Final 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 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. However, in light of the amended claim language, a new grounds of rejection is being presented under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable in view of Worth as part of US 20170350091 A1, hereinafter referred to as Worth.
In the interest of compact prosecution, examiner wishes to respond to specific arguments made by applicant.
Applicant argues that the rock guard 44 of Worth does not comprise a hinge assembly including a pair of hinge plates connected to the rock guard 44 at the top end of the bucket 30. Applicant acknowledges mounting elements 32 and 34, and argues they are not connected to rock guard 44.
Examiner likewise thanks applicant for their time and attention during the interview conducted on 12/22/2025, where potential amendments were discussed and the specific details of Worth were considered in light of proposed amended language.
Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. While mounting elements 32 and 34 do not directly couple to the rock guard 44, such a direct coupling is not required by the language of the claim. “…a base plate at the top end of the bucket…a hinge assembly including a pair of hinge plates that are connected to the base plate at the top end of the bucket” is open to reasonable interpretation that this connection can be secondary, such as through the shared element of shell 50, and similarly there is a reasonable interpretation of elements to consider “a base plate at the top end of the bucket” the described element, rather than interpreting the required connection to be at the top end of the bucket.
Applicant further posits that Worth does not disclose “wherein the first flat portion includes a first length extending between the first curved portion and the second curved portion, wherein the second flat portion includes a second length extending between the lip plate and the first curved portion, the second length being less than the first length”. Applicant points to Fig. 6 of Worth, which demonstrates a longer length 106 of floor section 58 compared to length 108 of middle segment 90, which are equated by examiner in the nonfinal action to the second and first lengths respectively. Applicant argues that this figure demonstrates the opposite of the amended claim requirement.
Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Examiner would like to note that while flat length dimension 108 does correlate to middle segment 90, flat length dimension 106 encompasses floor section 58 and the relatively horizontal component of first curvature 94, and thus are not a fair comparison to the direct lengths of middle segment 90 and floor section 58. While Fig. 6 of Worth does demonstrate a longer overall length of floor section 58 than the length of middle segment 90, worth explicitly states in paragraph 27 that shortening the length of floor section 58 provides a clear mechanical benefit of greater breakout force to a pile of material being moved by the bucket, as was noted and discussed during the interview. Specifically, Worth notes in paragraph 30 of the disclosure “The present description is for illustrative purposes only, and should not be construed to narrow the breadth of the present disclosure in any way. Thus, those skilled in the art will appreciate that various modifications might be made to the presently disclosed embodiments without departing from the full and fair scope and spirit of the present disclosure”, indicating that the relationship between the length of floor section 58 and the length of middle segment 90 are not limiting as presented in Fig. 6 of the disclosure. As such, a mechanically ideal length of the floor section 58 may be less than the length of middle segment 90.
Applicant further traverses the rejections under 35 USC 103, specifying that claim 15 is amended to differ in scope while reciting limitations similar to those of amended claim 1, which Yoshida fails to remedy. Examiner does not find this persuasive, as the limitations and arguments described above with respect to amended claim 1 also apply to the language of the amended claim 15.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worth.
Regarding Claim 1: Worth teaches of a bucket for a work machine, comprising:
a lip plate at a bottom end of the bucket (Fig. 4, plate 66 is attached to bucket 30 to act as a mounting location for cutting elements 46);
a base plate at a top end of the bucket (Fig. 2, rock guard 44 attached to bucket 30);
a hinge assembly including a pair of hinge plates connected to the base plate at the top end of the bucket (Fig. 2, mounting elements 32 and 34 are connected to the rock guard 44 via shell 50)
a first side plate and a second side plate extending downwardly from the base plate to the bottom end of the bucket (Fig. 3, first side wall 40 and second side wall 42 spanning between rock guard 44 and plate 46);
And a wrapper attached to the lip plate and the base plate (Fig. 6, first curvature 94 extending to a flat length dimension 108), the wrapper comprising:
a first flat portion (Fig. 6, linear middle segment 90);
a second flat portion (Fig. 6, floor 58);
a first curved portion having a first radius of curvature at the bottom end of the bucket (Fig. 6, first curvature 94);
the second flat portion connecting the lip plate and the first curved portion (Fig. 6, floor 58 connects plate 66 to first curvature 94);
the first curved portion connecting the first flat portion and the second flat portion (Fig. 6, first curvature 94 connects floor 58 and segment 90);
wherein the first curved portion has a first arcuate length along the wrapper, the first curved portion orienting the first flat portion and the second flat portion of the wrapper to extend at an obtuse, first angle relative to one another (Paragraph 25, flat angle 98 of first curvature 94 may be up to about 130 degrees);
a second curved portion having a second radius of curvature, the second curved portion connecting the first flat portion and the base plate (Fig. 6, second curvature 92 comprises a second radius different than first curvature 94, and connects rock guard 44 and segment 90 via roof section 56), and
the first flat portion connecting the first curved portion and the second curved portion is substantially planar (Fig. 2/Fig. 6, flat length dimension 108 is consistent across a plane defined by the width of bucket shell 50), and
wherein the second curved portion has a second arcuate length along the wrapper that is larger than the first arcuate length of the first curved portion (Paragraph 25, the running length of curved section 86 which comprises second curvature 92 may be, but is not required to be, less than the running length of curved segment 88 which comprises first curvature 94), the second curved portion orienting the first flat portion and the base plate to extend at a second angle relative to one another that is less than the first angle (Paragraph 25, the radius of second curvature 92 will typically be less than the radius of the first curvature 94, and may have a ratio between 1.5 and 0.5, and the running length or segment 86 may be greater than running length of the curved segment 88, which will cause such geometry that the relative angle between rock guard 44 and segment 90 will be less than the first angle defined by flat angle 98 between the floor 58 and the segment 90)
And wherein the first flat portion includes a first length extending between the first curved portion and the second curved portion, wherein the second flat portion includes a second length extending between the lip plate and the first curved portion (Fig. 6, segment 90 comprises a first length extending between first curvature 94 and second curvature 92; floor section 58 comprises a second length extending between plate 66 and the first curvature 94).
While worth does not explicitly teach of the second length being less than the first length, worth does teach that it is mechanically advantageous to shorten the length of the first flat section (Paragraph 27, it is advantageous to have a relatively shorter length of floor 58 to provide greater breakout force and more rapid loading of bucket 30), and as such the relative lengths of the first length of segment 90 and the second length of floor 58 would be a results-effective variable. In light of such a determination, the length of the floor section 58 would be characterized through routine experimentation and obvious to try, such that the ideal length of floor section 58 for the purposes of force exertion and throat size for the most optimal loading and unloading of the bucket may be a shorter overall length than that of segment 90 (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Regarding Claim 2: Worth teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
Worth further teaches in which the first radius of curvature is smaller than the second radius of curvature (Paragraph 25, the radius of curvature 92 may be, but is not necessarily, less than radius 94, the ratio between the radius of curvature 92 and the radius of curvature 94 being between 0.5 and 1.5).
Regarding Claim 4: Worth teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
Worth further teaches in which a cutting edge of the bucket comprises the lip plate, a plurality of teeth attached to the lip plate extending away from the bucket (Fig. 4, plate 66 is attached to bucket 30 to act as a mounting location for cutting elements 46).
Regarding Claim 5: Worth teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 4.
Worth further teaches in which the lip plate is angled between 1 and 5 degrees downwards relative to the second flat portion (Fig. 4, floor angle 74 may be 9 degrees or less, encompassing the range of between 1 and 5 degrees).
Claims 6-10, 12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worth in view of Tscalis as part of AU 2004237824 A1, hereinafter referred to as Tscalis.
Regarding Claim 6: Worth teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
Worth does not teach of a first and second curved corner extending from a first side of the wrapper to the first side plate and second side of the wrapper to a second side plate respectively.
Tscalis teaches of a bucket for a work machine comprising a first curved corner and a second curved corner, the first curved corner extends from a first side of the wrapper to the first side plate, and the second curved corner extends from a second side of the wrapper to the second side plate (Tscalis: Fig. 1, demonstrates joint 24 comprising second portion 30; Page 4, line 14-22, second portion 30 comprises a main curved portion 38 through its cross section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the generic right angle connection between the side walls and the bucket body of Worth with the curved corner portions described by Tscalis to improve the wear conditions of the bucket (Tscalis: Page 2, line 26 - Page 3, line 3, the curved or beveled corners of wherein each side wall is joined to the base reduces wear the join is subjected to). Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of having a curved corner connection between the bucket body and the side walls (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding Claim 7: Worth in view of Tscalis teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 6.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 6, Tscalis further teaches in which the first curved corner has a first corner arc surface defining a first corner arc, and the second curved corner has a second corner arc surface defining a second corner arc (Tscalis: Fig. 1, the main curved portion 38 defines a first and second corner arc surface, and therefore corner arc, for each second portion 30).
Regarding Claim 8: Worth in view of Tscalis teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 7.
Worth in view of Tscalis does not explicitly teach in which the first curved corner and the second curved corner extend along the second flat portion to the second curved portion.
It is known in the art that the addition of curved corner pieces of excavating buckets, such as those taught by Tscalis, are implemented in the case of wear reduction on the bucket (Tscalis: Page 2, line 26 - Page 3, line 3, the curved or beveled corners of wherein each side wall is joined to the base reduces wear the join is subjected to). As such, the length by which these curved corner structures extend along the joining section between the side walls and the bucket body would be a results effective variable. In light of such a determination, the extent by which these curved corners extend between a top edge and a bottom edge of any given bucket structure would be determined upon implementation of such a curved corner structure to most effectively reduce wear on the bucket (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Regarding Claim 9: Worth in view of Tscalis teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 8.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 8, Tscalis further teaches in which the first curved corner and the second curved corner have a constant radius of curvature portion extending from the first curved portion through the first flat portion (Tscalis: Page 4, line 23-25, the radius of curved portion 38 is relatively constant).
Regarding Claim 10: Worth in view of Tscalis teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 9.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 9, Tscalis further teaches in which the first curved corner and the second curved corner have a first decreasing radius of curvature portion extending from the constant radius of curvature portion towards the lip plate (Tscalis: Fig. 4, tapering portions 34 provides a transition between the curved portion 38 and the right angle of join 24 towards the ground engaging teeth 18 of the bucket).
Regarding Claim 12: Worth in view of Tscalis teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 10.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 10, Tscalis further teaches in which the first curved corner and the second curved corner have a second decreasing radius of curvature portion extending from the constant radius of curvature portion towards the base plate (Tscalis: Fig. 4, Fig. 4, tapering portions 34 provides a transition between the curved portion 38 and the right angle of join 24 towards the top of the bucket).
Regarding Claim 18: Worth teaches of a bucket according to claim 1, capable of being created through a method comprising:
providing the base plate and the lip plate (Worth: Fig. 3, rock guard 44 and plate 46), the base plate configured to define an inner cavity ceiling of the bucket and the lip plate configured to define a lip plane at a bottom end of the bucket (Worth: Fig. 3, rock guard 44 defines the upper portion of a cavity defined as bucket 30, plate 46 defines the lower portion of a cavity defined as bucket 30);
extending the wrapper from the lip plate to the base plate (Worth: Fig. 2, bucket shell 50 spans from rock guard 44 to plate 46),
and extending the first side plate from the base plate to the first curved corner and a second side plate from the base plate to the second curved corner (Worth: Fig. 3, first side wall 40 and second side wall 42 spanning between rock guard 44 and plate 46).
Worth does not teach of attaching a first curved corner to a first side of the wrapper and a second curved corner to a second side of the wrapper.
Tscalis teaches of a bucket, capable of fulfilling a method comprising attaching a first curved corner to a first side of the wrapper and a second curved corner to a second side of the wrapper (Tscalis: Fig. 5, demonstrates join 24 comprising first portion 24 and second portion 30; Page 4, line 14-22, first portion 26 and second portion 30 comprise a main curved portion 38 through its cross section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the generic right angle connection between the side walls and the bucket body of Worth with the curved corner portions described by Tscalis to improve the wear conditions of the bucket (Tscalis: Page 2, line 26 - Page 3, line 3, the curved or beveled corners of wherein each side wall is joined to the base reduces wear the join is subjected to). Such a modification would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of having a curved corner connection between the bucket body and the side walls (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding Claim 19: Worth in view of Tscalis teaches of the method described above in claim 18.
Worth further teaches wherein the wrapper is concave shaped (Worth: Fig. 2-3, shell 50 is concave in shape).
In light of the modifications described above in claim 18, Tscalis further teaches in which the wrapper is concave shaped (Tscalis: Fig. 1, curved base 12 is concave shaped), the concave shape of the wrapper configured to allow the wrapper to align with the first curved corner and a second the second curved corner to form a bottom surface of the bucket (Tscalis: Fig. 1, first portion 24 and second portion 30 align with the concaved curved base 12 to define the interior, bottom surface of the bucket).
Regarding Claim 20: Worth in view of Tscalis teaches of the method described above in claim 18.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 18, Tscalis further teaches in which the curved corners are configured to promote distributed wear across the bucket during a digging operation (Tscalis: Page 2, line 26 - Page 3, line 3, the curved or beveled corners of wherein each side wall is joined to the base reduces wear the join is subjected to).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worth in view of Tscalis, further in view of Coulson as part of EP 3470585 A1, hereinafter referred to as Coulson.
Regarding Claim 13: Worth in view of Tscalis teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 12.
Worth in view of Tscalis do not make explicit mention to the material or properties of the wear components utilized therein.
Coulson teaches of a bucket comprising curved, segmented wear components between a bucket wrapper and a side wall (Coulson: Fig. 2, a plurality of wear components 18 are positioned between opposing side walls 16 and floor 11), in which the constant radius of curvature portion of the first curved corner and the second curved corner is comprised of or plated with a harder metal than the first decreasing radius of curvature portion and the second decreasing radius of curvature portion (Coulson: Paragraph 52, the individual wear components 18 may be any suitable shape and size with any suitable profile, indicating the possibility of a section of a constant radius and one or more sections of decreasing radii; Paragraph 55, the individual wear components 18 may be comprised of a different material than other wear components 18, which may be more wear resistant or thicker depending on which area is subjected to the greatest wear and damage during use).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the generically referred to material of the curved corner sections taught by Worth in view of Tscalis with the specific consideration of differing material properties taught by Coulson to create an apparatus that further reduces wear and prolongs the life of the bucket (Coulson: Paragraph 55, wear components 18 may be more wear resistant in areas subjected to greater wear and damage during use). Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of providing improved wear resistance to the curved corners (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worth in view of Yoshida et al as part of KR 20150064215, hereinafter referred to as Yoshida.
Regarding Claim 15: Worth teaches of a bucket comprising:
a bucket having a base plate at a top end of the bucket (Worth: Fig. 2, rock guard 44 attached to bucket 30) and a hinge assembly including a pair of hinge plates connected to the base plate at the top end of the bucket (Worth: Fig. 2, mounting elements 32 and 34 are connected to the rock guard 44 via shell 50), the bucket pivotally coupled to an arm and supported via the hinge assembly (Worth: Fig. 1, bucket 30 is shown to be pivotally connected to lift arm 16 via the connecting plates 32 and 24), the bucket further comprising;
a first side plate and a second side plate extending downwards from the base plate to a bottom end of the bucket (Worth: Fig. 3, first side wall 40 and second side wall 42 spanning between rock guard 44 and plate 46),
a lip plate at the bottom end (Worth: Fig. 4, plate 66 is attached to bucket 30 to act as a mounting location for cutting elements 46),
a wrapper attached to the lip plate and the base plate (Worth: Fig. 2, bucket shell 50 is attached to the rock guard 44 and plate 66),
the wrapper having a first flat portion, a second flat portion (Worth: Fig. 6, middle segment 90 and floor section 58),
and a first curved portion having a first radius of curvature at the bottom end of the bucket (Worth: Fig. 6, first curvature 94),
the first curved portion connecting the first flat portion and the second flat portion (Worth: Fig. 6, first curvature 94 connects floor 58 and segment 90),
wherein the first curved portion has a first arcuate length along the wrapper, the first curved portion orienting the first flat portion and the second flat portion of the wrapper to extend at an obtuse, first angle relative to one another (Worth: Paragraph 25, flat angle 98 of first curvature 94 may be up to about 130 degrees),
the wrapper including a second curved portion having a second radius of curvature, the second curved portion connecting the first flat portion and the base plate (Worth: Fig. 6, second curvature 92 comprises a second radius different than first curvature 94, and connects rock guard 44 and segment 90 via roof section 56),
and the first flat portion connecting the first curved portion and the second curved portion is substantially planar (Worth: Fig. 2/Fig. 6, flat length dimension 108 is consistent across a plane defined by the width of bucket shell 50);
wherein the second curved portion has a second arcuate length along the wrapper that is larger than the first arcuate length of the first curved portion (Worth: Paragraph 25, the running length of curved section 86 which comprises second curvature 92 may be, but is not required to be, less than the running length of curved segment 88 which comprises first curvature 94), the second curved portion orienting the first flat portion and the base plate to extend at a second angle relative to one another that is less than the first angle (Worth: Paragraph 25, the radius of second curvature 92 will typically be less than the radius of the first curvature 94, and may have a ratio between 1.5 and 0.5, and the running length or segment 86 may be greater than running length of the curved segment 88, which will cause such geometry that the relative angle between rock guard 44 and segment 90 will be less than the first angle defined by flat angle 98 between the floor 58 and the segment 90),
And wherein the first flat portion includes a first length extending between the first curved portion and the second curved portion, wherein the second flat portion includes a second length extending between the lip plate and the first curved portion (Fig. 6, segment 90 comprises a first length extending between first curvature 94 and second curvature 92; floor section 58 comprises a second length extending between plate 66 and the first curvature 94).
While worth does not explicitly teach of the second length being less than the first length, worth does teach that it is mechanically advantageous to shorten the length of the first flat section (Paragraph 27, it is advantageous to have a relatively shorter length of floor 58 to provide greater breakout force and more rapid loading of bucket 30), and as such the relative lengths of the first length of segment 90 and the second length of floor 58 would be a results-effective variable. In light of such a determination, the length of the floor section 58 would be characterized through routine experimentation and obvious to try, such that the ideal length of floor section 58 for the purposes of force exertion and throat size for the most optimal loading and unloading of the bucket may be a shorter overall length than that of segment 90 (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Further, Worth does not teach explicit details of the machine or the mounting means by which the bucket is attached to a work vehicle.
Yoshida teaches of a work machine, comprising:
a base configured to be supported on a ground surface (Yoshida: Fig. 1, swivel body 3 is supported on the ground by traveling body 2);
a revolving frame coupled to the base and rotatable about an axis (Yoshida: Fig. 1, swivel body 3 is mounted on traveling body 2 and is pivotable relative to traveling body 2);
an arm coupled to the revolving frame (Yoshida: Fig. 1, boom 7 and arm 8 are operably coupled to the swivel body 3); and
a bucket pivotally coupled to the arm and supported at a base plate (Yoshida: Fig. 1, bucket 9 is connected to swivel body 3 via arm 8 and boom 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the generically referred to machine that the bucket taught by Worth is coupled to with the specific machine structure taught by Yoshida designed to hold and operate with a bucket. Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of mounting the bucket on the end of an arm coupled to a machine frame rotatably supported on a base (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding Claim 16: Worth in view of Yoshida teaches of the apparatus described in claim 15.
Worth further teaches in which the lip plate comprises a plurality of adaptors, each adaptor of the plurality of adaptors configured to hold a pierce digging tooth (Worth: Fig. 4, plate 66 is attached to bucket 30 to act as a mounting location for cutting elements 46), the lip plate defines a lip plane (Worth: Fig. 4, plate 66 is generally planar in shape), the lip plane pointing in a downward direction between 1 and 5 degrees and is configured to facilitate downward inclined edge cutting during a digging operation (Worth: Fig. 4, floor angle 74 may be 9 degrees or less, encompassing the range of between 1 and 5 degrees).
Regarding Claim 17: Worth in view of Yoshida teaches of the apparatus described in claim 15.
Worth further teaches in which the wrapper is constructed of 2 or more pieces (Worth: Paragraph 20, shell 50 comprises a roof section 56 and a floor section 54; Fig. 2 demonstrates a seam, indicating shell 50 comprises 2 or more pieces.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is allowable over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As stated in the previous office action, after a complete and thorough search of prior art, while wear members with attachment points that are configured to contour to a curve are well known in earthmoving operations, such as those taught by Coulson, no such examples were found in prior art of wear brackets extending from a wear plate on the side plates of the bucket configured to curve around the curved corners of the bucket.
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 EVAN ANTHONY BREGEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0922. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 Eastern, M-F.
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, Christopher J Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. 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.
/EVAN A BREGEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671