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 1/13/2026 with respect to the objection to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to Walter not disclosing the complete arrangement required by claims 1 and 12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant notes that Walter discloses an evaporator 11 is positioned at the bottom of the air guide housing 12, and fresh air flows first through the evaporator 11 where it is cooled, causing condensation that drips into a drip tray 14 with a drain 15. But it is not clear which arrangement of claims 1 and 12 that Walter fails to disclose.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to Walter not disclosing a hood that is a unitary part of the housing as recited by claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner notes that claim 1 does not recite a hood that is a unitary part of the housing. Instead claim 1 recites a housing having an inlet and a hood. Walters discloses these features. Examiner suggests amending the claim language to better distinguish the hood to housing attachment arrangement while being careful not to incorporate any new matter into any amended claims.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to Walter not disclosing a stand-alone, integrated consumer appliance design have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner notes that a stand-alone, integrated consumer appliance design is not limited in the claims.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to Walter not disclosing a wheeled frame with an articulating arm etc. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner notes that an obviousness analysis relates to features in the prior art that map onto the claim language sufficiently to draw a conclusion of obviousness. Random differences between the inventions is not considered in the analysis of an obviousness rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to paragraph [0403] of Walter teaching away from a removeable component have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner notes from [0403] that the duct 320 and the base 310 can be integral, which is unrelated as to removability. However, paragraph [0171] of Walter teaches modular installation and maintenance provided by extension and retraction of a support structure. In other words, the integrated assembly of 310 and 320 is extended to an operator for installation, and maintenance. It would appear equally simple to remove the unit in favor and install another. The integrated nature of 310 and 320 makes possible the modular removal or installation.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, “a evaporator” should recite “an evaporator”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim term(s) or limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the base unit in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter (DE2918980) in view of Kang (2025/0179720).
As for claim 1, Walter discloses a hair dryer comprising: a housing having an inlet (5, fig. 1) and a hood (3, fig. 1); a fan (2, fig. 1) carried by the housing to draw an ambient air into the housing (5, [0010]); a[n] evaporator coil carried by the housing adapted to cool the ambient air producing a drier air through condensation of moisture from the ambient air (11, fig. 1, [0012], examiner notes that the evaporator condenses moisture from the ambient air); a heating element carried by the housing adapted to heat the drier air (18, fig. 1, [0015], note 18 erroneously identified as “8” in this paragraph, which is actually the item number for the condenser); a cartridge removably carried by the housing wherein the cartridge includes the fan, evaporator coil, heating element and any combination thereof; and an outlet included in the housing adapted to direct heated air to the hood (21, 3, fig. 1).
Walter discloses the claimed invention except for a cartridge removably carried by the housing wherein the cartridge includes the fan, evaporator coil, heating element and any combination thereof. Kang teaches a cartridge removably carried by the housing ([0171], base 310 of fig. 4 similar to base 70 of fig. 2) wherein the cartridge includes the fan (64, fig. 2), evaporator coil (61, fig. 2, [0015], evaporator), heating element and any combination thereof (61, fig. 2, [0015], condenser) in order to facilitate easier maintenance of the mechanical equipment. Walter would benefit equally from facilitating easier maintenance of the mechanical equipment. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Walter with a cartridge removably carried by the housing wherein the cartridge includes the fan, evaporator coil, heating element and any combination thereof as taught by Kang in order to facilitate easier maintenance of the mechanical equipment. Examiner notes that although Kang’s cartridge is used for treating garments instead of hair it does solve the same problem of facilitating the installation and removal of the mechanical components of a heat pump system.
As for claim 4, Walter discloses the evaporator coil operatively associated with a condenser coil to produce drier air through condensation of moisture from the ambient air (8, 11, fig, 1).
As for claim 5, Walter discloses a basin carried by the housing to collect moisture removed from ambient air (14, fig. 1)
As for claim 7, Walter discloses the claimed invention except for a catch basin removably carried by the cartridge. Kang teaches a catch basin removably carried by the cartridge (326, fig. 9. [0223]) in order to simplify construction and assembly of the unit. Walter would benefit equally from . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Walter with a catch basin removably carried by the cartridge as taught by Kang in order to a catch basin removably carried by the cartridge.
As for claim 9, Walter discloses a liquid outlet in fluid communications with the evaporator coil adapted to direct liquid to a drain (15, fig. 1p).
As for claim 12, Walter discloses a housing having an inlet (5, fig. 1) and a hood (3, fig. 1); a fan carried by the housing to draw ambient air into the housing (2, fig. 1); a dehumidifier carried by the housing adapted to produce drier air from the ambient air through condensation of moisture from the ambient air (11, fig. 1. [0005], examiner notes the term evaporator is used for a condensing unit of a heat pump system, whereas the term condenser is used for a condensing unit of a refrigeration cycle); a heating element carried by the housing adapted to heat the drier air to produce heated air (18, fig. 1, [0015], improperly identified as 8 in the paragraph which is actually the evaporator); an outlet included in the housing adapted to direct heated air to the hood (21, fig. 1).
Walter discloses the claimed invention except for a cartridge removably carried by the housing wherein the cartridge includes the fan, condenser coil, heating element and any combination thereof. Kang teaches a cartridge removably carried by the housing ([0171], base 310 of fig. 4 similar to base 70 of fig. 2) wherein the cartridge includes the fan (64, fig. 2), condenser coil (61, fig. 2, [0015], evaporator), heating element and any combination thereof (61, fig. 2, [0015], condenser) in order to facilitate easier maintenance of the mechanical equipment. Walter would benefit equally from facilitating easier maintenance of the mechanical equipment. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Walter with a cartridge removably carried by the housing wherein the cartridge includes the fan, condenser coil, heating element and any combination thereof as taught by Kang in order to facilitate easier maintenance of the mechanical equipment. Examiner notes that although Kang’s cartridge is used for treating garments instead of hair it does solve the same problem of facilitating the installation and removal of the mechanical components of a heat pump system.
As for claim 21 Walter discloses the claimed invention except for the cartridge includes the condenser coil. Kang teaches the cartridge includes the condenser coil (61, fig. 2, [0015], condenser includes a condensing coil) in order to facilitate easier maintenance of the mechanical equipment. Walter would benefit equally from facilitating easier maintenance of the mechanical equipment. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Walter with the cartridge includes the condenser coil as taught by Kang in order to facilitate easier maintenance of the mechanical equipment.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter in view of Kang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grunert (US 8,789,290)
As for claim 2, Walter discloses the claimed invention except for a container received in the housing and adapted to collect the moisture generated from the evaporator coil. Grunert teaches a container received in the housing and adapted to collect the moisture generated from the condenser coil (19, 5:63-6:3) in order to provide a convenient tank that a user can dump at their leisure. Walter would benefit equally from providing a convenient tank that a user can dump at their leisure. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Walter with a container received in the housing and adapted to collect the moisture generated from the condenser coil as taught by Grunert in order to provide a convenient tank that a user can dump at their leisure.
Claim 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of KR20180002423U, hereinafter “’423”.
As for claim 3, Walter discloses the claimed invention except for a filter carried by the housing adapted to remove particulates from the ambient air prior to the evaporator coil. “423” teaches a filter carried by the housing adapted to remove particulates from the ambient air prior to the condenser coil (38, 37, fig. 2) in order to remove contaminants before they can deposit on and clog the dehumidifying coils. Walter would benefit equally from removing contaminants before they can deposit on and clog the dehumidifying coils. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Walter with a filter carried by the housing adapted to remove particulates from the ambient air prior to the condenser coil as taught by “423” in order to remove contaminants before they can deposit on and clog the dehumidifying coils.
As for claim 13, Walter discloses the claimed invention except for a filter in an airflow path that include the dehumidifier and the heating element. “423” teaches a filter (38) in an airflow path that include the dehumidifier (37) and the heating element (35) in order to remove contaminants before they can deposit on and clog the dehumidifying coils. Walter would benefit equally from removing contaminants before they can deposit on and clog the dehumidifying coils. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Walter with a filter in an airflow path that include the dehumidifier and the heating element as taught by “423” in order to remove contaminants before they can deposit on and clog the dehumidifying coils.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Phipps (US 2,392,405).
Walter discloses the claimed invention except for the hood is a first hood, the outlet is a first outlet and a second outlet is included in the housing for directing heated air to a second hood carried by the housing. Phipps teaches the hood is a first hood, the outlet is a first outlet and a second outlet is included in the housing for directing heated air to a second hood carried by the housing (35, 35, fig. 4, upstream of vanes 35 in air supply line to the various hoods) in order to service more individuals at the same time. Walter would benefit equally from servicing more individuals at the same time. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Walter with the hood is a first hood, the outlet is a first outlet and a second outlet is included in the housing for directing heated air to a second hood carried by the housing as taught by Phipps in order to service more individuals at the same time.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR20180002423U, hereinafter “’423”.
Walter discloses a second fan is positioned horizontally relative to the base of the unit (2, fig. 1). Walter discloses the claimed invention except for the fan is a first fan and the first fan is positioned vertically relative to a base unit. “423” teaches the fan is a first fan and the first fan is positioned vertically relative to a base unit (25, fig. 5) in order to increase the draw air into the housing. Walter would benefit equally from increasing the draw air into the housing. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Walter with the fan is a first fan and the first fan is positioned vertically relative to a base unit as taught by “423” in order to increase the draw air into the housing.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang (US 2020/0390218).
As for claim 11, Walter discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the hood includes a front opening for improving access to the hood by a user. Chang teaches wherein the hood includes a front opening for improving access to the hood by a user (51, fig. 6, [0051]) in order to limit the hood to the portions of a head that include hair which requires treatment for increased user visibility and ease of use. Walter would benefit equally from limiting the hood to the portions of a head that include hair which requires treatment for increased user visibility and ease of use. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Walter with wherein the hood includes a front opening for improving access to the hood by a user as taught by Chang in order to limit the hood to the portions of a head that include hair which requires treatment for increased user visibility and ease of use.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of DeMuro (US 3.972,126).
Walter discloses the claimed invention except for a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature of air expelled from the hood where the temperature sensor is configured to place the hair dryer in a safe mode if a temperature of an expelled air expelled from the hood exceeds a predetermined temperature. DeMuro teaches a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature of air expelled from the hood where the temperature sensor is configured to place the hair dryer in a safe mode if a temperature of an expelled air expelled from the hood exceeds a predetermined temperature (2:49-52) in order to protect a user from overheated air. Walter would benefit equally from protecting a user from overheated air. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Walter with a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature of air expelled from the hood where the temperature sensor is configured to place the hair dryer in a safe mode if a temperature of an expelled air expelled from the hood exceeds a predetermined temperature as taught by DeMuro in order to protect a user from overheated air.
Claims 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter in view of Kang.
As for claim 16, Walter discloses a hood (3); a fan (2) to draw ambient air into the housing (5); a dehumidifier (11) adapted to produce drier air from the ambient air through condensation of moisture from the ambient air [0019]; a heating element adapted to heat the drier air to produce heated air directed to the hood (8, [0019]). Walter discloses the claimed invention except for a cartridge removable received in the housing; a fan carried by the cartridge; a dehumidifier carried by the cartridge; and a heating element carried by the cartridge. Kang teaches a cartridge removable received in the housing ([0171], base 310 of fig. 4 similar to base 70 of fig. 2); a fan carried by the cartridge (64, fig. 2); a dehumidifier carried by the cartridge (61, fig. 2, [0015], evaporator); and a heating element carried by the cartridge (61, fig. 2, [0015], condenser) in order to easily install and maintain the mechanical equipment. Walter would benefit equally from easily installing and maintaining the mechanical equipment. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Walter with a cartridge removable received in the housing; a fan carried by the cartridge; a dehumidifier carried by the cartridge; and a heating element carried by the cartridge as taught by Kang in order to easily install and maintain the mechanical equipment. Examiner notes that although Kang’s cartridge is used for treating garments instead of hair it does solve the same problem of facilitating the installation and removal of the mechanical components of a heat pump system.
As for claim 17, Walter discloses the claimed invention except for a basin removable carried by the cartridge adapted to be removed from the cartridge when the cartridge is disposed in the housing. Kang teaches a basin removable carried by the cartridge adapted to be removed from the cartridge when the cartridge is disposed in the housing (326, fig. 9. [0223]) in order to simplify construction and assembly of the unit. Walter would benefit equally from simplifying construction and assembly of the unit. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Walter with a basin removable carried by the cartridge adapted to be removed from the cartridge when the cartridge is disposed in the housing as taught by Kang in order to simplify construction and assembly of the unit.
As for claim 19, Walter discloses the claimed invention except for a controller in communication with the fan, dehumidifier and heating element and adapted to actuate the fan, dehumidifier, and heating element. Kang teaches a controller in communication with the fan, dehumidifier and heating element and adapted to actuate the fan, dehumidifier, and heating element (62, fig. 2, [0017]) in order to automate dryer functions for increased process control. Walter would benefit equally from automating dryer functions for increased process control. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Walter with a controller in communication with the fan, dehumidifier and heating element and adapted to actuate the fan, dehumidifier, and heating element as taught by Kang in order to automate dryer functions for increased process control.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter in view of Kang as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of DeMuro.
Walter discloses the claimed invention except for a sensor taken from the group consisting of a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a particulate sensor and any combination thereof. DeMuro teaches a sensor taken from the group consisting of a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a particulate sensor and any combination thereof (2:49-52) in order to protect a user from overheated air. Walter would benefit equally from protecting a user from overheated air. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Walter with a sensor taken from the group consisting of a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a particulate sensor and any combination thereof as taught by Kang in order to protect a user from overheated air.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter in view of Kang as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Hawes (US 2013/0091724).
The combination of Walter and Kang discloses or teaches the controller adapted to actuate the fan, dehumidifier and heating element (62, fig. 2, [0017]) in order to automate dryer functions for increased process control and the claimed invention except for a remote computer device in communications with the controller. Hawes teaches a remote computer device in communications with the controller [0035] in order to increase user convenience and control. The combination of Walter and Kang would benefit equally from increasing user convenience and control. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Walter and Kang with a remote computer device in communications with the controller as taught by Hawes in order to increase user convenience and control.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN PATRICK MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7472. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 1:30 PST.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 571-270-5614. 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 P MCCORMACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights