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 and/or arguments submitted on 12/22/2025 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claims 1-20 are pending:
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to 35 USC 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112 rejections of record has been withdrawn.
In particular, the office notes that the “beverage containers” of Claim 15 is definite, as the instant recitation is part of a functional recitation and it is clear that Claim 15 does not require a plurality of beverage containers (or even a single actual beverage container) to be present in order to infringe on the scope of Claim 15 (or even a single actual beverage container to infringe on any of Claims 11-15).
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to 35 USC 103 art rejections by van de Velde (US 5,269,156), Kiser (US 7,614988), IM (US 2019/0003234), and Dettling (US 6,055,776) have been fully considered.
Applicant asserts, page 7-8, that the amendments to Claims 1/11/16 to more clearly define the intended working environment of the claimed support stands overcomes the rejection by van de Velde, as the arrangement of van de Velde has a different intended purpose which is “fundamentally different”.
The office respectfully disagrees. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The structure of van de Velde is capable of performing the claimed intended functions / working environment, even if van de Velde does not explicitly detail the capacity of being arranged in alignment with a spout as functionally claimed.
Applicant asserts, page 8-9, that the rejections of claim 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20 “lack proper motivation” due to having “different field … and address different problems”, and therefore combination is impermissible hindsight.
The office respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case:
Claim 12/13
As detailed in the prior office action, Kiser provides the teaching, suggestion, motivation to modify van de Velde to have a plurality of different positions and angles for the advantage of improved convenience and support security.
Claim 9/10/16/17/20
As detailed in the prior office action, IM provides the teaching, suggestion, motivation to modify van de Velde to have a system for automatically opening a door for the advantage of simplifying the structure, enhancing the ease of assembly and mitigating operational noise.
Claim 18/19 (not explicitly argued against by applicant, but included herein for the sake of completeness)
As detailed in the prior office action, Dettling provides the teaching, suggestion, motivation to modify van de Velde to have a powered lifting assembly, which provides the advantage of allowing an operator to manually override, which implicitly improves safety.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, 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).
The office notes that each combination only relied upon the teachings and reasonings provided in the references, as detailed above in the context of each dependent claim rejected base on a combination of references.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“adjustment mechanism” first recited in claim 9, 10, 16
Corresponding structure
Hinge driven by an electric motor
Or equivalents
“locking mechanism” first recited in claim 12
Corresponding structure
Series of notches formed in a base and an adjustment lever that engages the notches, as informed by original Claim 13
Or equivalents
“vertical adjustment mechanism” first recited in claim 18
Corresponding structure
Worm gear driven by an electric motor, as informed by original Claim 19
Or equivalents
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van de Velde (US 5,269,156).
Claim 1
van de Velde discloses:
“A support stand for positioning a beverage container beneath a spout of a single-serve beverage dispenser to receive brewed beverage from the dispenser, comprising:
a base (base 14,54) arrangeable on a support surface (best seen Fig1; C3L45-67);
a container support (door 18,58) extending from the base, wherein the container support includes a floor portion (heel cap 32) and at least one sidewall portion (sidewall portion of access door 18/58) together defining a support cradle (Fig1-11; C3-5);
wherein the support cradle is configured to receive and support the lower end of the beverage container (bottle 24) on the floor portion and wherein the support cradle is configured to receive and support a sidewall portion of the beverage container on the sidewall portion (Fig1-11; C3-5); and
wherein the support cradle supports the beverage container at a mostly vertical angle such that the beverage container is supported at an angle greater than 45 degrees and less than 90 degrees relative to the support surface (Fig1-11; C3-5), wherein an opening of the beverage container is positioned beneath and in alignment with the spout of the single-serve beverage dispenser to receive the brewed beverage dispensed from the spout into the beverage container (functional limitation. The arrangement of van de Velde capable of being arranged/placed as instantly claimed).”
The above noted limitations are considered functional language, and as the structure disclosed in the reference anticipates the claimed structure, the structure disclosed is capable of performing the recited function, see MPEP 2114.I,II. However, the functional language is disclosed as noted above.
To the extent that it may be argued that the Fig. 11 embodiment of van de Velde does not disclose all of the claimed subject matter the support cradle supports the beverage container at a mostly vertical angle such that the beverage container is supported at an angle greater than 45 degrees and less than 90 degrees relative to the support surface;
it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Fig. 11 embodiment by the Fig. 1 embodiment in order to allow the door to remain at a desired angle for displaying and holding the bottle.
Claim 2
van de Velde discloses: “The support stand of claim 1, wherein the support stand supports the beverage container at a mostly vertical angle which is fixed relative to the support surface (Fig1-11; C3-5).”
Claim 3
van de Velde discloses: “The support stand of claim 2, wherein the base and the container support are formed from one piece of material (Fig1-11; C3-5; Fig1 shows all of the components together as one piece and the recitation of “formed form one piece of material” is interpreted as a product-by-process recitation).”
The noted above recitation(s)/limitation(s) is/are considered a product-by-process claim, and as the determination of patentability is based on the product itself, the structure disclosed anticipates/renders obvious the claimed structure as the disclosed structure appears to be the same or similar to that claimed, see MPEP 2113.
Claim 4
van de Velde discloses: “The support stand of claim 1, wherein the support stand supports the beverage container at a mostly vertical angle which is adjustable relative to the support surface (Fig1-11; C3-5).”
Claim 5
van de Velde discloses: “The support stand of claim 4, wherein the container support is connected to the base via a hinge (Fig1-11; C3-5).”
Claim 6
van de Velde discloses: “The support stand of claim 5, wherein the support stand is adjustable to be supported at a plurality of angles within a range greater than 45 degrees and less than 90 degrees relative to the support surface (Fig1-11; C3-5).”
Claim 7
van de Velde discloses: “The support stand of claim 6, wherein the support stand is adjustable to a storage position wherein the sidewall portion of the container support is parallel to the base (Fig1-11; C3-5).”
Claim 8
van de Velde discloses: “The support stand of claim 1, wherein the beverage container has at least one convexly curved sidewall, and the at least one sidewall portion of the cradle is concave (Fig1-11; C3-5).”
Claim 11
van de Velde discloses:
“A support stand for positioning a beverage container to receive liquid dispensed from a dispenser, comprising:
a base (base 14,54) arrangeable on a support surface (best seen Fig1; C3L45-67);
a container (door 18,58) support extending from the base, wherein the container support includes a floor portion (heel cap 32) and at least one sidewall portion (sidewall portion of access door 18/58) together defining a support cradle (Fig1-11; C3-5);
wherein the support cradle is configured to receive and support the lower end of the beverage container (bottle 24) on the floor portion and wherein the support cradle is configured to receive and support a sidewall portion of the beverage container on the sidewall portion (Fig1-11; C3-5);
wherein the support cradle supports the beverage container at a mostly vertical angle such that the beverage container is supported at an angle greater than 45 degrees and less than 90 degrees relative to the support surface (Fig1-11; C3-5) with an opening of the beverage container oriented upward and positioned to receive liquid dispensed from the dispenser located above the support stand (functional limitation. The arrangement of van de Velde capable of being arranged/placed as instantly claimed); and
wherein the angle at which the beverage container is supported is adjustable to a plurality of positions greater than 45 degrees and less than 90 degrees relative to the support surface (Fig1-11; C3-5) to accommodate dispensers positioned at different heights above the support surface (functional limitation. The arrangement of van de Velde capable of being arranged/placed as instantly claimed).”
The above noted limitations are considered functional language, and as the structure disclosed in the reference anticipates the claimed structure, the structure disclosed is capable of performing the recited function, see MPEP 2114.I,II. However, the functional language is disclosed as noted above.
To the extent that it may be argued that the Fig. 11 embodiment of van de Velde does not disclose all of the claimed subject matter the support cradle supports the beverage container at a mostly vertical angle such that the beverage container is supported at an angle greater than 45 degrees and less than 90 degrees relative to the support surface;
it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Fig. 11 embodiment by the Fig. 1 embodiment in order to allow the door to remain at a desired angle for displaying and holding the bottle.
Claim 14
van de Velde discloses: “The support stand of claim 11, wherein the beverage container has a convexly curved sidewall, and the at least one sidewall portion of the cradle is concave (Fig1-11; C3-5).”
Claim 15
van de Velde discloses: “The support stand of claim 14, wherein the concave portion of the sidewall includes a series of concave sidewall sections that define various diameters such that the support stand supports convex beverage containers of various diameters (Fig1-11; C3-5).”
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van de Velde (US 5,269,156), in view of Kiser (US 7,614,988)
Claim 12
van de Velde discloses the arrangement of Claim 11 as applied above.
van de Velde does not explicitly disclose a locking mechanism as instantly claimed.
Kiser teaches: “…a locking mechanism (notched riser clip 40 and riser bar 42) which selectively holds the support stand in each of the plurality of positions (Fig3-4; C4L10-44).”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of van de Veld to provide a plurality of different positions and angles that can be supported securely and adjusted conveniently as taught by Kiser.
Claim 13
The modified arrangement of van de Velde by the teachings of Kiser discloses: “The support stand of claim 12, wherein the locking mechanism includes a series of notches (Kiser: notches of notched riser clip 40) formed in the base of the support stand and an adjustment lever (Kiser: riser bar 42) attached to the container support, wherein said adjustment lever serially engages said series of notches to serially hold the support stand in each position (Kiser: Fig3-4; C4L10-44).”
Claim(s) 9-10, 16-17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van de Velde (US 5,269,156), in view of IM (US 2019/0003234)
Claim 9
van de Velde discloses: “The support stand of claim 4 (see above), wherein the support stand includes an adjustment mechanism (connection of door 18/58 to housing 12/52) which … adjusts the mostly vertical angle at which the beverage container is supported relative to the support surface (Fig1-11; C3-5; Claim26)”
van de Velde does not explicitly disclose an adjustment mechanism which automatically adjusts the mostly vertical angle at which the beverage container is supported relative to the support surface.
IM teaches: “… wherein the support stand includes an adjustment mechanism (mechanism disclosed in Para69, including hinge arm 10 and motor 41) which automatically adjusts the mostly vertical angle at which the beverage container is supported relative to the support surface (Fig1-17; Para69-71,81-92).”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify van de Velde in order to provide a system for automatically opening a door as taught by IM, as IM teaches that such a modification provides the advantages of simplifying the structure, enhancing the ease of assembly, and a mitigating operational noise.
Claim 10
The modified arrangement of van de Velde by the teachings of IM, discloses: “The support stand of claim 9, wherein the adjustment mechanism automatically adjusts the beverage container to a plurality of angles greater than 45 degrees and less than 90 degrees relative to the support surface (IM: Fig1-17; Para69-71,81-92).”
Claim 16
van de Velde discloses:
“A support stand for positioning a beverage container to receive liquid dispensed from a dispenser, comprising:
a base (base 14,54) arrangeable on a support surface (best seen Fig1; C3L45-67);
a container support (door 15,58) extending from the base, wherein the container support includes a floor portion (heel cap 32) and at least one sidewall portion (sidewall portion of access door 15,58) together defining a support cradle (Fig1-11; C3-5);
wherein the support cradle is configured to receive and support the lower end of the beverage container (bottle 24) on the floor portion and wherein the support cradle is configured to receive and support a sidewall portion of the beverage container on the sidewall portion (Fig1-11; C3-5);
wherein the support cradle supports the beverage container at a mostly vertical angle such that the beverage container is supported at a position greater than 45 degrees and less than 90 degrees relative to the support surface (Fig1-11; C3-5); and
wherein the support stand includes an adjustment mechanism (connection of door 18/58 to housing 12/52) which … adjusts the beverage container to a plurality of positions greater than 45 degrees and less than 90 degrees relative to the support surface (Fig1-11; C3-5; Claim 26) to … align the opening of the beverage container with a spout of the dispenser positioned at a selected height above the support surface (functional limitation. The arrangement of van de Velde capable of being arranged/placed as instantly claimed).”
The above noted limitations are considered functional language, and as the structure disclosed in the reference anticipates the claimed structure, the structure disclosed is capable of performing the recited function, see MPEP 2114.I,II. However, the functional language is disclosed as noted above.
van de Velde does not explicitly disclose an adjustment mechanism which automatically adjusts the mostly vertical angle at which the beverage container is supported relative to the support surface.
IM teaches: “… wherein the support stand includes an adjustment mechanism (mechanism disclosed in Para69, including hinge arm 10 and motor 41) which automatically adjusts the mostly vertical angle at which the beverage container is supported relative to the support surface (Fig1-17; Para69-71,81-92).”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify van de Velde in order to provide a system for automatically opening a door as taught by IM, as IM teaches that such a modification provides the advantages of simplifying the structure, enhancing the ease of assembly, and a mitigating operational noise.
Claim 17
The modified arrangement of van de Velde by the teachings of IM, discloses: “The support stand of claim 16, wherein the adjustment mechanism comprises a hinge (IM: hinge arm 10. van de Velde: connection of door 18/58 to housing 12/52) driven by an electric motor (IM: motor 41) which automatically adjusts the beverage container to the plurality of positions greater than 45 degrees and less than 90 degrees relative to the support surface (functional limitation. IM: Fig1-17; Para69-71,81-92. van de Velde: Fig1-11; C3-5; Claim26).”
The above noted limitations are considered functional language, and as the structure disclosed in the reference anticipates the claimed structure, the structure disclosed is capable of performing the recited function, see MPEP 2114.I,II. However, the functional language is disclosed as noted above.
Claim 20
The modified arrangement of van de Velde by the teachings of IM, discloses: “The support stand of claim 16, wherein the base includes a plate (van de Velde: base 14/54) configured to attach the support stand to a beverage machine (functional limitation. van de Velde: Fig1-11; C3-5).”
The above noted limitations are considered functional language, and as the structure disclosed in the reference anticipates the claimed structure, the structure disclosed is capable of performing the recited function, see MPEP 2114.I,II. However, the functional language is disclosed as noted above.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van de Velde (US 5,269,156), in view of Dettling (US 6,055,776)
Claim 18
van de Velde discloses the arrangement of Claim 16 as applied above.
van de Velde does not explicitly disclose the vertical adjustment mechanism as instantly claimed.
Dettling teaches: “… a vertical adjustment mechanism (motor 36, worm gearset) which automatically adjusts the beverage container to a plurality of heights relative to the support surface (functional limitation. Fig1-2; C3-4).”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify van de Velde in order to provide a powered lifting assembly which is capable of being manually overridden by the operator as taught by Dettling.
Claim 19
The modified arrangement of van de Velde by the teachings of Dettling, discloses: “The support stand of claim 18, wherein the vertical adjustment mechanism comprises a worm gear (Dettling: worm gearset) driven by an electric motor (Dettling: motor 36) which moves the beverage container away from the support surface when rotating in a first direction and moves the beverage container towards the support surface when rotating in a second direction (functional limitation. Dettling: Fig1-2; C3-4).”
The above noted limitations are considered functional language, and as the structure disclosed in the reference anticipates the claimed structure, the structure disclosed is capable of performing the recited function, see MPEP 2114.I,II. However, the functional language is disclosed as noted above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
NPL_YT_Beer: Automatic tilting and pouring of beer into a glass that is cradled while being tilted
JP 2005-247360 from Shudo: Fig1-3 in particular, adjustable beverage dispenser
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 JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights