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 filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 8 and 19 were previously objected to on 11/24/2025. Applicant has omitted intermediate claims and removed substantial subject matter from the independent claims, while incorporating these objected claims into the independents. As such, the claims including the subject matter of claims 8 and 19 are now rejected.
Regarding 112b rejections:
Regarding claims 1 and 13, applicant asserts “there is no rejection”. This is false; the rejection states the claim language requires an assumption, states the interpretation assumed by examiner, and asks if this interpretation is correct. This is proper for a 112b rejection. Applicant asserts the listed assumption is incorrect, but does not clarify. Applicant asserts the claim language requires the “projection of the first protrusion…is located in the first rotation shaft part”, which does not assist in understanding. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive or assist understanding. Examiner clarifies the 112b rejection below. Drawing objection is included.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, applicant asserts these claims “properly further define and limit the rotation mechanism of claims 1 and 13” by requiring two “rotation components” of previously existing structure in claims 1 and 13. Therefore, if the rotation mechanism and the rotation components are defined by the same structures, the indefiniteness lies in the difference in scope is between the terms “rotation mechanism” and “rotation components”. Applicant does not assist in understanding. Rejection maintained below.
Regarding 103 rejections, applicant asserts:
-the exterior shape of Lee’s hinge housing 450; the “outer casing” shape is not claimed by applicant. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
- Lee’s sliding part 411 does not sit “in an open top groove” because of the presence of auxiliary piece 430, which is identical in claimed structure to applicant’s auxiliary piece 16 in figure 22 and claim 9. The presence or lack of auxiliary piece 430 of Lee does not affect the form, function, or use of the swing arm of Lee in the groove of Lee, and meets applicant’s claim 9 structure. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
-Lee’s screw 470 “does not reside in opening 411a”. This is incorrect, see figures 4a and 4b, whether or not the screw 470 is in boss 451 or in a hole 451a without boss 451, the screw 470 goes through the slot opening 411a. Applicant does not include claim language excluding boss 451. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
-Lee’s boss 451 is the stopping member, not screw 470. Examiner contends that the screw 470 is within the boss 451, and therefore, would act as the stopping member even if the boss 451 was not present. Applicant does not include claim language excluding boss 451. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
-Cheng discloses “fundamentally different hinge architecture and cannot be combined”. Examiner notes that Cheng utilizes a fixed base with grooves for two swing arms on opposite sides, with limiting members (screws inside holes 2575 and 2553, figure 5), and includes the support plates required by the claim language and by Lee. Cheng’s only purpose in modification is changing the shape of the existing support plates of Lee to be in the shape used by a similar hinge as taught by Cheng. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
-Cheng’s plates 60 are “not attached to swing parts of swing arms, they are flat plates between the frame bodies and the flexible screen”. Examiner notes that this is an identical location and purpose as the disclosure as well as Lee. They are “fixedly connected” to the swing arms in that they are not separable once assembled; applicant does not claim they must be directly connected or any particular manner of attachment to swing arms. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
-Lee does not have “arc shaped grooves and no corresponding geometry” and therefore cannot arrange the protrusions/projections/openings of the edges of the support plates of Lee in the manner disclosed by Cheng. Examiner notes that Lee discloses the structure of the hinge mechanism as claimed, and the presence of the support plates must be present as taught in Lee, however Lee does not disclose any details regarding the plates’ shapes in figure 7. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to a similar hinge with similar plates to determine how to shape the plates. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
-Motivation to combine is insufficient because the shapes of the support plates have a purpose. Examiner notes that the purpose of the support plates of the disclosure are identical to that in Lee and Cheng. Since the support plates of Lee do not disclose any particular structure of the plates other than where they are located and that they are planar, one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously choose the shape of the plates from a similar hinge of Cheng. The shape has a known function in Cheng and the choice of the shape is up to the designer of the hinge.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “projection of the first protrusion 21 on the first swing arm 12” and “projection of the second protrusion 31 of the second swing arm 13” of claims 1 and 11 (please see 112b below), “groove side wall” of claim 23, the “drive member” of claim 24, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, applicant claims “projections” of both the protrusions and the notches, the protrusions and notches are located “on the swing arms”. The record is not clear about this structure.
1-Applicant claims “a projection of the… protrusion on the … swing arm is located in the … rotation shaft part” twice. A: Examiner notes that neither “swing arm” 12 or 13 has a “protrusion” 21 or 31 or “projection”. Applicant has disclosed the protrusions 21 and 31 are on the “support plates” 20 and 30, shown in figures 13 and 14. B: There is no extra “projection” on the protrusions 21 or 31 as shown in figures 13 and 14. C: the protrusions 21 and 31 do not go “in” the rotation shaft parts 121/131, nor are the projections aligned with the rotation shaft parts 121/131; the notches 32 are aligned with the rotation shaft parts 121/131, as shown in figure 18. Therefore, not only is “projection” indefinite, the location of the protrusions is indefinite. Therefore, this phrase does not make sense according to the disclosure. If applicant intends the definite phrase “first protrusion of the first support plate is adjacent to the first rotation shaft part” as shown in figure 18, this is not what applicant claims. The record is not clear what applicant intends to claim.
2-Applicant claims “a projection of the opening of the …notch on the … swing arm is located in the … rotation shaft part” twice. A: Examiner notes that neither “swing arm” 12 or 13 has a “notch” or “projection”. Applicant has disclosed the notches 22/32 are on the “support plates” 20 and 30, shown in figures 13 and 14. B: There is no extra “projection” on the notches 22/32 as shown in figures 13 and 14. C: the notches 22/32 do not go “in” the rotation shaft parts 121/131, the notches are aligned with the rotation shaft parts 121/131, as shown in figure 18. Therefore, not only is “projection” indefinite, the location of the notches is indefinite. Therefore, this phrase does not make sense according to the disclosure. If applicant intends the definite phrase “first notch of the first support plate is aligned with the first rotation shaft part” as shown in figure 18, this is not what applicant claims. The record is not clear what applicant intends to claim.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, both require “two rotation components”. Examiner notes that applicant does not previously claim or define “two rotation components”. Examiner notes that [0051] states that the rotation mechanism includes two rotation components 10, as understood, is best shown in figure 7. The device 10, shown twice is in figure 7, is NOT claimed in claim 1, since claim 1 requires the first support plate and the second support plate. Applicant does not define a “rotation component” at all in claim 1, and does not discern how to make two of them in claims 10 and 20. Applicant’s choice of defining a “rotation mechanism” in claim 1 rather than a “rotation component”, confuses the scope of claims 10 and 20. The rotation mechanism and the rotation components are defined by the same structures, the indefiniteness lies in the difference in scope is between the terms “rotation mechanism” and “rotation components”.
Regarding claim 23, applicant claims “groove side wall” but does not indicate this side wall in any figure.
Dependent claims inherit the same issues from parent claims and do not resolve any indefinite issues.
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) 1-2, 4-7, 9-13, 15-18, 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2020/0329574 Lee in view of 2021/0318723 Cheng.
Examiner notes that claim 1 is broader than claim 11. Claim 1 claims the mechanism, while claim 11 claims a foldable terminal having the mechanism of claim 1 with two housings. Examiner will consider claims 11 and 1 together, since by meeting claim 11, examiner has met claim 1. All subsequent similar claims will be treated together in a similar manner.
PNG
media_image1.png
690
575
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
323
683
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Lee discloses a foldable terminal (figure 2), comprising:
a rotation mechanism (figure 5a, detailed in figure 4a), comprising:
a fixed base 550 provided with a first sliding groove 450b and a second sliding groove (shown in alternating fashion in figure 5a);
a first swing arm (511, 513, 531, 533 in figure 5a, detailed in figure 4a as part 410) comprising a first rotation shaft part 411, wherein the first rotation shaft part 411 is installed in the first sliding groove 450b and is configured to rotate relative to the fixed base (figures 5a-5c), wherein the first rotation shaft part 411 is provided with a first sliding hole 411a, and the first sliding hole 411a runs through the first rotation shaft part 411 in a thickness direction of the first rotation shaft part (is a through hole);
a second swing arm (other of 511, 513, 531, 533 in figure 5a, detailed in figure 4a as part 410) comprising a second rotation shaft part 411, wherein the second rotation shaft part 411 is installed in the second sliding groove (as shown in figure 5a) and is configured to rotate relative to the fixed base (figures 5a-5c), wherein the second rotation shaft part 411 is provided with a second sliding hole 411a, and the second sliding hole runs through the second rotation shaft part 411 in a thickness direction of the second rotation shaft part (is a through hole), and wherein rotation directions of the first rotation shaft part and the second rotation shaft part rotate are opposite relative to the fixed base (as shown in figure 5a);
a first limiting member 470 disposed in the first sliding hole 411a and fixedly connected to the fixed base 450 (integral, shown in figure 4a), wherein when the first rotation shaft part 411 rotates relative to the fixed base 450, the first limiting member 470 slides along the first sliding hole 411a relative to the first rotation shaft part 411; and
PNG
media_image3.png
325
578
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a second limiting member 470 (identical for the other three arms in figure 5a) disposed in the second sliding hole 411a and fixedly connected to the fixed base 450 (integral, shown in figure 4a), wherein when the second rotation shaft part 411 rotates relative to the fixed base 450, the second limiting member 470 slides along the second sliding hole 411a relative to the second rotation shaft part 411;
a first support plate 731 fixedly connected to the first swing part; and a second support plate 733 is fixedly connected to the second swing part (figure 7);
wherein when the rotation mechanism is in a flattened state (figure 7), the edges of the support plates 731 and 733 are engaged (figure 7);
a first housing 211 (figure 2) fixedly connected to the first swing arm; and a second housing 213 fixedly connected to the second swing arm (on opposite sides, figure 2).
Lee does not disclose the shape of the support plates 731/733, but it is shaped in a manner that can attach the plates to the rotation mechanism.
PNG
media_image4.png
402
592
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Cheng discloses a similar hinge for an electronic device with a flexible screen 30, two support plates 60 (best shown in figure 7), and a hinge 25 (figure 3) having a fixed base 251, a swing arm 253, a second swing arm 253 that folds the electronic device in the identical manner to applicant’s figure 20, and Lee figure 6. Cheng discloses each support plate 60 (figure 7) comprises a first protrusion and first notch 64 connected to a surface of the support plate facing the opposite support plate 60 (figure 7), the opening of the notches are located on the surface of the support plates facing the opposite support plate (figure 7), wherein when the rotation mechanism is in a flattened state (as shown in figure 7), the protrusions of one plate engages the notches of the opposite plate (as shown in figure 7).
Regarding the “projection of the protrusions” and the “projection of the notches” as claimed, please see 112b above. Applicant does not disclose an extra “projection” of either protrusions 31 or 21 in any figure or description of what this “projection” is with a different scope than “protrusion”. Further, the protrusions 31 and 21 are not “on [either] swing arm”. Therefore, examiner contends that Cheng discloses the “projection of the protrusions on the swing arm is located in the second rotation shaft part” as claimed. Applicant does not disclose a “projection” of either notch 22 or 32 in any figure or description of what this “projection” is. Further, the notches 22 and 32 are not “on [either] swing arm”. Therefore, examiner contends that Cheng discloses the “projection of the notches on the swing arms is located in the rotation shaft part” as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the shape of the existing support plates of Lee to be shaped in order to attach to the hinge of Lee in an appropriate manner, such as the old and well known shape in a similar hinge as taught by Cheng. Since Lee does not disclose the shape of the support plates, any known shape that is appropriate to attach the existing support plates to the existing hinge, does not alter the form, function, or use, of the hinge of Lee. A change of shape is considered a matter of choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (b). Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114. Examiner notes the phrases in italics above, and throughout the action, are considered intended use. Examiner contends that the structure capable of performing the intended use is met in the prior art, and is described how the structure disclosed performs the claimed functions in the parentheses; therefore, all italicized language is considered and shown in the prior art. Further, examiner notes that the disclosed structure is capable of performing the intended use claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 12, Lee as modified discloses the foldable terminal of claim 11, further comprising a display screen 250, comprising: a first display part; a second display part; and a foldable part, the foldable part is connected between the first display part and the second display part, wherein the first display part is installed in the first housing, the second display part is installed in the second housing, and the foldable part is disposed opposite to the rotation mechanism (as shown in figure 2, shown above).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Lee as modified discloses the foldable terminal of claims 1 and 11, wherein the first swing arm (all swing arms are identical) further comprises a first swing part 413 fixedly connected to the first rotation shaft part 411, the first swing part 413 projects relative to the first sliding groove 450b, and a top surface of the first limiting member 470 is located between a top surface of the first swing part 413 and a top surface of the first rotation shaft part 411, and wherein the second swing arm 410 further comprises a second swing part 413 fixedly connected to the second rotation shaft part 411, the second swing part projects relative to the second sliding groove (as shown in figure 4a), and a top surface of the second limiting member 470 is located between a top surface of the second swing part and a top surface of the second rotation shaft part 411.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Lee as modified discloses the foldable terminal of claims 1 and 11, wherein when the rotation mechanism is in a flattened state (figure 7), a top surface of the first support plate 731 and a top surface of the second support plate 733 form a support surface (planar surface, figure 7).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Lee as modified discloses the foldable terminal of claims 1 and 11, wherein when the rotation mechanism is in a folded state (figure 6), the first support plate, the second support plate, and the fixed base are surrounded to form an avoidance space (601 with distance d between the folded arms/plates, figure 6).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Lee as modified discloses the foldable terminal of claims 1 and 11, wherein the rotation mechanism comprising two rotation components (support plates 731 and 733), which are not shown with any particular structure.
Cheng discloses a first avoidance hole 62 in the support plates 60, the hole 62 is fully through the thickness of the support plates 60 so as to avoid the limiting members.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use “avoidance holes” on the plates of the hinge of Lee in order to attach the plates of Lee to the pivoting swing arms of Lee in a well-known manner taught by similar hinge Cheng.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Lee as modified discloses the foldable terminal of claims 1 and 11, wherein when the rotation mechanism is in a flattened state (figures 2, 5a, 7), the first rotation shaft part and the second rotation shaft part are arranged in an X- axis direction (based on the orientation of the directional ordinance in figures 4 and 5, the Lee rotation shafts are arranged in the same orientation).
Regarding claim 9, Lee as modified discloses the foldable terminal of claim 1, further comprising a first auxiliary member 430 located on a side of the first rotation shaft part 411 that faces away from a groove bottom wall of the first sliding groove 450b, wherein the first auxiliary member 430 is fixedly connected to the fixed base 450 (by connector 470), a first limiting hole 431 connected to the first sliding groove 450b is disposed in the first auxiliary member 430, and the first limiting member 470 is further disposed in the first limiting hole 431 (with pin 470); and
a second auxiliary member located on a side of the second rotation shaft part that faces away from a groove bottom wall of the second sliding groove, wherein the second auxiliary member is fixedly connected to the fixed base, the second auxiliary member is provided with a second limiting hole connected to the second sliding groove is disposed in the second auxiliary member, and the second limiting member is further disposed in the second limiting hole (all arms of the hinge have the same structure).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Lee as modified discloses the foldable terminal of claims 1 and 11, please see 112b above. Examiner assumes that applicant is claiming two rotation mechanisms “arranged at intervals in a y-axis direction” on the foldable terminal, which is not claimed in claim 1. Lee discloses the use of a foldable terminal with two pairs of swing arms and bases, see figure 2.
Regarding claim 21, Lee as modified discloses the rotation mechanism of claim 1, wherein the first limiting member 470 comprises a first fixing part (lower exterior cylindrical surface), a first sliding part (cylinder), and a first limiting member part (head) connected in sequence (as shown in figure 4a), wherein the first fixing part (lower exterior cylindrical surface) is fixedly connected to a hole wall of a first fixing hole 451a disposed in a groove bottom wall (in boss 451 as well as the bottom wall 450b) of the first sliding groove 450b so as to fixedly connect the first limiting member to the fixed base (as shown in figures 8 and 9), wherein the first sliding part (cylinder of 470) is located in the first sliding hole 411a (and within boss 451), and wherein a bottom surface of the first limiting member part (head) is clamped (clamp is a function, the head of 470 does “clamp” rotation shaft part into the groove) on a top surface of the first rotation shaft part (in a manner as discussed in applicant’s claim 9) so as to limit the first rotation shaft part in a Z-axis direction (so that the swing arm does not disconnect from the groove), and
wherein the second limiting member is identical to the first limiting member.
Regarding claim 22, Lee as modified discloses the rotation mechanism of claim 1, wherein the first sliding groove 450b and the second sliding groove 450b are circular arc grooves (as shown in figures 6 and 7), wherein the first rotation shaft part 411 is an arc-shaped plate (figures 4a and 4b) adapted to the first sliding groove such that an arc radius of a bottom surface of the first rotation shaft part is the same as an arc radius of the first sliding groove (as shown in figure 4b), and wherein the second rotation shaft part 411 is an arc-shaped plate adapted to the second sliding groove such that an arc radius of a bottom surface of the second rotation shaft part is the same as an arc radius of the second sliding groove (in an identical manner to the first rotation shaft part 411).
PNG
media_image5.png
430
358
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Lee as modified discloses the rotation mechanism of claim 1, wherein the fixed base 450 is further provided with an avoidance groove (as annotated in figure 4a), wherein an opening of the avoidance groove is located on a top surface of the fixed base 450 (as shown in figure 4a), wherein the avoidance groove (as annotated) is recessed from the top surface of the fixed base toward a bottom surface of the fixed base (as shown in figure 4a) and runs through a groove side wall (unknown part, see 112b rejection above and drawing objection, examiner contends Lee discloses this groove side wall) of the first sliding groove and a groove side wall of the second sliding groove (in an identical location as taught by applicant), and wherein the avoidance groove (as annotated) further runs through a front side and a rear side of the fixed base so as to accommodate a bent portion of a foldable display screen when the rotation mechanism is in a folded state (in the same manner disclosed by applicant).
Regarding claim 24, Lee as modified discloses the rotation mechanism of claim 1, further comprising a drive member 859 (figure 9 of Lee) connected between the first swing arm and the second swing arm (as shown in figure 9), wherein the drive member is configured such that when the first swing arm rotates relative to the fixed base, the drive member causes the second swing arm to rotate relative to the fixed base [0134], and when the second swing arm rotates relative to the fixed base, the drive member causes the first swing arm to rotate relative to the fixed base, so as to implement synchronous rotation between the first swing arm and the second swing arm relative to the fixed base (as disclosed in [0134].
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to request interviews after non-final rejection, rather than after final rejection. Examiner notes that interviews after final rejection “may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration” MPEP 713.09.
Examiner attempted to contact attorney on 2 September 2026, in order to describe the indefiniteness issues regarding the notches, protrusions, and projections. Applicant did not pick up, or respond the next business day.
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 EMILY M MORGAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8-5 MST.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571)272-6531. 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.
/EMILY M MORGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights