Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
3. Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1, 3 and 5-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: each of claims 1, 3 and 5-6 contains more than one sentence. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
5. 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.
Regarding claim 1, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed driving mechanism and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the driving mechanism is detailed as a motor with either a transmission gear assembly/component or a transmission belt component. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed operating component and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the operating component is detailed as a limit part having movable holes, an inserting piece and an operating rod.
Regarding claim 2, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed limit part in that applicant claim specific structure related to the limit part being the claimed movable holes. Further, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed inserting piece in that applicant has not claimed any specific functional language associated with the claimed inserting piece.
Regarding claim 3, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed screw part in that the screw part is a known structure in the art being a threaded shaft. Further, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed limit plate part and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the limit plate part is detailed as an enlarged plate element at the end of the screw part.
Regarding claim 5, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed transmission gear assembly in that applicant claims specific structure for the transmission gear assembly being four gears.
Regarding claim 8, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed fixing mechanism and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the fixing mechanism is detailed as a fixing rod and two clamping plate parts.
Regarding claim 9, applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed first clamping plate part and the second clamping plate part in that is known in the art that these clamping plate parts relate to plate structures.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the side of the push frame" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the outer side wall" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear to whether the one side detailed spanning lines 3-4 of claim 3 is the same or different than the one side detailed at the beginning of line 3.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the diameter" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the side" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the diameter" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the drive" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the inner side wall" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the two sides of the push frame" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In the last two lines of claim 5, it is unclear to what the transmission gear assembly is connected to.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the power output shaft" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the end of the driving tendon cutting roller" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the end of the driven tendon cutting roller" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear to whether the outer side wall detailed in claim 7 is the same or different than the outer wall detailed in parent claim 6. Further, it is unclear to whether the shaft detailed in claim 7 is the same or different than the power output shaft detailed in parent claim 5. Further, it is unclear to whether the one end of the driving tendon cutting roller is the same or different than the end of the driving cutting tendon roller detailed in parent claim 6.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 9 details a second thread hole which implies a first thread hole, but the first thread hole is detailed in claim 3 and claim 9 does not depend from claim 3 and therefore it is unclear to how many thread holes are being claimed with respect to claim 9. Further, claim 9 lacks antecedent basis for “the thread rod” in line 8.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In line 3 it is unclear to what is considered outside. Further, claim 10 lacks antecedent basis for “the upper and lower sides of the protective cover” as seen in lines 3-4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 478,547 to Arnold.
Referring to claim 1, Arnold discloses a meat tenderizer with adjustable spacing comprises a fixing frame – at 4, an installation chamber – chamber formed by 1,4,8 as seen in figure 1, a driving tendon cutting roller – at 8 having shaft – at 6, a driven tendon cutting roller – at the other of items 8 having shaft – at 7, and a driving mechanism – see hand crank not labeled in figure 1 and items 14, and detailed in lines 52-73, the installation chamber is arranged in the fixing frame – see chamber formed by 1,4,8 in figure 1, the driving tendon cutting roller – at 8, and the driven tendon cutting roller – other of items 8, are rotatably assembled in the installation chamber – see figure 1, and the driving mechanism – hand crank and items 14, is arranged on the fixing frame – at 4 – see items 14 in figure 1, to drive the driving tendon cutting roller – at 8, and the driven tendon cutting roller – other of items 8, to rotate – see figure 1 and lines 52-73, the utility model is characterized in that both sides of the fixing frame – at 4, are symmetrically equipped with adjustment holes – at 5, for the driven tendon cutting roller – at 8 with shaft – at 7, to pass through at both ends – see at item 7 in figures 1-2, the meat tenderizer also comprises a push frame – at 10,11, arranged in the installation chamber – see figures 1-2, for pushing the driven tendon cutting roller – at 8 with shaft – at 7, to move along the adjustment holes – at 5 – see figures 1-2 and lines 37-73, and an operating component – at 9,13, for pushing the push frame – at 10,11, with one end located on the side of the push frame – at 10,11 away from the driven tendon cutting roller – see at 13 in figures 1-2, and the other end passing through the fixing frame – at 4 – see at item 9 in figures 1-2. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis regarding the driving mechanism, Arnold discloses a hand crank with gear assembly – at 14 and therefore is a functional equivalent to applicant’s driving mechanism in that Arnold discloses a manually operated driving mechanism that performs the same functions as applicant’s disclosed driving mechanism. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis regarding the claimed operating component, Arnold discloses holes in item 4 for receiving item 13, an inserting part – at 9 and an operating rod – shaft of item 13.
Referring to claim 2, Arnold further discloses the operating component – at 9,13, comprises a limit part – openings receiving item 13 and opening receiving the bottom of 9 as seen in figures 1-2, an inserting piece – at 9, and an operating rod – at 13, the limit part is arranged on the outer side wall of the fixing frame – see opening receiving bottom of 9 an outer opening in 4 receiving item 13, in figures 1-2, and provided with movable holes – holes can be moved when the device is moved as seen in figures 1-2, the inserting piece – at 9, is fixedly arranged on the push frame – at 10,11 – see figures 1-2, and inserted in the movable hole – see at the bottom of 9 in figures 1-2, one end of the operating rod – at 13, is arranged in the inserting piece – open space proximate the top of 9 as seen in figures 1-2, and the other end passes through the movable holes – in item 4, and is placed outside the limit part – see end of 13 for being gripped by the user in figures 1-2.
Referring to claim 4, Arnold further discloses two guide grooves – at 12, are arranged on the inner side wall of the installation chamber of the fixing frame – at 4 – see figures 1-2, and located at both ends of the driven tendon cutting roller – at 8 having shaft – at 7 – see figures 1-2, and the two sides of the push frame – at 10,11 are slidably assembled in the guide grooves – at 12 – see figures 1-2, and the adjustment holes – at 5, run through the guide grooves – at 12 – see figures 1-2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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) 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,716,893 to Vogelsang.
Referring to claim 5, Arnold further discloses the adjustment holes – at 5, are in a circular arc shape – see item 5 receiving item 6 in figures 1-2, the driving mechanism – hand crank, arranged on the fixing frame – at 4 – see figures 1-2, and a transmission gear assembly – at 14, in driving connection with the power output shaft of the driving mechanism – see figures 1-2, for driving the driving tendon cutting roller – at 8 having shaft – at 6, and the driven tendon cutting roller – at 8 having the shaft – at 7, to rotate under the driving of the power output shaft – see figures 1-2, and the transmission gear assembly – at 14 is connected through at least two gears – at 14 – see figures 1-2. Arnold does not disclose the driving mechanism comprises a motor arranged on the fixing frame and the transmission gear assembly is connected through at least four gears. Vogelsang does disclose the driving mechanism comprises a motor – at 17, arranged on the fixing frame – at 10,26,29 – see figure 3, and the transmission gear assembly – at 18, is connected through at least four gears – at 76-93 – see figure 3 and column 4 lines 6-63. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Arnold and add the motor and gear assembly of Vogelsang, so as to yield the predictable result of making the device automated so as to process more pieces of meat as desired.
Referring to claim 6, Arnold as modified by Vogelsang further discloses the transmission gear assembly – at 18, comprises a first gear – at 76,93, a second gear – any of gears – at 80-87, a third gear – at any other of gears – at 80-87, and a fourth gear – at 77,93, which are engaged with each other and all located on the outer wall of the fixing frame – see at 18 on item 10 in figure 3, the first gear is fixedly connected to the end of the driving tendon cutting roller – at 90 – see figure 3 and column 3 line 59 to column 4 line 65 of Vogelsang, the fourth gear – at 77,93, is fixedly connected to the end of the driven tendon cutting roller – at 91 – see figure 3 and column 3 line 59 to column 4 line 65 of Vogelsang, and the second gear and the third gear are both assembled on the fixing frame – at 10 – see at 18 in figure 3 of Vogelsang, through a rotating shaft – at 62 and 72-74 – see figure 3, the second gear – at 82,83, is respectively engaged with the first gear – at 76,93 – see via item 63, and the third gear – at 85 – see column 3 line 59 to column 4 line 65 of Vogelsang, and the third gear – at 85, is engaged with the fourth gear – at 77,93 via item 64 – see figure 3 and column 3 line 59 to column 4 line 65 of Vogelsang, and the circular adjustment holes – at 5 of Arnold, are concentric with the third gear – at 14 – see figures 1-2 of Arnold. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Arnold and add the motor and gear assembly of Vogelsang, so as to yield the predictable result of making the device automated so as to process more pieces of meat as desired.
Referring to claim 7, Arnold as modified by Vogelsang further discloses the motor – at 17, is arranged on the outer side wall of the fixing frame – at 10,26,29 – see figure 3 of Vogelsang, and the shaft of the motor – at 17, is fixedly connected – via items 18 and 72-75, to one end of the driving tendon cutting roller – at 90, away from the first gear – at 76,93 – see figure 3 of Vogelsang. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Arnold and add the motor and gear assembly of Vogelsang, so as to yield the predictable result of making the device automated so as to process more pieces of meat as desired.
Referring to claim 8, Arnold as modified by Vogelsang further discloses a fixing mechanism – at 2,3, fixed on the fixing frame – at 1,4, for fixing the meat tenderizer to an external assembly – not labeled but shown below item 1 in figures 1-2 of Arnold. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed fixing mechanism, Arnold discloses a fixing rod – part of item 3 and screw of item 2, and two clamping plate parts – either side of the U-shaped portion of 3 and two plate parts on either side of the U-shaped portion of 2 as seen in figures 1-2.
Referring to claim 9, Arnold as modified by Vogelsang further discloses the fixing mechanism comprises a fixing rod – bottom of U-shaped components of items 2 and 3, fixed on the fixing frame – at 1,4 – see figures 1-2 of Arnold, a first clamping plate part – one wall of the U-shaped element extending from the fixing rod as seen at items 2,3 in figures 1-2 of Arnold, integrally arranged on the fixing rod – see figures 1-2 of Arnold, away from one end of the fixing frame – at 1,4 – see figures 1-2 of Arnold, and perpendicular to the fixing rod – see figures 1-2 of Arnold, a second clamping plate part – other of the walls of the U-shaped element extending from the fixing rod as seen at items 2,3 in figures 1-2 of Arnold, integrally arranged on the fixing rod – see figures 1-2 of Arnold, and provided with a clamping space between the first clamping plate part – see space receiving items 1 and/or 4 in items 2,3 in figures 1-2 of Arnold, and a second thread hole provided on the first clamping plate part – see holes in items 2 and 3 receiving screws as seen in figures 1-2 of Arnold, for the thread rod – screws shown but not labeled, to pass through – see at 2,3 in figures 1-2 of Arnold.
Referring to claim 10, Arnold as modified by Vogelsang further discloses the fixing frame – at 10,26,29, is sleeved with a protective cover – at 13,14 outside – see figures 1-3 of Vogelsang, and openings are set on both of the upper and lower sides of the protective cover – see at 42 in figures 1-3 of Vogelsang. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Arnold as modified by Vogelsang and add the protective cover of Vogelsang, so as to yield the predictable result of keeping contaminants away from the components of the device and to keep the user from contacting the inner components of the device during use.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to meat tenderizing devices in general:
U.S. Pat. No. 1,149,336 to Burris – shows meat tenderizing device
U.S. Pat. No. 1,384,991 to Combs – shows meat tenderizing device
U.S. Pat. No. 1,533,882 to Mickey – shows meat tenderizing device
U.S. Pat. No. 2,622,269 to Berglund et al. – shows meat tenderizing device
U.S. Pat. No. 2,886,845 to Byland et al. – shows meat tenderizing device
U.S. Pat. No. 4,360,952 to Sampson – shows meat tenderizing device
U.S. Pat. No. 4,437,208 to Sampson – shows meat tenderizing device
U.S. Pat. No. 4,531,259 to Bridge – shows meat tenderizing device
U.S. Pat. No. 5,738,578 to Marchese – shows meat tenderizing device
U.S. Pat. No. 7,410,414 to Lagares Corominas – shows meat tenderizing device
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643