Sifferlin device’s first linear motor incudes a coil assembly having a central opening and reciprocating shaft which reciprocates within the opening (see Rudashevsky Fig. 1, coil assembly 3, central opening shown, shaft member 2 reciprocating therein).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Sifferlin device’s shaft member includes a base secured to the magnet with the magnet positioned at least partially within the central opening of the coil assembly and the distal end of the shaft member is part of the base (see Rudashevsky Fig. 1, shaft member 2 including a bottom portion secured to magnet 4 positioned within central opening defined by coil assembly 3 with distal end 2 part of the shaft assembly/member)
Regarding claim 7, the modified Sifferlin device’s garment member includes a sleeve member including a central opening configured to receive a body part of a wearer such that the inner surface of the garment member is adjacent the body part when the sleeve member is received on the body part (see Sifferlin Fig. 1 showing sleeve member type garment with central opening, see Fig. 4 showing the sleeve/garment being worn on a body part of a wearer, see para. 0065 for example).
Claim(s) 6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sifferlin, Schubert, Rudashevsky, and Brink as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Connor.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Sifferlin device is silent as to the garment member including first and second layers knitted together to define the first space and not connected at the first space; however, this appears to be a product-by-process limitation which MPEP 2113 I states: “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966, (Fed. Cir. 1985). Furthermore, Connor teaches a similar vibration therapy garment which includes multiple layers knitted together to attach the layers and not connected in the areas defining spaces for components to be housed (see Connor Fig. 1-2, col. 2 ln. 56 through col. 3 ln. 8 for example). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Sifferlin device to be knitted together to define interior spaces for housing therapeutic elements, as taught by Connor, as this is a well-known method of producing such a therapeutic garment assembly and would have been obvious to try and one would expect the modified Sifferlin device to perform equally as well being produced in this manner.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Sifferlin device includes a control module associated with the sleeve member (see Sifferlin para. 0033 “controller”, para. 0060 “controller”), the power source being a battery (see Sifferlin para. 0066) including as part of the control module (it powers the controller and taken in combination with the controller is a ‘control module’), the vibration motor in electrical communication with the control module (see Sifferlin para. 0065-0066 for example). Sifferlin is silent as to the control module including a docking station with a battery portion and a control portion secured to the inner surface of the sleeve, a battery space defined between the battery portion and sleeve and includes a battery opening open to the exterior to allow removal of the battery; however, Connor teaches a similar vibration therapy device which includes these features (see Connor Fig. 1-2, control module/docking station 30 located in pocket/opening 41 which allows for removal thereof for removal replacement of batteries). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Sifferlin device’s control module to be of the type taught by Connor, being docked on the garment, in order to provide a portable and consolidated design, i.e. providing all the components within the garment assembly.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Sifferlin device includes plural vibration elements and thus plural vibration assembly pockets (see Sifferlin Fig. 1, vibration elements 160 and 165), but is silent as to the sleeve formed by a knitting process; however, this appears to be a product-by-process limitation which MPEP 2113 I states: “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966, (Fed. Cir. 1985). Furthermore, Connor teaches a similar vibration therapy garment which includes multiple layers formed by knitting (see Connor Fig. 1-2, col. 2 ln. 56 through col. 3 ln. 8 for example). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Sifferlin device to be knitted together to define interior spaces for housing therapeutic elements, as taught by Connor, as this is a well-known method of producing such a therapeutic garment assembly and would have been obvious to try and one would expect the modified Sifferlin device to perform equally as well being produced in this manner.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Sifferlin device further includes a second linear motor with the pocket including plural pocket fingers with the linear motors positioned therein (see Sifferlin Fig. 1 and para. 0066, plural vibration elements 160 and 165 encased within the garment, modified in view of Schubert/Rudashevsky to be linear actuator type vibration motors, see also Connor Fig. 1 showing plural pockets with fingers for components).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sifferlin, Schubert, Rudashevsky, and Brink as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lach.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Sifferlin device is silent as to the sleeve member including a plurality of inflatable chambers associated therewith; however, Lach teaches a similar device including a garment/sleeve which includes both vibration and plural inflatable chambers (see Lach Fig. 6-9, para. 0035, inflatable portion 23, para. 0039, inflatable rings 36a, para. 0041 compression elements 34 which are inflated and deflated). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Sifferlin device’s garment/sleeve to include both vibration and plural inflatable chambers, as taught by Lach, in order to provide enhanced therapeutic effect (via both vibration and compression/inflation therapy modalities).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sifferlin, Schubert, Rudashevsky, and Brink as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Trapp.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Sifferlin device is silent as to the garment assembly being waterproof or water resistant; however, Trapp teaches a similar garment assembly which is waterproof or water resistant (see Trapp Fig. 1 and para. 0074). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Sifferlin device’s garment to be waterproof or water resistant, as taught by Trapp, in order to provide protection for the electronic components located within the garment assembly.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sifferlin, Schubert, Rudashevsky, and Brink as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Longinotti-Buitoni et al. (2018/0199635).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Sifferlin device includes a first wire with slack portion between the vibration motor and power source and the wiring having proximal and distal ends between the power source and vibration motors (see Sifferlin Fig. 1 and 4, wire 163; Brink Fig. 3 showing slack wire), but is silent as to including an electrical communication strip including stretchable fabric with proximal and distal ends with the slack portion secured to the stretchable fabric; however, Longinotti-Buitoni discloses an electrical communication strip including stretchable fabric with a slack wire portion embedded therein for a garment including electrical components (see Longinotti-Buitoni Fig. 1A and 3, para. 0012, 0015, 0021, 0101-0102, 0108 for example). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Sifferlin device’s slack wiring portion to be an electrical communication strip and embedded in stretchable fabric thereof, as taught by Longinotti-Buitoni, in order to provide the ability of the device/wiring to stretch/expand during movement of the user while still maintaining electrical communication between parts (see above citations of Longinotti-Buitoni). The modified Sifferlin device is silent as to the stop member explicitly being positioned adjacent the distal end of the electrical communication strip; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Sifferlin device’s stop member (see Brink) to be located adjacent the distal end of the electrical communication strip to provide securement of the strip at this location (Brink para. 0031 and 0032) and which would have been either obvious rearrangement of parts (moving of the stop member of Brink) or obvious duplication of parts (providing multiple stop members of Brink along the length of the wire such as at the distal end). See MPEP 2144.04 VI B and C.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 12-13, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 15 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Sifferlin, Schubert and Rudashevsky are silent as to teaching a stop member as claimed (see pg. 6-7). This is not well-taken as the wiring of Sifferlin (163 para. 0066 and 0071) reads on the stop member limitation as currently claimed (see above explanation).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the current combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The alternate rejection also relying on the Brink reference renders the arguments moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Silverberg (2014/0317825) discloses a stop member for wiring of an electrical component in a garment.
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 COLIN W STUART whose telephone number is (571)270-7490. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/COLIN W STUART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785