DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the plurality of collectors “in the platform”, the auxiliary lattice structure, structural fixtures must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The allegation (REM 8/28/2025) that the plurality of collectors are shown in figure 3 and 5 doesn’t make any sense as there is no identification whatsoever of collectors in these drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-11, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “a modular cellular solid storage platform that comprises one or more modules, wherein each module has a plurality of geometrically defined unit cells configured to contain and guide a gaseous fuel, the unit cells are interconnected to form interstitial spaces among them, the interconnected unit cells are configured to allow the flow of the gaseous fuel from one or more modules simultaneously according to operation demand;” introduces new matter as the recitation includes scope that the interstitial spaces have the recited flow and there is no support for flow in the interstitial spaces.
The recitation, “a plurality of collectors comprising manifolds” is new matter as there is no recitation of manifolds in the original disclosure.
The recitation, “anchoring points comprising structural fixtures” is new matter as there is no mention of “structural fixtures” in the original disclosure.
The recitation, “integrated cooling channels arranged within the platform” is new matter as there is no mention of channels at all in the original disclosure.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-11, 13, 14 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “A modular cellular solid lattice platform system” is indefinite since the body of the claim never describes any lattice and therefore it is unclear how the system must have a lattice. Further, a solid does not have a lattice as a solid has no spaces and therefore it is unclear what a solid lattice requires.
The recitation, “modular cellular solid storage platform” is unclear since the recitation of solid storage implies storing the gas in a solid and yet the applicant alleges (REM 8/28/2025, page 8) that the claims exclude solid state storage for some reason that is unclear and therefore the interpretation alleged by the applicant is entirely inconsistent with the claimed recitations and there is no way to determine what “solid” in the claim recitation invokes (and certainly no way to determine what structure is required by the allegations of the applicant). Therefore, the recitation is entirely unclear as the claims recite gas storage that appears at least inclusive of storage in a solid and the applicant’s allegations entirely contradict the recitation.
The recitation, “one or more modules” is indefinite as there is no way to determine what structure a module must have. For examination, it is presumed to merely require a plurality of storage volumes called unit cells.
The recitation, “the flow” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “from one or more modules” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing modules that were already previously recited.
The recitation, “anchoring points comprising structural fixtures” is indefinite as there is no way to discern what structure is and is not included as the original disclosure does not even mention fixtures much less describe their structure.
In regard to claim 2, the recitation, “integrated cooling channels” is indefinite as there is no way to discern what structure is and is not included as the original disclosure does not even mention cooling channels. Further what qualifies as integrated is entirely undefined and unclear.
The recitation, “during…operation” is indefinite as there is no way to determine what function is included or excluded thereby.
In regard to claim 3, the recitation, “auxiliary lattice structure configured to reduce the overall mass of the platform and to enhance stiffness and crashworthiness” is indefinite as it is unclear what the structure must be auxiliary to. Further, the recitation, “the overall mass” lacks proper antecedent basis. Further adding mass of the lattice to the platform cannot reduce the mass of platform and therefore the recitation is unclear. Further, it is unclear what the stiffness must be enhanced relative to. Further it is unclear how crashworthiness is defined or measured and unclear what the crashworthiness must be enhanced relative to. Further, the recitation is indefinite since it is unclear what makes a lattice structure auxiliary or what it must be auxiliary to and what that requires structurally.
In regard to claim 4, the recitation, “the unit cells have a geometrical shape” is indefinite for being wholly redundant since claim 1 already defines the cells and geometrically defined.
In regard to claim 10, the recitation, “the gaseous fuel is in the form of…liquid” is entirely indefinite as these phases are mutually exclusive and it does not make sense to define the stored fluid is a liquid when the claim says that the stored fluid is a gas as such recitations are inconsistent with each other.
In regard to claim 11, the recitation, “the hydrogen is in … liquid form” is indefinite for being inconsistent with claim 1 which states that there is gas stored. Further, “the hydrogen” is indefinite for lacking antecedent basis.
The recitation, “cold and cryocompressed” is indefinite since the recitation is relative and patentably indistinct and there is no way to determine what temperature is and is not sufficiently cool enough to be considered cold and to be sufficiently cold and compressed. Further, the term cryocompressed is indefinite since it is redundant to the term cold and unclear what both terms cold and cryo require.
In regard to claim 13, the recitation, “the structure of unit cells interconnection” is indefinite for a plurality of reasons: “the structure” lacks proper antecedent basis; “unit cells” appears to be recited as possessive as in “unit cell’s” but is grammatically errant; There is no unit cell interconnection previously recited.
The recitation, “to fit vacuum insulation chamber” is indefinite since the size of the chamber is not defined and therefore it is entirely impossible to determine what size the unit cells must be to be “adapted to fit” in a vacuum insulation chamber of undefined size.
The recitation, “conformal cooling” is entirely indefinite as the specification uses the term but there is no way to determine what makes cooling “conformal”.
Claim Interpretation
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: “modular cellular solid storage platform” in claim 1 since “platform” appears to be a nonce term and
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 limitation “unit cell configured to contain and guide a gaseous fuel” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no definition of a unit cell anywhere in the disclosure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Further, it is noted that even if the recitation was not interpreted under 112(f), there still would be no way to determine what structure is included in a “unit cell” as claimed as the specification does not define the term clearly. For present examination, such is considered merely a gas storage volume.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-11, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myasikov (US 2005/0211573) in view of Fujita (US 5678410) and Liu (CN 108598526). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claim 1, Myasikov teaches a modular cellular solid platform system for gas storage (see whole disclosure; interpreted as a system that can store gas; inclusive of solid state storage), comprising:
a modular cellular solid storage platform (10; interpreted as an assembly of unit cells that can store gas, see identified unit cells below) that comprises one or more modules (interpreted as a collection of storage volumes; at least some of primary blocks 13, secondary blocks 19), wherein each module has a plurality of geometrically defined unit cells (14, para. 24; see they have a shape) configured to contain and guide a gaseous fuel (hydrogen, para. 20, 8), the unit cells (14) are interconnected to form interstitial spaces among them (there is space between cells 14; para. 23); the unit cells (14) are configured to allow a flow of the gaseous fuel (hydrogen; they are connected to provide hydrogen to and from the cells para. 24) from the one or more modules (13, 19) simultaneously according to operation demand (structure is fully capable of having hydrogen flow at the same time from 13, 19);
a plurality of collectors (some of 13, 19 near end) comprising an accumulator (interpreted as a gas storage volume; see some of 13, 19 near end can store gas) located in the storage platform (10) and configured to stabilize pressure (due to their ability to store fuel) of the gaseous fuel (hydrogen); wherein the unit cells (14) are fluidly connected the collectors (some of 13, 19 near end).
Myasikov does not appear to explicitly teach pressure relief valves, a pressure regulating unit, and temperature sensors, as claimed. However, it is routine to provide such to supply hydrogen to hydrogen consuming devices as demonstrated by Fujita. Fujita teaches a system (see whole disclosure, column 6, line 59 “combined system”) comprising: a vehicle (background of the invention; column 6, line 60-65 “vehicle”) having a fuel cell (2) that also stores hydrogen in a hydrogen storage tank (11-18; column 6, line 65-67) having a plurality of metal hydride modules (see each of 11 through 18) and that it is desirable to provide a plurality temperature sensors (11g-18g; column 8, line 45-50), pressure regulating units (11c-18c), and pressure relief valves (11d-18d) configured to prevent overpressure accumulation in the system (system), all for the purpose of controlling the temperature and pressure in the modules (11-18). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Myasikov with the temperature sensors, pressure regulating units, and pressure relief valves of Fujita for the purpose of providing pressure and temperature control of the hydrogen and improve handling.
Myasikov does not appear to explicitly teach anchoring points comprising structural fixtures (parts of internal assembly aiding in fit of parts together) for assembly of the platform (10) into a vehicle or other application.
However, Myasikov teaches that the system is for storing hydrogen for powering vehicles (para. 4) and Fujita teaches mounting the metal hydride storage tanks to the electric vehicle (column 20, line 27-30) and therefore providing structural connection of the platform to a vehicle is essential and routine. Further, Liu teaches a system for storing hydrogen (page 2) for powering vehicles (page 2, para. 4) having a hydrogen storage platform (page 2, para. 4) and anchoring points comprising structural fixtures (see 21) for assembly of the storage platform (22) to an electric vehicle (page 2, para. 4 electric car).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Myasikov with structural fixtures to connect the platform to a vehicle for the purpose of making the storage system mountable to vehicles and useful in vehicle fueling.
In regard to claim 2, Myasikov teaches integrated cooling channels (para. 20, see heat exchanger tubes 15) arranged within the platform (10) and configured to limit temperature increase of the gaseous fuel during refueling and operation (para. 8-9).
In regard to claim 3, Myasikov teaches that the interstitial spaces are filled with an auxiliary lattice structure (para. 23 “porous filter material”) configured to enhance stiffness of the platform (10) (material being present resists movement more than if material were not present) and crashworthiness (see that the filter material makes the assembly more robust and resistant to damage and therefore more crashworthy).
In regard to claim 4, Myasikov teaches that the unit cells (14) have a geometrical shape (interpreted as some described shape; see geometrical description of the shape of the cells - para. 25).
In regard to claim 9, Myasikov teaches that the gaseous fuel is hydrogen (para. 2).
In regard to claim 10-11, Myasikov teaches that the hydrogen is compressed gas (at some pressure above ambient). Note that claim 11 is conditional by the recitation “when”.
In regard to claim 13, Myasikov teaches that the plurality of unit cells (14) are adapted to include cooling (para. 20, see heat exchanger tubes 15).
In regard to claim 14, Myasikov, as modified is fully capable of being used in a land vehicle. Further, supposing that Myasikov alone does not teach using the system in a land vehicle, it is noted that Fujita teaches that hydrogen is stored as fuel for an electric vehicle (column 1, line 31; column 6, line 60). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Myasikov to be employed to store hydrogen in a fuel cell powered car for the purpose of providing all of the benefits of Myasikov to the fuel cell car application and for the purpose of providing more environmentally friendly cars.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 9-11, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loukus (US 2015/0014323) in view of Fujita (US 5678410) and Liu (CN 108598526). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claim 1, Loukus teaches a modular cellular platform system for gas storage (see whole disclosure; interpreted as a system that can store gas), comprising:
a modular cellular solid storage platform (100; interpreted as an assembly of unit cells that can store gas, see identified unit cells below) that comprises one or more modules (interpreted as a collection of storage volumes; at least some of 142), wherein each module has a plurality of geometrically defined unit cells (142, para. 48; see they have a shape) configured to contain and guide a gaseous fuel (gas, para. 3), the unit cells (142) are interconnected o form interstitial spaces among them (there is space between cells 142; para. 53); the unit cells (142) are configured to allow a flow of the gaseous fuel (gas; they are connected to provide hydrogen to and from the cells para. 3, 16, 83) from the one or more modules (at least some of 142) simultaneously according to operation demand (structure is fully capable of having hydrogen flow at the same time from 142);
a plurality of collectors (some of 142 near an end) comprising an accumulator (interpreted as a gas storage volume; see some of 142 near end can store gas) located in the storage platform (100) and configured to stabilize pressure (due to their ability to store fuel) of the gaseous fuel (gas); wherein the unit cells (142) are fluidly connected the collectors (some of 142 near an end).
Loukus does not appear to explicitly teach pressure relief valves, a pressure regulating unit, and temperature sensors, as claimed. However, it is routine to provide such to supply hydrogen to hydrogen consuming devices as demonstrated by Fujita. Fujita teaches a system (see whole disclosure, column 6, line 59 “combined system”) comprising: a vehicle (background of the invention; column 6, line 60-65 “vehicle”) having a fuel cell (2) that also stores hydrogen in a hydrogen storage tank (11-18; column 6, line 65-67) having a plurality of metal hydride modules (see each of 11 through 18) and that it is desirable to provide a plurality temperature sensors (11g-18g; column 8, line 45-50), pressure regulating units (11c-18c), and pressure relief valves (11d-18d) configured to prevent overpressure accumulation in the system (system), all for the purpose of controlling the temperature and pressure in the modules (11-18). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Loukus with the temperature sensors, pressure regulating units, and pressure relief valves of Fujita for the purpose of providing pressure and temperature control of the hydrogen and improve handling.
Loukus does not appear to explicitly teach anchoring points comprising structural fixtures (parts of internal assembly aiding in fit of parts together) for assembly of the platform (100) into a vehicle or other application.
However, Loukus teaches that the system is for storing gas for powering vehicles (para. 16) and therefore providing structural connection of the platform (100) to a vehicle (Fig. 9-10) is routine. Further, Liu teaches a system for storing hydrogen (page 2) for powering vehicles (page 2, para. 4) having a hydrogen storage platform (page 2, para. 4) and anchoring points comprising structural fixtures (see 21) for assembly of the storage platform (22) to an electric vehicle (page 2, para. 4 electric car).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Loukus with structural fixtures to connect the platform to a vehicle for the purpose of making the storage system mountable to vehicles and useful in vehicle fueling.
In regard to claim 3, Loukus teaches that the interstitial spaces are filled with an auxiliary lattice structure (para. 9, 48) configured to enhance stiffness of the platform (100; para. 18) (material being present resists movement more than if material were not present) and crashworthiness (see that the lattice material makes the assembly more robust and resistant to damage and therefore more crashworthy).
In regard to claim 4, Loukus teaches that the unit cells (142) have a geometrical shape (interpreted as some described shape; see geometrical description of the shape of the cells in figures).
In regard to claim 9, Loukus teaches that the gaseous fuel is hydrogen (fully capable of being hydrogen per para. 16).
In regard to claim 10-11, Loukus teaches that the stored gas is compressed gas (at some pressure above ambient). Note that claim 11 is conditional by the recitation “when”.
In regard to claim 14, Loukus, is fully capable of being used in a land vehicle (see fig. 9-10; para. 73).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the detailed rejection above.
Applicant's arguments (page 5) are an allegation that the drawings show the lattice. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive and entirely ignores the rationale of the drawing objection and the objections remain and must be addressed.
Applicant's arguments (page 5-6) are an allegation that “Myasnikov’s disclosure is not a modular lattice platform” merely a cylindrical tank.
In response, the allegation is unpersuasive for being entirely baseless and failing to identify any structural difference between the claimed platform and the platform of the prior art. The allegation implies that a shape of the platform of Myasikov is contradictory to the claimed recitation and this is without any merit as there are no limitations that exclude the shapes taught by Myasikov.
Applicant's arguments (page 6) are an allegation that the prior art does not teach hollow spherical or polyhedral lattice voids.
In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as the claims do not recite any hollow spherical or polyhedral lattice voids.
Applicant's arguments (page 7) are an allegation that the prior art does not teach additive fabrication and periodic lattice architecture.
In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as the claims do not recite any of these limitations and the allegation fails to address the rejection of the claimed invention.
Applicant's arguments (page 7-8) are a similar allegations that fail entirely to address any structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. It is not persuasive to make false allegations about what the claims require.
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 F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. 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.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights