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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, & 12-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
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.
Re claim 12, For the structure that is sufficient to enable the edge structure to be alternately attached and detached to and from at least one other edge structure:
The claim limitation uses the term structure, as a generic placeholder for means, to perform the claimed function of enabling the edge structure to be alternately attached and detached to and from at least one other edge structure
The term structure is modified by the functional language “that is sufficient to enable”
The term structure is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for preforming the claimed function of enabling the edge structure to be alternately attached and detached to and from at least one other edge structure
As such under 112(f), the structure is being limited to the structure disclosed or a functional equivalent thereof, specifically a twisty-tie, hook-and-loop fastener, or an equivalent thereof as recited in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 12-15, 18-19, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shupe et al., U.S. Patent No. 3,457,673 A; herein Shupe in view of Kepes et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0247014 A1; herein Kep.
Re claim 1, Shupe discloses a floral design device comprising:
an edge structure (6; the base plate, fig. 1-3);
a grid (9; the mesh work, fig. 1 & 3) having a peripheral portion (fig. 1 & 3, the end portions of the grid structure/wire/cordage that are proximal to the base plate) and a medial portion (fig. 1, the central sections of the mesh work/wire/cordage that are distal from the base plate and extend about/over the body; 8), wherein an outer edge of the peripheral portion of the grid is coupled to the edge structure (fig. 1 & 3 and col 2; 44-51, the mesh work is fastened to the base plate via the serrated edge and positioning the mesh work under the plate); and
wherein the grid is disposed within a spatial region (18; the serrated edge along the perimeter of the base plate, fig. 1-2) defined by a perimeter of the edge structure (fig. 1-2 and col 2; 44-51, the mesh work is deposited into the serrated perimeter of the base plate to prevent shifting of the meshwork pattern),
wherein the peripheral portion of the grid lies in a plane defined by a perimeter of the edge structure (fig. 1 & 3, the sections of the wire/cordage that are wrapped about the perimeter of the base plate lie in both a horizontal plane of the underside of the base plate and a vertical plane in line with the serrated edges of the base plate), and
wherein the medial portion of the grid bulges arcuately away from the plane (fig. 1 and col 2; 7-33, via the shape of the body).
Shupe fails to disclose at least one elongate piece attached to and extending from the edge structure. However, Kep discloses a floral design device comprising: an edge structure (18; the backplate, fig. 1-5); a grid (20; the frame, fig. 1-5); and at least one elongate piece (fig. 1-4 and para 38-39, the tie devices; 92/34 being thin twisted wires) attached to and extending from the edge structure (fig. 1-4 and para 38-39, via the attachment holes).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose at least one elongate piece attached to and extending from the edge structure however, Kep discloses such an elongated piece. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the holes and tie devices as taught by Kep to the base plate and mesh work of the prior art to yield the predictable result of further securing the wire/cordage to the base plate. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Re claim 2, the combination of Shupe and Kep discloses the invention of claim 1, Shupe further discloses wherein each grid opening of the plurality of grid openings has a substantially equal area (col 2; 39-43, wherein the openings formed by the wire/cordage are rectangular and symmetrical).
Re claim 3, the combination of Shupe and Kep discloses the invention of claim 1, the combination discloses the claimed invention except for wherein at least one grid opening of the plurality of grid openings has a different area as compared to at least one other grid opening of the plurality of grid openings however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to position the wire/cordage in a pattern forming various sizes of grid openings to accommodate asymmetrical or irregular floral arrangements, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of essential working parts is generally held as an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
Re claim 5, the combination of Shupe and Kep discloses the invention of claim 1, Kep as applied to Shupe further discloses wherein the at least one elongate piece enables the edge structure to be alternate bound and unbound to and from another object (para 38-39, wherein the thin wire is twisted to bind the frame and backboard together and is capable of being untwisted to reposition elements of the apparatus).
Additionally, the examiner notes, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have the tie devices be removable from the assembly to allow adjustments to the apparatus, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various separable elements is generally an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Re claim 6, the combination of Shupe and Kep discloses the invention of claim 6, Kep as applied to Shupe further discloses wherein the at least one elongate piece comprises a twisty tie (para 38, wherein the tie devices are thin twist-tied wire).
Re claim 12, the combination of Shupe and Kep discloses the invention of claim 1, Kep as applied to Shupe further discloses wherein at least one portion of the edge structure comprises a structure (fig. 1-4 and para 38-39, the tie devices; 92/34 being thin twisted wires) that is sufficient to enable the edge structure to be alternately attached and detached to and from at least one other edge structure.
The examiner recognizes the structure being sufficient to enable the edge structure to be alternately attached and detached to and from at least one other edge structure as an intended use clauses, the examiner upholds that in an apparatus claim the manner in which the device is intended to be employed does not differentiate a claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 II.
Re claim 13, the combination of Shupe and Kep discloses the invention of claim 1, Shupe further discloses wherein the perimeter of the edge structure defines a shape of the floral design device (fig. 1).
Re claim 14, the combination of Shupe and Kep discloses the invention of claim 13, Shupe further discloses wherein the shape is at least partially ovoid shaped (fig. 1, via the shape of the body).
Re claim 15, the combination of Shupe and Kep discloses the invention of claim 13, Shupe further discloses wherein the shape is non-circular and has at least one at least partially arcuate side (fig. 1, via the shape of the body); and at least one non-arcuate side (fig. 1-3, formed by the base plate).
Re claim 18, Shupe discloses a method of manufacturing a floral design device, the method comprising:
providing an edge structure (6; the base plate, fig. 1-3) as one piece (fig. 1-2);
providing a grid (9; the mesh work, fig. 1 & 3) having a peripheral portion (fig. 1 & 3, the end portions of the grid structure/wire/cordage that are proximal to the base plate) and a medial portion (fig. 1, the central sections of the mesh work/wire/cordage that are distal from the base plate and extend about/over the body; 8); and
coupling an outer edge of the peripheral portion of the to the edge structure (fig. 1 & 3 and col 2; 44-51, the mesh work is fastened to the base plate via the serrated edge and positioning the mesh work under the plate), wherein, as coupled to the edge structure, the peripheral portion lies in a plane defined by a perimeter of the edge structure (fig. 1 & 3, the sections of the wire/cordage that are wrapped about the perimeter of the base plate lie in both a horizontal plane of the underside of the base plate and a vertical plane in line with the serrated edges of the base plate), and wherein the medial portion bulges arcuately away from the plane (fig. 1 and col 2; 7-33, via the shape of the body).
Shupe fails to disclose attaching at least one elongate piece to the edge structure such that the at least one elongate piece extends from the edge structure to thereby enable the edge structure to be alternately bound and unbound to and from another object. However, Kep discloses a method of manufacturing a floral design device, the method comprising: providing an edge structure (18; the backplate, fig. 1-5) as one piece (fig. 1 & para 26, the backplate is a single flat plate); providing a grid (20; the frame, fig. 1-5); and attaching at least one elongate piece (fig. 1-4 and para 38-39, the tie devices; 92/34 being thin twisted wires) to the edge structure (fig. 1-4 and para 38-39, via the attachment holes) such that the at least one elongate piece extends from the edge structure (best seen in fig. 4) to thereby enable the edge structure to be alternately bound and unbound to and from another object (para 38, the tie wire being threaded with a string and hung on a nail/door).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose attaching at least one elongate piece to the edge structure such that the at least one elongate piece extends from the edge structure to thereby enable the edge structure to be alternately bound and unbound to and from another object however, Kep discloses such an elongated piece. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the holes and tie devices as taught by Kep to the base plate and mesh work of the prior art to yield the predictable result of further securing the wire/cordage to the base plate and allowing for the floral arrangement to be hung. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Re claim 19, the combination of Shupe and Kep discloses the invention of claim 1, Shupe as modified by Kep further discloses wherein coupling the outer edge of the peripheral portion of the grid to the edge structure comprises removably coupling the peripheral portion to the edge structure at or proximate to the outer edge of the grid such that the grid is capable of being alternately assembled to and disassembled from the edge structure (Kep; para 38-39, wherein the thin wire is twisted to bind the base plate and mesh work/wore/cordage together and is capable of being untwisted to reposition elements of the apparatus).
Additionally, the examiner notes, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have the tie devices be removable from the assembly to allow adjustments to the apparatus, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various separable elements is generally an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Re claim 21, Shupe discloses a floral design device comprising:
an edge structure (6; the base plate, fig. 1-3);
a grid (9; the mesh work, fig. 1 & 3) having a peripheral portion (fig. 1 & 3, the end portions of the grid structure/wire/cordage that are proximal to the base plate) and a medial portion (fig. 1, the central sections of the mesh work/wire/cordage that are distal from the base plate and extend about/over the body; 8), wherein an outer edge of the peripheral portion of the grid is coupled to the edge structure (fig. 1 & 3 and col 2; 34-39, the outside ends of the wire/cordage of the mesh work encircles a portion of the edge structure to fix the parts of the device together);
wherein the peripheral portion of the grid lies in a plane defined by perimeter of the edge structure (fig. 1 & 3, the sections of the wire/cordage that are wrapped about the perimeter of the base plate lie in both a horizontal plane of the underside of the base plate and a vertical plane in line with the serrated edges of the base plate), and
wherein the medial portion of the grid bulges arcuately away the plane defined by the perimeter of the edge structure (fig. 1 and col 2; 7-33, via the shape of the body).
Shupe fails to disclose at least one elongate piece coupled to and extending from the edge structure to enable the edge structure to be alternately bound and unbound to and from another object. However, Kep discloses a floral design device comprising: an edge structure (18; the backplate, fig. 1-5); a grid (20; the frame, fig. 1-5); and at least one elongate piece (fig. 1-4 and para 38-39, the tie devices; 92/34 being thin twisted wires) coupled to and extending from the edge structure (best seen in fig. 4) to enable the edge structure to be alternately bound and unbound to and from another object (para 38, the tie wire is suitable to be threaded with a string and hung on a nail/door or easily removable therefrom).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose at least one elongate piece coupled to and extending from the edge structure to enable the edge structure to be alternately bound and unbound to and from another object however, Kep discloses such an elongated piece. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the holes and tie devices as taught by Kep to the base plate and mesh work of the prior art to yield the predictable result of further securing the wire/cordage to the base plate and allowing for the floral arrangement to be hung. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Claim 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shupe in view of Kep as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Miller et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0011116 A1; herein ‘116.
Re claim 8, the combination of Shupe and Kep discloses the invention of claim 1, the combination fails to disclose wherein the edge structure includes at least two pieces including at least one edge piece, and at least one cross piece coupled to the at least one edge piece. However, ‘116 discloses a floral design device comprising: an edge structure (26 & 32; the tray and support, fig. 2-3 & para 22) that includes at least two pieces including at least one edge piece (26; the tray, fig. 2-3), and at least one cross piece (32 or 14/34/36; the various supports or bouquet handle/free standing support/spike supports, fig. 1-2) coupled to the at least one edge piece (para 22-23, via the connector mechanism).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the edge structure includes at least two pieces including at least one edge piece, and at least one cross piece coupled to the at least one edge piece however, ‘116 discloses such an edge structure. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the connector mechanism and stand attachments as taught by ‘116 to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing it to be displayed in a variety of ways. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 9, the combination of Shupe, Kep, and ‘116er discloses the invention of claim 8, ‘116er as applied to Shupe and Kep further discloses wherein the at least one cross piece is removably coupled to the at least one edge piece (para 22-23, wherein the connector allows for selective attachment [opening and closing] of the tray and support).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shupe in view of Kep as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Miller et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,017,132 A; herein ‘132.
Re claim 16, the combination of Shupe and Kep discloses the invention of claim 1, the combination fails to disclose a plurality of instances of the floral design device of claim 1 coupled or bound together. However, ‘132 discloses a decorative design system (110; the overall structure, fig. 7-10) comprising a plurality of instances of a design device (140; the plurality of component members, fig. 7-10 & 12-18) coupled or bound together (col 6-7; 65-7, via the tongue and groove portions).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose a plurality of instances of the floral design device of claim 1 coupled or bound together however, ‘132 discloses a device allowing for a plurality of design components to be bound together. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the tongues and grooves as taught by ‘132 to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing multiple components to be fastened together to form a larger structure such as a wreath. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 17, the combination of Shupe, Kep, and ‘132 discloses the invention of claim 16, ‘132 as applied to Shupe and Kep further discloses wherein two or more of the plurality of instances of the floral design device are coupled together between a portion of the edge structure of a first floral design device and a portion of the edge structure of at least a second floral design device (col 6-7; 65-7, the tongue portion and the groove portion of two component members/edge structue may be fastened together).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shupe in view of Kep as applied to claim 18 above, in further view of ‘132.
Re claim 20, the combination of Shupe and Kep discloses the invention of claim 18, Shupe further discloses wherein the perimeter of the edge structure provides the edge structure a shape (fig. 1).
The combination of Shupe and Kep fails to disclose wherein the perimeter of the edge structure provides the edge structure an annular sector shape, and wherein the method further comprises coupling a plurality of annular sector shaped floral design devices end-to-end to thereby form an annulus. However, ‘132 discloses an edge structure (140; the plurality of component members, fig. 7-10 & 12-18) forming a perimeter (fig. 7-10, 12-18, & 21A-B, the perimeter of the component member), wherein the perimeter of the edge structure provides the edge structure an annular sector shape (fig. 12, 15, & 18), and a method of coupling a plurality of annular sector shaped design devices end-to-end to thereby form an annulus (fig. 7-10, 12-18, & 21A-B and col 6; 56-11, the shape of the component members form a wreath or annulus shape when coupled together).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the perimeter of the edge structure provides the edge structure an annular sector shape, and wherein the method further comprises coupling a plurality of annular sector shaped floral design devices end-to-end to thereby form an annulus however, ‘132 discloses such structure. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the floral design device by utilizing a simple substitution of the known “pillow” shape as taught by the prior art for the plurality of annular sectors from ‘132 in order to obtain the predictable result of a floral wreath. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shupe in view of Kep as applied to claim 21 above, in further view of Yang, U.S. Patent No. 6,688,040 A1.
Re claim 22, the combination of Shupe and Kep discloses the invention of claim 21, the combination fails to disclose wherein the outer edge of the peripheral portion of the grid comprises a grid border that is removably coupled to the edge structure by a snap-fit between a plurality of pegs and a plurality of corresponding holes, such that the grid is capable of being alternately assembled to and disassembled from the edge structure. However, Yang discloses a floral design device comprising: an edge structure (18; the support tray, fig. 4); a grid (14; the cage, fig. 1-7) having a peripheral portion (fig. 1-7, the portion of the grid adjacent to the stiffening band; 48), wherein an outer edge of the peripheral portion of the grid is coupled to the edge structure (fig. 1-7 and col 4; 18-22, via the tabs and shoulders); and the outer edge of the peripheral portion of the grid comprises a grid border (48; the stiffening band, fig. 1-7) that is removably coupled to the edge structure by a snap-fit between a plurality of pegs (52; the respective shoulder, fig. 3-6) and a plurality of corresponding holes (55; the access points, fig. 2-7), such that the grid is capable of being alternately assembled to and disassembled from the edge structure (col 4; 18-22, the cage is removably engaged with the tray).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the outer edge of the peripheral portion of the grid comprises a grid border that is removably coupled to the edge structure by a snap-fit between a plurality of pegs and a plurality of corresponding holes, such that the grid is capable of being alternately assembled to and disassembled from the edge structure however, Yang discloses such structure. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the mesh work with a stiffening band and fastening mechanism as taught by Yang to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing the mesh work to be easily secured and removed. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shupe in view of Kep as applied to claim 13 above, in further view of ‘132.
Re claim 23, the combination of Shupe and Kep discloses the invention of claim 13, the combination fails to disclose wherein the shape is an annular sector. However, ‘132 discloses an edge structure (140; the plurality of component members, fig. 7-10 & 12-18) forming a perimeter (fig. 7-10, 12-18, & 21A-B, the perimeter of the component member), wherein the perimeter of the edge structure defines a shape of the design device (fig. 12, 15, & 18), wherein the shape is an annular sector (fig. 12, 15, & 18).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the shape is an annular sector however, ‘132 discloses such structure. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the floral design device by utilizing a simple substitution of the known “pillow” shape as taught by the prior art for the plurality of annular sectors from ‘132 in order to obtain the predictable result of a floral wreath. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
Additionally, the examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have the shape be an annular sector in order to form a wreath or circular decoration of some kind, since it has been held that such a modification would only involve a mere change in shape of a component which is generally recognized as an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.
Re claim 24, the combination of Shupe, Kep, and ‘132 discloses the invention of claim 23, ‘132 as applied to both Shupe and Kep further discloses of coupling a plurality of instances of the floral design device devices end-to-end to thereby form an annulus (fig. 7-10, 12-18, & 21A-B and col 6; 56-11, the shape of the component members form a wreath or annulus shape when coupled together).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm 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, Joshua J Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights