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 .
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 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 as follows:
light absorbing component: “The light absorbing component 111 refers to a component capable of absorbing the laser 210. Specifically, the light absorbing component 111 is capable of absorbing the laser 210 passing through the electrode plate 300. After the laser 210 passing through the electrode plate 300 is absorbed by the light absorbing component 111, the risk of causing damage to other components is reduced. The light absorbing component 111 is usually made of black plastics, and the laser 210 may be absorbed by the black plastics, avoiding damage to other components by the laser 210.”, para. [0078].
light transmitting component: “The light transmitting component 112 refers to a component capable of allowing the laser 210 to transmit therethrough. Specifically, the light transmitting component 112 capable of allowing the laser passing through the electrode plate 300 to transmit therethrough, and the laser 210 passing through the electrode plate 300 is dispersed after transmitting through the light transmitting component 112, thereby greatly reducing the energy of the laser 210 and reducing the risk of causing damage to other components. The light transmitting component 112 is made of a transparent material, wherein the transparent material may be an optical glass, transparent plastics or the like.”, para. [0079].
air blowing unit: “The air blowing unit refers to a unit capable of blowing out airflow. Specifically, a fan is disposed within the air blowing unit. The fan rotates to blow the airflow out of the air blowing opening, thus realizing air blowing by the air blowing unit. As a matter of course, in other embodiments, the air blowing unit may also be other unit capable of blowing out airflow; which will not be defined here. The air blowing opening of the air blowing unit is communicated with one end of the hole 1111. It may be understood that the airflow blown out by the air blowing unit can enter the hole 1111 and move through the hole 1111 to come out of the other end of the hole 1111.”, para. [0096]-[0097].
air extraction unit: “The air extraction unit 120 refers to a unit capable of extracting air. Specifically, a suction fan is disposed within the air extraction unit 120, and the suction fan rotates to create a negative pressure at the air extraction opening. Under the action of the negative pressure, external air will enter the air extraction unit 120 via the air extraction opening, thus realizing air extraction by the air extraction unit 120. As a matter of course, in other embodiments, the air extraction unit 120 may also be other unit capable of extracting air, which will not be defined here.The air extraction opening of the air extraction unit 120 is communicated with one end of the hole 1111. It may be understood that the air extraction unit 120 is capable of extracting air through the hole 1111 so that the external air can enter the hole 1111 from the other end of the hole 1111 and flow through the hole 1111 to come out of the air extraction opening of the air extraction unit 120. Moreover, when the external air flows through the hole 1111, heat accumulated on the light absorbing component 111 is taken away, thereby reducing the temperature of the light absorbing component 111 and reducing damage to the light transmitting component 112 and the electrode plate 300 due to excessively high temperature of the light absorbing component 111.”, para. [0094]-[0095].
supporting component: “the supporting component 130 of the provided electrode plate supporting device 100 includes a supporting shaft 131 and a plurality of supporting plates 132. The supporting shaft 131 and the plurality of supporting plates 132 are disposed to pass through the hole 1111. The plurality of supporting plates 132 are connected to the supporting shaft 131 and arranged at intervals in a circumferential direction of the supporting shaft 131. Side portions, far away from the supporting shaft 131, of the supporting plates 132 are connected to the wall of the hole 1111. Surfaces, opposite to each other, of two adjacent supporting plates 132, an outer peripheral wall of the supporting shaft 131 and the wall of the hole 1111 together define the flowing space 1112.”, para. [0109].
dust suction unit: “The dust suction unit 140 refers to a unit capable of suctioning dust generated by cutting the electrode plate 300. Specifically, a suction fan is disposed within the dust suction unit 140. The suction fan creates a negative pressure at a dust suction opening of the dust suction unit 140. Under the action of the negative pressure, dust is suctioned into the dust suction unit 140. Thus, dust suction by the dust suction unit 140 is achieved. As a matter of course, in other embodiments, the dust suction unit 140 may also be other unit capable of suctioning dust, which will not be defined here.
According to the electrode plate supporting device 100 of the embodiment of the present disclosure, the dust suction unit 140 is capable of suctioning the dust generated by cutting the electrode plate 300, avoiding the dust from polluting the electrode plate, reducing cutting fur and improving the cutting quality. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, with reference to FIG. 2 , FIG. 4 and FIG. 5 , the dust suction unit 140 of the provided electrode plate supporting device 100 includes a dust suction component 141 constructed with a negative pressure dust suction chamber 1401 and a first opening 1402. The negative pressure dust suction chamber 1401 is communicated with the first opening 1402, and the outer peripheral wall of the light transmitting component 112 is disposed opposite to the first opening 1402. The negative pressure dust suction chamber 1401 refers to a chamber formed within the dust suction component 141 and having a negative pressure therein. The first opening 1402 refers to an opening structure formed outside the dust suction component 141. The negative pressure dust suction chamber 1401 is communicated with the first opening 1402. It may be understood that the negative pressure dust suction chamber 1401 and the first opening 1402 are in a communicated state. Specifically, the suction fan extracts air out of the negative pressure dust suction chamber 1401, thereby creating a negative pressure within the negative pressure dust suction chamber 1401. Under the action of the negative pressure, dust is suctioned into the dust suction unit 140. Thus, dust suction by the dust suction unit 140 is achieved. When there is the negative pressure in the negative pressure dust suction chamber 1401, the dust outside the dust suction component 141 will enter the negative pressure dust suction chamber 1401 through the first opening 1402. That is, the first opening 1402 serves as the dust suction opening of the dust suction unit 140, thus achieving dust suction. According to the electrode plate supporting device 100 of the embodiment of the present disclosure, since the outer peripheral wall of the light transmitting component 112 is disposed opposite to the first opening 1402, the dust on and around the outer peripheral wall of the light transmitting component 112 will enter the negative pressure dust suction chamber 1401 through the first opening 1402 when there exists a negative pressure in the negative pressure dust suction chamber 1401. Thus, the dust on and around the outer peripheral wall of the light transmitting component 112 can be removed and avoided from polluting the electrode plate..”, para. [0120] - [0126].
dust suction component: “the dust suction unit 140 of the provided electrode plate supporting device 100 includes a dust suction component 141 constructed with a negative pressure dust suction chamber 1401 and a first opening 1402. The negative pressure dust suction chamber 1401 is communicated with the first opening 1402, and the outer peripheral wall of the light transmitting component 112 is disposed opposite to the first opening 1402. The negative pressure dust suction chamber 1401 refers to a chamber formed within the dust suction component 141 and having a negative pressure therein. The first opening 1402 refers to an opening structure formed outside the dust suction component 141. The negative pressure dust suction chamber 1401 is communicated with the first opening 1402. It may be understood that the negative pressure dust suction chamber 1401 and the first opening 1402 are in a communicated state. Specifically, the suction fan extracts air out of the negative pressure dust suction chamber 1401, thereby creating a negative pressure within the negative pressure dust suction chamber 1401. Under the action of the negative pressure, dust is suctioned into the dust suction unit 140. Thus, dust suction by the dust suction unit 140 is achieved. When there is the negative pressure in the negative pressure dust suction chamber 1401, the dust outside the dust suction component 141 will enter the negative pressure dust suction chamber 1401 through the first opening 1402. That is, the first opening 1402 serves as the dust suction opening of the dust suction unit 140, thus achieving dust suction.”, para. [0122]-[0125].
laser assembly: “The laser assembly 200 is configured to emit laser to the abutting surface 1121. It may be understood that when the electrode plate 300 abuts against the abutting surface 1121, the laser emitted by the laser assembly 200 is capable of falling on the abutting region of the electrode plate, and the laser is capable of cutting the region, thus achieving tab cutting.”, para. [0074].
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein a surface is far away from the light absorbing component”, the term “far away” is indefinite as it is unclear what distance corresponds to “far away” as neither the claim nor the written description provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
The remaining claims are rejected for at least the reason of their respective direct and/or indirect dependency from independent claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (CN 210548927).
With regard to claim 1, Bai teaches a workpiece supporting device (FIG. 1) for use in coordination with a laser assembly (1), the workpiece supporting device comprising: a body (2/3/4) constructed with an abutting surface (at 3 in FIG. 1) for abutting against a workpiece (B) to tension the workpiece (tension created via transport mechanisms 5), wherein the laser assembly is configured to emit laser (via 1) to the abutting surface, wherein the body (2/3/4) comprises a light absorbing component (4) for absorbing the laser (“the laser absorbing barrier 4 is disposed on the side of the focusing barrier 3 away from the workpiece B in the thickness direction H, and after the laser beam sequentially passes through the workpiece B, the focusing barrier 3 and the opening 21, the laser absorbing barrier 4 can absorb the laser beam in time”).and a light transmitting component (3) for allowing the laser to transmit therethrough (“the focusing shutter 3 may be a laser-transparent glass plate, in which case the laser beam emitted by the laser emitter 1 can penetrate the focusing shutter 3 directly without obstruction after the laser beam has passed through the workpiece B.”), and the light transmitting component covers and is connected to the light absorbing component (4)(FIG. 1 illustrates 3 connected to 4); wherein a surface, far away from the light absorbing component, of the light transmitting component (3) is constructed with the abutting surface (see FIG. 1).
Bai does not explicitly utilize the term “electrode plate”; however, it is submitted that the citation does teach a workpiece which is a metallic layer (“he workpiece B may be a pole piece (e.g., an anode pole piece or a cathode pole piece) of a lithium ion power battery. The pole piece can comprise a hollow foil area”, pg, 3, ln. 17-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the metallic layer of Bai (as detailed above) is equivalent to that of an “electrode plate” further to a broadest reasonable interpretation of the subject claim language. It must be stressed that “during patent examination, the pending claims must be ‘given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.’ The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ standard: The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’ In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must ‘conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.’ 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).415 F.3d at 1316, 75 USPQ2d at 1329. See also In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” The same section further states: “during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.). This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (discussed below);Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable, absent any indication that their use in a particular context changes their meaning, are construed to mean exactly what they say…..”, MPEP 2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reasonable Interpretation.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if it was determined that the aforementioned teaching was found to be improper, it is alternatively submitted that the claimed “electrode plate” is merely a workpiece upon which the apparatus is working upon, and as such, the inclusion of a workpiece worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115 – Material of Article Worked Upon by Apparatus: “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)).
With regard to claim 5, Bai teaches a hole (at location where laser rays converge illustrated in FIG. 2) is formed within the light absorbing component and extends through the light absorbing component along an axis of the light absorbing component (4) (FIG. 1-2).
With regard to claim 17, Bai teaches the light absorbing component is a black plastic component_; wherein a light transmittance of the light transmitting component is greater than 95%, wherein the light transmitting component is a light transmitting glass component or a light transmitting plastic component (“In the first embodiment, the focusing shutter 3 may be a laser-transparent glass plate, in which case the laser beam emitted by the laser emitter 1 can penetrate the focusing shutter 3 directly without obstruction after the laser beam has passed through the workpiece B.”).
With regard to claim 19, Bai teaches the laser cutting apparatus further comprising conveying rollers (5) disposed on two sides of the workpiece supporting device (2/3/4) (see FIG. 1 in which two rollers 5 are illustrated), and a laser assembly (1) disposed beside the workpiece supporting device (2/3/4) and configured to emit laser to the abutting surface (FIG. 1).
With regard to claim 20, with regard to the method step of laser cutting method for an electrode plate, wherein the laser cutting apparatus according to claim 19 is used, the laser cutting method for an electrode plate comprising the following steps: placing an electrode plate against the abutting surface of the electrode plate supporting device, and allowing the laser assembly of the laser cutting apparatus to emit laser toward the abutting surface to cut the electrode plate, it is submitted that with respect to the method step claimed, to the extent that the prior art apparatus meets the structural limitations of the apparatus as claimed, it will obviously perform the method steps as claimed. Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01(I)".
Claims 4, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (CN 210548927) in view of Lee (KR 20170127962).
With regard to claim 4, Bai teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above, and additionally teaches the light transmitting component (3) covers an outer peripheral wall of the light absorbing component (4) (see FIG. 1); however, Bai does not teach the light absorbing component is cylindrical. However, Lee from the same field of endeavor directed toward a slitting apparatus of a metal film teaches the aforementioned limitation, namely a guide roller 223 which is opposite a workpiece F which is being operated upon via a laser 240 (see FIG. 6 which illustrates the structure of slitting apparatus 200).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Bai reference, such that the light absorbing component is cylindrical, as suggested and taught by Lee, for the purpose of providing an enhanced support function to the subject workpiece (Lee: “A second laser head 240 for slitting the laser beam; A suction unit 250 for sucking and removing by-products generated when the metal film M is laser-cut”).
With regard to claim 6, Bai teaches the invention as detailed above; however, Bai does not teach an air extraction unit having an air extraction opening communicated with one end of the hole, or further comprising an air blowing unit having an air blowing opening communicated with one end of the hole; and/or further comprising an air blowing unit and an air extraction unit wherein one of two opposite ends of the hole is communicated with an air extraction opening of the air extraction unit, and the other one is communicated, with an air blowing opening of the air blowing unit. However, Lee teaches the aforementioned limitation (“an air extraction unit having an air extraction opening communicated with one end of the hole”) namely an air extraction unit 250 for removing by-products generated when the metal film M is laser cut (FIG. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Bai reference, to include an air extraction unit having an air extraction opening communicated with one end of the hole, or further comprising an air blowing unit having an air blowing opening communicated with one end of the hole; and/or further comprising an air blowing unit and an air extraction unit wherein one of two opposite ends of the hole is communicated with an air extraction opening of the air extraction unit, and the other one is communicated, with an air blowing opening of the air blowing unit, as suggested and taught by Lee, for the purpose of providing a by-product removal function of a metal product that is laser-cut.
With regard to claim 12, Bai teaches the invention as detailed above; however, Bai does not teach a dust suction unit for suctioning dust generated by electrode plate cutting.
However, Lee teaches the aforementioned limitation (“an air extraction unit having an air extraction opening communicated with one end of the hole”) namely an air extraction unit 250 for removing by-products generated when the metal film M is laser cut (FIG. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Bai reference, to include a dust suction unit for suctioning dust generated by workpiece cutting, as suggested and taught by Lee, for the purpose of providing a by-product removal function of a metal product that is laser-cut.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11, 13, 14, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim (e.g., a new independent claim which includes all of the limitations of claims 8, 5, and 1) and any intervening claims, and additionally assuming the above definiteness rejections were overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761