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 Amendment
The amendment filed 04/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 21-25, 27-46, 48-51 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 49 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation in claim 49, line 28 of “overhange” should be changed to --overhang--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 35-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd (20100292028) in view of Rice (20120202617), Funayama (20080113825), Su (5776011), and Willett (20090264218).
Regarding claim 35, Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches golf club head comprising: a golf club head body defined by a top portion, a bottom portion, a toe portion, a heel portion, and a face (See fig. 1-4), the golf club head body defining an interior cavity (Para. 0031, 0033); the face including a toe end, a heel end, a top end, and a bottom end (See fig. 1-4), the face defining a thickness from an outer surface of the face to an inner surface of the face, wherein the thickness of the face is variable (Para. 0060); the face including a geometric center that defines an origin of a coordinate system in which an x-axis is parallel to a ground plane, a y-axis extending perpendicular to the x-axis and parallel to the ground plane, and a z-axis extending perpendicular to the ground plane, wherein a positive x-axis extends toward the toe end from the origin, a positive y-axis extends rearwardly from the origin, and a positive z-axis extends upwardly from the origin (See fig. 1-4); the top portion of the golf club head body coupled to the top end of the face (See fig. 1-4), the bottom portion of the golf club head body coupled to the bottom end of the face (See fig. 1-4), the toe portion of the golf club head body coupled to the toe end of the face (See fig. 1-4), and the heel portion of the golf club head body coupled to the heel end of the face (See fig. 1-4); the golf club head body defining a trailing edge being a rearward most edge of the golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0035) and the golf club head body defining a leading edge being a forwardmost edge of the golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0035); wherein: the top end of the face having a top end face thickness defined as a thickness of the face from an outer surface of the face to an inner surface of the face proximate the top end; the bottom end of the face having a bottom end face thickness defined as a thickness of the face from an outer surface of the face to an inner surface of the face proximate the bottom end (See fig. 1-2) (Para. 0031, 0033); the club head having a distance from the leading edge to the trailing edge (Para. 0063); a loft of the golf club head is variable (Para. 0061); the face including a geometric center face (CF) and the face having a variable face thickness (Para. 0060), wherein the face thickness varies from the heel end to the toe end of the face (Para. 0060), and the face thickness varies from the top end to the bottom end of the face (Para. 0060).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the face including a geometric center that defines an origin of a coordinate system in which an x-axis is parallel to a ground plane, a y-axis extending perpendicular to the x-axis and parallel to the ground plane, and a z-axis extending perpendicular to the ground plane, wherein a positive x-axis extends toward the toe end from the origin, a positive y-axis extends rearwardly from the origin, and a positive z-axis extends upwardly from the origin” is directed to an imaginary reference system and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art of Boyd.
Boyd does not teach a weight pad located within the interior cavity and coupled to the bottom portion of the golf club head body and positioned proximate the face in a forward portion of the bottom portion; a distance from the leading edge to the trailing edge is at most 97 mm, a forwardmost portion of the weight pad is offset from the face no more than 12.5 mm, a loft of the golf club head is at least 14.5 degrees, in a y-z plane passing through the face, the face has a first thickness proximate a top end of the face, below the top end of the face the face has a thin face region having a second thickness, and below the thin face region the face has a third region having a third thickness; and the second thickness is less than both the first thickness and the third thickness.
Rice (Figure 22) teaches a weight pad (Fig. 22, Part No. 192) (Para. 0062) located within the interior cavity and coupled to the bottom portion of the golf club head body and positioned proximate the face in a forward portion of the bottom portion (Para. 0062); a forwardmost portion of the weight pad is offset from the face (see fig. 22) (though a specific distance value is not disclosed).
The claim recitation of “the weight pad is offset from the face no more than 12.5 mm” is directed to the distance the weight pad is offset from the face. Rice teaches the weight pad is offset from the face (see fig. 22) (though a specific distance value is not disclosed). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). Changing the distance of the weight pad from the face would have been obvious as a means of finding optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Funayama (Figures 9-10) teaches a distance from the leading edge to the trailing edge is at most 97 mm (Para. 0078).
Su teaches a loft of the golf club head is at least 14.5 degrees (Col. 3, Lines 57-62).
Willett (Figures 1-7) teaches in a y-z plane passing through the face, the face has a first thickness (See fig. 2B-2C) proximate a top end of the face, below the top end of the face the face has a thin face region (Fig. 2B-2C, Part No. 48) having a second thickness, and below the thin face region the face has a third region having a third thickness (See fig. 2B-2C); and the second thickness is less than both the first thickness and the third thickness (See fig. 2B-2C) (Para. 0037, 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Boyd with a weight pad located within the interior cavity as taught by Rice as a means of providing a sole of a golf club head with thin weights to permit a golfer to adjust overall weighting of the golf club head (Rice: Para. 0062), to provide Boyd with a distance from the leading edge to the trailing edge is at most 97 mm as taught by Funayama as a means of providing a golf club head having a dimension from front to back that is fixed at 96 mm (Funayama: Para 0078; Fig. 9-10), to provide Boyd with a loft of the golf club head is at least 14.5 degrees as taught by Su as a means of providing a golf club head with a 15 degree loft (Su: Col. 3, Lines 57-62), and to provide Boyd with the second thickness is less than both the first thickness and the third thickness as taught by Willet as a means of improving the stiffness-to-mass ratio of the faceplate face without compromising the performance of the golf club (Willett: Para. 0049).
Regarding claim 36, the modified Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches a golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0031, 0033).
The modified Boyd does not teach the thin face region is offset from the CF.
Willett (Figures 1-7) teaches the thin face region (Fig. 2A-2C, Part No. 48) is offset from the CF (Fig. 2A and 2C, Part No. 42) (Para. 0037, 0049).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Boyd with the thin face region is offset from the CF as taught by Willet as a means of improving the stiffness-to-mass ratio of the faceplate face without compromising the performance of the golf club (Willett: Para. 0049).
Regarding claim 37, the modified Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches a golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0031, 0033).
The modified Boyd does not teach the thin face region has a geometric center (TFRCP) and the TFRCP is offset a distance of at least 3 mm from the CF.
Willett (Figures 1-7) teaches the thin face region (Fig. 2A- 2C, Part No. 48) has a geometric center (TFRCP) and the TFRCP is offset from the CF (Fig. 2A and 2C, Part No. 42) (Para. 0037, 0049).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the TFRCP is offset a distance of at least 3 mm from the CF” is directed to the distance of a center of the second thickness relative to a center face of the golf club face plate. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). Changing the distance TFRCP is offset from the CF would have been obvious as a means of finding optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Boyd with the TFRCP is offset from the CF as taught by Willet as a means of improving the stiffness-to-mass ratio of the faceplate face without compromising the performance of the golf club (Willett: Para. 0049).
Regarding claim 38, the modified Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches a golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0031, 0033).
The modified Boyd does not teach the thin face region is radially symmetric.
Willett (Figures 1-7) teaches the thin face region (Fig. 2A-2C, Part No. 48) is radially symmetric (Para. 0037, 0049).
It is noted that the thin face region of Willet can be a small portion in a center of part number 48 so that the small portion is “radially symmetric” as claimed. Alternatively, the claim recitation of “the thin face region is radially symmetric” is directed to the shape of the thin face region (i.e. the second thickness). Changing the chape of the thin face region would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of mere design choice (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Boyd with a thin face region as taught by Willet as a means of improving the stiffness-to-mass ratio of the faceplate face without compromising the performance of the golf club (Willett: Para. 0049).
Regarding claim 39, the modified Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches a golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0031, 0033).
The modified Boyd does not teach the first thickness ranges between 1.5 mm and 4 mm.
Willett (Figures 1-7) teaches the first thickness ranges between 1.5 mm and 4 mm (See fig. 2B) (Para. 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Boyd with the first thickness ranges between 1.5 mm and 4 mm as taught by Willet as a means of improving the stiffness-to-mass ratio of the faceplate face without compromising the performance of the golf club (Willett: Para. 0049) , and also as a means of finding optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 40, the modified Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches a golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0031, 0033).
The modified Boyd does not teach the second thickness ranges between 1.0 mm and 4 mm.
Willett (Figures 1-7) teaches the second thickness ranges between 1.0 mm and 4 mm (See fig. 2B) (Para. 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Boyd with the second thickness ranges between 1.0 mm and 4 mm as taught by Willet as a means of improving the stiffness-to-mass ratio of the faceplate face without compromising the performance of the golf club (Willett: Para. 0049), and also as a means of finding optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 41, the modified Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches a golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0031, 0033).
The modified Boyd does not teach the first thickness is no more than 3.0 mm, and at least a portion of the weight pad extends 4-20 mm vertically from the ground plane.
Willett (Figures 1-7) teaches the first thickness is no more than 3.0 mm (See fig. 2B) (Para. 0051).
Rice (Figure 22) teaches at least a portion of the weight pad (Fig. 22, Part No. 192) (Para. 0062) extends vertically from the ground plane (though a specific value of the amount the weight extends (i.e. the height of the weight or the height of the recess in which the weight is disposed) is not disclosed).
The claim recitation of “at least a portion of the weight pad extends 4-20 mm vertically from the ground plane” is directed to the height of the weight or the height of the recess in which the weight is disposed. Rice teaches at least a portion of the weight pad extends vertically from the ground plane (though a specific value of the amount the weight extends (i.e. the height of the weight or the height of the recess in which the weight is disposed) is not disclosed). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). Changing the height of the weight pad or the height of the recess in which the weight is disposed would have been obvious as a means of finding optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Boyd with the first thickness is no more than 3.0 mm as taught by Willet as a means of improving the stiffness-to-mass ratio of the faceplate face without compromising the performance of the golf club (Willett: Para. 0049), and also as a means of finding optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 42, the modified Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches the y-z plane passes through the origin (See fig. 1-4).
It is noted that the limitations of claim 42 are directed to an imaginary plane and an imaginary coordinate system relative to the golf club head face plate.
Regarding claim 43, the modified Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches a golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0031, 0033).
The modified Boyd does not teach the second thickness is less than a center face thickness measured at the CF.
Willett (Figures 1-7) teaches the second thickness is less than a center face thickness (Fig. 2B, Part No. T1) measured at the CF (Para. 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Boyd with the second thickness is less than a center face thickness as taught by Willet as a means of improving the stiffness-to-mass ratio of the faceplate face without compromising the performance of the golf club (Willett: Para. 0049), and also as a means of finding optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 44, the modified Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches a golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0031, 0033).
The modified Boyd does not teach at least a portion of the face located below the thin face region has a thickness no less than 1.0 mm and no more than 2.5 mm.
Willett (Figures 1-7) teaches at least a portion of the face located below the thin face region has a thickness no less than 1.0 mm and no more than 2.5 mm (Para. 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Boyd with at least a portion of the face located below the thin face region has a thickness no less than 1.0 mm and no more than 2.5 mm as taught by Willet as a means of improving the stiffness-to-mass ratio of the faceplate face without compromising the performance of the golf club (Willett: Para. 0049), and also as a means of finding optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 45, the modified Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches a golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0031, 0033).
The modified Boyd does not teach a weight port formed in the golf club head and a weight configured to be retained at least partially within the weight port.
Rice (Figure 22) teaches a weight port formed in the golf club head and a weight configured to be retained at least partially within the weight port (Para. 0062).
It is noted that Rice (Para. 0062) discloses: “thin weights 190, 192 are disposed within these recesses 163, 165, secured with screws (not shown), and concealed with covers 194, 196 that preferably are formed from the same material as the body patches 180, 18”. The claimed “weight port” is shown as a hole through plate 190, 192 and the claimed “weight” is the screws disclosed by the prior art of Rice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Boyd with a weight configured to be retained at least partially within the weight port as taught by Rice as a means of providing a sole of a golf club head with thin weights secured by screws to permit a golfer to adjust overall weighting of the golf club head (Rice: Para. 0062).
Regarding claim 46, the modified Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches a golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0031, 0033).
The modified Boyd does not teach the weight port is formed in the weight pad.
Rice (Figure 22) teaches the weight port is formed in the weight pad (Para. 0062).
It is noted that Rice (Para. 0062) discloses: “thin weights 190, 192 are disposed within these recesses 163, 165, secured with screws (not shown), and concealed with covers 194, 196 that preferably are formed from the same material as the body patches 180, 18”. The claimed “weight port” is shown as a hole through the “weight pad” shown by part number 190, 192 in figure 22 of the prior art of Rice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Boyd with the weight port is formed in the weight pad as taught by Rice as a means of providing a sole of a golf club head with thin weights secured by screws to permit a golfer to adjust overall weighting of the golf club head (Rice: Para. 0062).
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd in view of Rice, Funayama, Su, and Willett, further in view of De La Cruz (20090247316).
Regarding claim 48, the modified Boyd (Figures 1-4) teaches a golf club head body (See fig. 1-4) (Para. 0031, 0033).
The modified Boyd does not teach an adjustable head-shaft connection assembly that is operable to adjust at least one of a loft angle, a lie angle, and a face angle of a golf club formed when the golf club head is attached to a golf club shaft via the adjustable head-shaft connection assembly.
De La Cruz (Figures 15A-15D) teaches an adjustable head-shaft connection assembly that is operable to adjust at least one of a loft angle (Para. 0076), a lie angle (Para. 0076), and a face angle of a golf club formed when the golf club head is attached to a golf club shaft via the adjustable head-shaft connection assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Boyd with an adjustable head-shaft connection assembly that is operable to adjust a loft angle as taught by De La Cruz as a means of providing a golf club with a mechanism to change the loft and/or lie angle of the golf club (De La Cruz: Para. 0076).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-25, 27-34, and 49-51 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Applicant has filed a terminal disclaimer (See terminal disclaimer filed 04/28/2026) to overcome the double patenting rejection of claims 21-25 and 27-34 (and new claims 49-51). The prior art of record (Peralta (20110143858), Chao (20040099538), Yamamoto (20080161127), Matsunaga (20010012804), Churchward (4085934), Chao (20110009211), De La Cruz (20090247316)) does not teach the recitation in claim 21 of “the weight pad includes an overhang portion that extends forward from the weight pad toward the face such that the overhang portion of the weight pad overhangs an interior sole surface, wherein a lower surface of the overhang portion 2T0988/US/CONT/CBAttorney Reference Number 7180-92356-03Application Number 15/926,824and the interior sole surface are spaced apart by an offset distance and the offset distance is at least 0.2 mm” and the recitation in claim 49 of “the weight pad includes an overhang portion that extends forward from the weight pad toward the face; a weight port formed at least partially in the weight pad and having a weight configured to be retained at least partially within the weight port; wherein a forwardmost portion of the weight pad is offset from the face no more than 12.5 mm”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 (directed to claim 35-46 and 48) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim recitation of “the weight pad is offset from the face no more than 12.5 mm” is not a matter of finding optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (as noted by case law: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), this is not found persuasive because the claim recitation of “the weight pad is offset from the face no more than 12.5 mm” is directed to the distance the weight pad is offset from the face. Rice teaches the weight pad is offset from the face (see fig. 22) (though a specific distance values is not disclosed). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). Changing the distance of the weight pad from the face would have been obvious as a means of finding optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). Applicant has not claimed any criticality to the claimed offset distance and therefore applicant has not claimed (or argued) that the offset distance achieves an expected result.
It is noted that the claimed range (i.e. the recitation in claim 35 of “the weight pad is offset from the face no more than 12.5 mm”) must be shown to be critical. See: In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range). See: In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934)(the prior art, which taught about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical). See: In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions). See: In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 924 (CCPA 1933), where the court held that It is well established that, while a change in the proportions of a combination shown to be old, such as is here involved, may be inventive, such changes must be critical as compared with the proportions used in the prior processes, producing a difference in kind rather than degree.
Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 35 is based on hindsight reasoning, this is not found persuasive because it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER GLENN whose telephone number is (571)272-1277. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, EUGENE KIM can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights