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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2025 and 10/09/2023 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1. 97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Under the detailed description, elements: “160A”, “160B”, “162A”, “162B”, “164A”, “164B”, “166A”, and “166B” are not shown in Figures; and because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description of elements: “130A”, “130B”, “132A”, “132B”, “134A”, and “136B”. 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. 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.
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, under claim 1, the “a heating element”, under claim 2, the “a handgrip of the motorcycle, under claim 3, the “a button mounted on a handlebar of the vehicle”, under claim 4, the “a touchscreen mounted on the vehicle”, under claim 6, the “a touchscreen in a portable electronic communication device” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites the limitation “an button” in line 1. Suggest changing “an button” to “a button” to obviate this objection. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 19: Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112
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.
A. Claim limitation “a first input device” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “receiving user input” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claims 1, 18 and 19 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0033], For example, as illustrated in FIG. 1, the system 100 includes a first input device 140.
B. Claim limitation “an electronic control unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “control” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claims 1 and 19 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0010], FIG. 1B schematically illustrates four electronic control units (ECUs).
C. Claim limitation “a second input device” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “receiving user input” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claims 1, 18 and 19 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0031], system 100 may be configured to activate one or more menus or graphical user interfaces (GUIs) provided through the second input device 180.
D. Claim limitation “a switch pack electronic control unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “electronic control” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claim 17 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0031], system 100 may be configured to activate one or more menus or graphical user interfaces (GUIs) provided through the second input device 180.
E. Claim limitation “a heated grip electronic control unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “electronic control” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claim 17 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0031], each switch pack ECU 110A, 110B may include one or more plugs or receptacles for receiving a mating
mechanism on a heated grip ECU.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the first user input device” in line 1, rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the relation between this “the first user input device” and a first input device mentioned in claim 1 line 3 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the second user input device” in line 1, rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the relation between this “the second user input device” and a second input device mentioned in claim 1 line 5 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
The rest of the claims are also been rejected because each claim depends on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Rhodes (US 2020/0114999 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Rhodes discloses a heated surface system for a vehicle (see [0013], Fig 1), the heated surface system including:
a heating element (include a right hand heater 90… left hand heater 94, [0024], Fig 2) positioned proximate to a user contact surface (a right grip 74 and a left grip 78, [0021], Fig 2) of the vehicle;
a first input device (control hard button 124, [0030], Fig 2) for receiving user input for controlling the heating element (any appropriate set temperature may be determined by the rider 44, such as by accessing the hard selection buttons 124, [0045], Fig 2), the first input device communicatively coupled to an electronic control unit (a controller module 164, [0038], Fig 4) over a first connection (details see Figs 2 and 4-5); and
a second input device (a multiple control panel 66, [0021], Fig 2) for receiving user input for controlling the heating element (input system, as discussed above, may include the screen or display 66 that may display a selected temperature setting, [0030], Fig 2), the second input device communicatively coupled to the electronic control unit over a second connection different from the first connection (details see Figs 2 and 4-5), wherein the electronic control unit is configured to control the heating element based on user input received via the first input device or the second input device (the display/rider input 126 illustrated in FIG. 3 may include any appropriate portion such as the display 66, the input buttons 124, or other appropriate inputs, [0030]).
Claim 2, wherein the vehicle includes a motorcycle (the features herein may be applied to any appropriate vehicle, such as motorcycles, [0019]) and the user contact surface includes a handgrip (a right grip 74 and a left grip 78, [0021], Fig 2) of the motorcycle.
Claim 3, wherein the first user input device includes an button (control hard button 124, [0030], Fig 2) mounted on a handlebar (a handlebar 70, [0031], Fig 2) of the vehicle.
Claim 4, wherein the second user input device includes a touchscreen (a multiple control panel 66, [0021], Fig 2) mounted on the vehicle.
Claim 5, wherein the touchscreen is included in an infotainment system installed on the vehicle (the screen 66 which may display information to the rider, [0027]).
Claim 7, wherein the first connection includes a local interconnect network (linkage may be a direct physical connection, [0022], Fi 4) and wherein the second connection includes a controller area network (a CAN Bus 128, [0031], Fig 4).
Claim 8, wherein the electronic control unit is further configured to automatically turn on or turn off the heating element based on environmental temperature information and a temperature threshold (resistive temperature determination system 160 may be used in addition or alternatively to the temperature sensor 140, [0038]).
Claim 9, wherein the temperature threshold is associated with one of a plurality of temperature levels (controlling the temperature of the heater 90 to achieve a selected temperature is discussed as illustrated in FIG. 5).
Claim 10, wherein the electronic control unit is further configured to automatically turn off the heating element based on a battery level of the vehicle (Power may be drawn from the battery 110 for various purposes such as powering the heaters, [0027], Fig 4; clearly, “the electronic control unit is” capable of “further configured to automatically turn off the heating element based on a battery level of the vehicle” as claimed).
Claim 11, wherein the electronic control unit is further configured to disable the heating element in response to detecting a fault (an operator or system may select a temperature, such as about 30° C., to be maintained, [0008]; clearly, “the electronic control unit is” capable of “further configured to disable the heating element in response to detecting a fault” as claimed).
Claim 12, wherein the electronic control unit is configured to disable the heating element via a command transmitted on the first connection (164 that has a selected set temperature or range of temperatures for the selected general temperature range selected by the rider 44. Accordingly, any appropriate set temperature may be determined by the rider 44, such as by accessing the hard selection buttons 12, [0045]).
Claim 13, wherein the electronic control unit is configured to disable the heating element via a command transmitted on a wired connection to the heating element (details see Fig 5).
Claim 14, wherein the electronic control unit is further configured to disable the heating element in response to failing to detect a current state of the heating element (current sensor 168 may sense a current from the driver 138 to the heater 90, [0040], Figs 4-5; clearly, “the electronic control unit is” capable of “further configured to disable the heating element in response to failing to detect a current state of the heating element” as claimed).
Claim 15, wherein the electronic control unit is further configured to disable the heating element in response to loss of communication on at least one selected from a group consisting of the first connection and the second connection (a controller module 164 that is also in communication with the CAN Bus 128 and the display/rider input 126, [0038], Fig 4-5; clearly, “the electronic control unit is” capable of “further configured to disable the heating element in response to loss of communication on at least one selected from a group consisting of the first connection and the second connection” as claimed).
Claim 16, wherein the electronic control unit is further configured to determine a status of the heated surface system as reported via the second input device (the heater 90 may be controlled by determining temperature of the heater 90 with a resistive calculation or measurement control assembly 160, alternatively to or in addition to a temperature sensor, [0038], Fig 4) and, in response to the status of the heated surface system as reported via the second input device (a multiple control panel 66, [0021], Fig 2) being inaccurate or lost, disable the heating element (the heater 90 may be operated according to the flow system 200 to achieve a selected temperature, [0060], Fig 5).
Claim 17, wherein the electronic control unit is a switch pack electronic control unit (include various electronic components, [0027], include a controller module 164, [0038], Fig 4) and wherein the heating element (include a right hand heater 90… left hand heater 94, [0024], Fig 2) is included in a heated grip electronic control unit (a right grip 74 and a left grip 78, [0021], Fig 2).
Regarding Independent Claim 18, Rhodes discloses a method for operating a heating element of a heated surface system for a vehicle (see Abstract), the method comprising: receiving, from a first input device (control hard button 124, [0030], Fig 2) over a first connection, user input for controlling the heating element (any appropriate set temperature may be determined by the rider 44, such as by accessing the hard selection buttons 124, [0045], Fig 2);
receiving, from a second input device (a multiple control panel 66, [0021], Fig 2) over a second connection, user input for controlling the heating element (input system, as discussed above, may include the screen or display 66 that may display a selected temperature setting, [0030], Fig 2), the second connection being different from the first connection (see Fig 2); and
controlling the heating element based on the user input received from the first input device or the second input device (the display/rider input 126 illustrated in FIG. 3 may include any appropriate portion such as the display 66, the input buttons 124, or other appropriate inputs, [0030]), the heating element being positioned proximate to a user contact surface (a right grip 74 and a left grip 78, [0021], Fig 2) of the vehicle.
Regarding Independent Claim 19, Rhodes discloses a heated surface device for a vehicle (see [0013], Fig 1), the device comprising:
a heating element (include a right hand heater 90… left hand heater 94, [0024], Fig 2) positioned proximate to a user contact surface (a right grip 74 and a left grip 78, [0021], Fig 2) of the vehicle;
a first input device (control hard button 124, [0030], Fig 2) for receiving user input for controlling the heating element (any appropriate set temperature may be determined by the rider 44, such as by accessing the hard selection buttons 124, [0045], Fig 2), the first input device communicatively coupled to an electronic control unit (a controller module 164, [0038], Fig 4) over a first connection (details see Figs 2 and 4-5); and
a second input device (a multiple control panel 66, [0021], Fig 2) for receiving user input for controlling the heating element (input system, as discussed above, may include the screen or display 66 that may display a selected temperature setting, [0030], Fig 2), the second input device communicatively coupled to the electronic control unit over a second connection different from the first connection (details see Figs 2 and 4-5), wherein the electronic control unit is configured to control the heating element based on user input received via the first input device or the second input device (the display/rider input 126 illustrated in FIG. 3 may include any appropriate portion such as the display 66, the input buttons 124, or other appropriate inputs, [0030]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 6 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rhodes (US 2020/0114999 A1) in view of MATTES (CH 718210 A2).
Regarding Claim 6, Rhodes discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claim 6.
MATTES further teaches a heated surface system for a vehicle (a heating device for a handlebar that is arranged on the handlebars of two- or three-wheeled vehicles, [0001]), and Claim 6, wherein the second user input device (“the second user input device” taught by Rhodes already) includes a touchscreen in a portable electronic communication device (the heating device could also be operated wirelessly using a smartphone or similar device, [0029], Fig 1), the portable electronic communication device wirelessly communicating with a transceiver included in the vehicle (Clearly, “the portable electronic communication device” capable of “wirelessly communicating with a transceiver included in the vehicle” as claimed). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Rhodes with MATTES’s further teaches of Claim 6; because MATTES teaches, in Para. [0029], of providing an excellent wireless control device for processing convenience during operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 571/272-5567. 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.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights