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 .
Drawings
Figure 6A should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated, see e.g., pg. 2, fifth paragraph: “Fig. 6 is a side by side view of the platform member of the micro climber according to the invention (on right) compared to platform member of a conventional climber on left”, also see MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are further objected to because a callout should be included in Fig. 12 for the seat cushion described on pg. 13, fourth paragraph. Also, callouts to the seat member 6 and platform member should be added to Fig. 8, see the last paragraph of pg. 12. And callouts should be added to Fig. 10 for the plug grommets 11.
The drawings are also objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
wherein the recess area has a maximum depth that is from 10-70% of the maximum depth of the seat member of claim 3,
wherein the recess area has a maximum depth that is from 15-65% of the maximum depth of the seat member of claim 4,
wherein the recess area has a maximum depth that is from 20-60% of the maximum depth of the seat member of claim 5,
wherein the recess area has a maximum depth that is at least 50% of the maximum depth of the seat member of claim 6, and,
wherein said seat member comprises a plurality of plug grommets configured to be inserted into the attachment ports of said platform member to securely attach said seat member to said platform member of claim 9,
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
pg. 12, last paragraph, line 1, “platform” should be replaced with –seat--.
pg. 13, fifth paragraph, line 1, “14” should be replaced with –17--,
pg. 14, first paragraph, line 6, “re-engages” should be replaced with –re-engage-,
pg. 14, first paragraph, line 14, “in the” should be removed,
pg. 14, first paragraph, third to last line, “re-engages” should be replaced with –re-engage--,
pg. 14, last paragraph, line 4, “place” should be replaced with –placed--.
pg. 15, first paragraph, line 5, “re-engages” should be replaced with –re-engage--.
Appropriate correction is required.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to:
for the inclusion of implied language, specifically, “The present invention relates to”, and,
for being less than 50 words.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
The claims are replete with objectionable matters, some non-limiting examples include:
In Claim 1:
- line 1, “the trunk” should be properly introduced as --a trunk--.
- line 7, “the user” should be --a user--.
-line 8, “said support platform” appears that it should be --said platform member--.
-lines 8 and 9, “a stabilizer member that comprises” should be replaced with --said dual-purpose stabilizer member that further comprises--.
In claim 2, “said cutout recess” appears that it should be “--said recess cutout--
In claims 10 and 11, “wherein said platform and/or” seems like it should be --wherein said platform member and/or--
In claim 13, line 2, “shoes/boots” should be replaced with ‘shoes or boots’ since the ‘/’ is undefined.
The applicant is expected to correct the above non-limiting examples, and to find and correct all similar issues as well.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Specifically, the “attachment means” recited in claim 1, line 5 are being interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and accordingly, are limited by the description of the strap in the specification at page 11, paragraphs 3 and 4.
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 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1, in the final 2 lines, “comprises a dual purpose stabilizer that doubles as a climbing stirrup is unclear for introducing a broad limitation “stabilizer” followed by a narrower limitation “that doubles as a climbing stirrup”. Also, the term “doubles as” is unclear as to whether this is intended use language or whether it is positively requiring that the stabilizer is a climbing stirrup - for example, does this mean ‘stabilizer configured for the user to step upon’ or does it mean the ‘stabilizer is a climbing stirrup’ or the ‘stabilizer comprises a climbing stirrup’. Note that confusion persists in “the stabilizer/climbing stirrup” of claim 14 since the ‘/’ is undefined - does it mean ‘or’, ‘and’, or something else?
Claim 2, the phrase "and the like" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "and the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 3-6, line 1, “the recess area” is indefinite. Is it referring to a new introduced term ‘a recess area’ or back to “a recess cutout” from claim 1?
Claims 10 “said platform and/or the seat member are one-piece” includes the scope that the platform and seat member are an integral one-piece unit, yet this claimed scope doesn’t comport with the disclosure which only has support for ‘the platform to be one-piece and the seat member to be one-piece respectively’. Or does the applicant mean they are one-piece when collapsed in the transport position? Further confusion is provided because “the platform” lacks proper antecedent basis, it seems this is referring to the platform member but due to the lack of clarity in the scope of first phrase above, this draws further confusion as to what “the platform” may be referring to exactly. For example, is it referring to a platform of the seat member? Please clarify.
Claim 12 recites “the platform member comprises a slotted receiving port configured to receive said flattened end of said bolt or thumb screw” and also that “when said bolt or screw is inserted into said slotted receiving port and twisted and/or tightened down”. It is unclear how the bolt or screw would be operable to fasten the seat and platform members to each other if the flattened end is restrained from movement in the slotted port of the platform member and thus the claim is indefinite.
Claims that depend from a rejected claim are also rejected for including the indefiniteness of the parent claim(s).
The claims are replete with clarity issues and the above are non-limiting examples, the applicant is expected to correct those and find all similar issues and correct them as well.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amacker (US5379861) in view of Hovey (US20100270105).
1: A climbing treestand (Fig. 1) for demountable attachment to the trunk of a tree, said treestand comprising: a lower main supporting platform member (14), an upper seat member (12), and attachment means (38) connected to each of said platform member and seat member for attaching each of said seat member and platform member to a tree, and said platform member (14) comprises a dual-purpose stabilizer (54) that doubles as a climbing stirrup (col. 7, lines 42-46: “Using his feet, he places his toes and insteps under cross bar 54. By pulling up on cross bar 54, he cocks the lower climbing member 14 upward, increasing the horizontal spacing between inner jaw 36 and outer jaw 38. Lower climbing member 14 is thus free to slide along columnar member 16. By pulling up with his feet, the user can pull lower climbing member 14 up to a position just below upper climbing member 12”).
Amacker fails to disclose wherein the seat member comprises a recess cutout which provides the user with more standing room on said support platform. Hovey teaches wherein the seat member comprises a recess cutout (144) which provides the user with more standing room on said support platform. It 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 to have included wherein the seat member comprises a recess cutout which provides the user with more standing room on said support platform in the climbing treestand disclosed by Amacker according to the teachings of Hovey “such that the user can comfortably suspend their legs over the edge of climbing platform 102 for extended periods of time. Additionally, the user can position support platform 104 below climbing platform 102 such that it can be used as a footrest” (Hovey, [0087]).
2: Amacker in view of Hovey disclose the climbing treestand of claim 1 wherein said cutout recess is semi-circular, semi- elliptical, elliptical, multi-angled, semi hexagonal, semi pentagonal, semi-octogonal, boxed, and the like (Hovey, [0086]: “semicircular or semi-elliptical recessed edges 144).
3: Amacker in view Hovey do not explicitly disclose the climbing treestand of claim 1 wherein the recess area has a maximum depth that is from 10-70% of the maximum depth of the seat member. However, per MPEP 2144.05.I: a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Accordingly, it 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 to have included wherein the recess area has a maximum depth that is from 10-70% of the maximum depth of the seat member in the treestand disclosed by Amacker according to the teachings of Hovey in order for the user “to comfortably suspend their legs over the edge of climbing platform 102 for extended periods of time. Additionally, the user can position support platform 104 below climbing platform 102 such that it can be used as a footrest” (Hovey, [0087]).
4. Amacker in view of Hovey do not explicitly disclose the climbing treestand of claim 1 wherein the recess area has a maximum depth that is from 15-65% of the maximum depth of the seat member. However, per MPEP 2144.05.I: a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Accordingly, it 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 to have included wherein the recess area has a maximum depth that is from 15-65% of the maximum depth of the seat member in the treestand disclosed by Amacker according to the teachings of Hovey in order for the user “to comfortably suspend their legs over the edge of climbing platform 102 for extended periods of time. Additionally, the user can position support platform 104 below climbing platform 102 such that it can be used as a footrest” (Hovey, [0087]).
5. Amacker in view of Hovey do not explicitly disclose the climbing treestand of claim 1 wherein the recess area has a maximum depth that is from 20-60% of the maximum depth of the seat member. However, per MPEP 2144.05.I: a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Accordingly, it 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 to have included wherein the recess area has a maximum depth that is from 20-60% of the maximum depth of the seat member in the treestand disclosed by Amacker according to the teachings of Hovey in order for the user “to comfortably suspend their legs over the edge of climbing platform 102 for extended periods of time. Additionally, the user can position support platform 104 below climbing platform 102 such that it can be used as a footrest” (Hovey, [0087]).
6: Amacker in view of Hovey do not explicitly disclose the climbing treestand of claim 1 wherein the recess area has a maximum depth that is at least 50% of the maximum depth of the seat member. However, per MPEP 2144.05.I: a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Accordingly, it 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 to have included wherein the recess area has a maximum depth that is from 50% of the maximum depth of the seat member in the treestand disclosed by Amacker according to the teachings of Hovey in order for the user “to comfortably suspend their legs over the edge of climbing platform 102 for extended periods of time. Additionally, the user can position support platform 104 below climbing platform 102 such that it can be used as a footrest” (Hovey, [0087]).
14: Amacker in view of Hovey disclose the climbing treestand of claim 13 wherein said dual purpose stabilizer is configured such that when said platform member is collapsed for transport, the stabilizer/climbing stirrup pivots or folds to lie flat with the platform member (see Fig. 2 of Hovey, also [0030]: “The climbing and support platforms may be collapsed for simple transportation or storage”).
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amacker (US5379861) in view of Hovey (US20100270105) and further in view of Morris (US6345690).
Amacker in view of Hovey disclose the climbing treestand of claim 1 wherein said platform member (14) comprises support arms (56) on each outer edge of said platform, wherein said support arms are connected to each other by a stabilizer member (54). However, Amacker in view of Hovey fail to disclose that the stabilizer member further comprises integrated climbing stirrups. Morris teaches, in the context of climbing treestands, integrated climbing stirrups (272, 272A, 274, col. 9, lines 60-63: “A separator bracket 274 may be provided between upper support bracket 272 and foot support bracket 212 in order to provide separate areas for accommodation of each of the boots of the hunter within upper support bracket 272”). It 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 to have included integrated climbing stirrups in the treestand disclosed by Amacker in view of Hovey according to the teachings of Morris “in order to provide for comfort and enhanced contact between the hunter's boots and the upper support bracket 272”, see col. 10, lines 2-4 of Morris.
13: Amacker in view of Hovey fail to disclose the climbing treestand of claim 1 wherein said dual-purpose stabilizer comprises rounded recess areas configured to accept the shoes/boots of the user. Morris teaches, in the context of climbing treestands, rounded recess areas configured to accept the shoes/boots of the user (see below annotated Fig. 7 of Morris).
It 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 to have included wherein the dual-purpose stabilizer of Amacker in view of Hovey comprises rounded recess areas configured to accept the shoes/boots of the user according to the teachings of Morris “in order to provide for comfort and enhanced contact between the hunter's boots and the upper support bracket 272”, see col. 9, line 67 to col. 10, line 4.
PNG
media_image1.png
1339
1055
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amacker (US5379861) in view of Hovey (US20100270105) and further in view of Cole (US20140190308)
8: Amacker in view of Hovey disclose the climbing treestand of claim 1 wherein said platform member comprises a plurality of attachment ports (see Hovey [0043]: “Sockets may also be incorporated in the present invention. Such sockets may be inserted in socket apertures located in either or both of the climbing and support platforms”. Amacker in view of Hovey fail to disclose wherein the attachment ports are configured to allow attachment of said seat member to said platform member. However, Amacker in view of Hovey teach generally that the climbing and support platforms may be transformed “into virtually flat objects that may be stacked upon one another to simplify transportation. In this collapsed position, climbing and support platforms may be easily stored under a seat, in an automobile trunk, or in a backpack, duffle bag, or the like during transportation to the user's desired location. Also, this design allows a user to carry the platforms as a backpack or contained within a backpack”, [0030] of Hovey. And Cole teaches that a “male engagement component is configured to interact with a female engagement component. In some embodiments, the male engagement component may be a pin, screw, spike, post, projection, protrusion, rail, or any other suitable structure. The male engagement component may be fixed with respect to a surface or structure (such as a plate or pedal, etc.) or may be connectable to any surface or structure. The male engagement component is dimensioned and otherwise configured to generate a desired, predetermined amount of friction when sufficient force is applied to engage the male engagement component with a female engagement component”. It 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 to have included wherein the attachment ports of Amacker in view of Hovey are configured (i.e., stacked) to allow attachment of said seat member to said platform member according to the teachings of Cole in order to further enhance storage and transportation of the treestand, see Cole at [0003]: “there are many applications (such as sporting applications, the placement of transportable goods in a container or vehicle, the storage of goods in a warehouse or private storage unit, and so forth) where it is desirable for two objects to be connected at a certain position for a certain amount of time without slipping or sliding and for there to be a relatively easy way of fixing and releasing the connection”.
9: Amacker (US5379861) in view of Hovey (US20100270105) and further in view of Cole (US20190269245) disclose the climbing treestand of claim 8 wherein said seat member comprises a plurality of plug grommets (see Fig. 17 of Cole) configured to be inserted into the attachment ports (sockets, see e.g., [0110] of Hovey) of said platform member to securely attach said seat member to said platform member.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amacker (US5379861) in view of Hovey (US20100270105) and further in view of Infalt et al. (US10973224).
Amacker in view of Hovey fails to disclose the climbing treestand of claim 1 wherein said platform and/or the seat member are one- piece and are fabricated from cast aluminum or solid aluminum stock. Infalt teaches, in the context of treestands, wherein said platform and/or the seat member are one- piece and are fabricated from cast aluminum or solid aluminum stock (col. 14, lines 38-40: “Platform 1706 and seat 1712 are each machined from a solid plate (either the same plate or different plates) of aluminum alloy or other pre-strengthened metal”). It 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 to have included wherein said platform and/or the seat member are one- piece and are fabricated from cast aluminum or solid aluminum stock in the treestand disclosed by Amacker in view of Hovey according to the teachings of Infalt in order to render the treestand “aesthetically pleasing to hunters”, see col. 14, lines 24-25 of Infalt.
11: Amacker in view of Hovey and further in view of Infalt disclose the climbing treestand of claim 10 wherein said platform and/or seat member are fabricated from solid aluminum stock by machining or by a waterjet process (col. 13, line 66 to col. 14, line 9: “In the example embodiments shown in FIGS. 13-15, platform 300 and seat 334 are machined (milling, drilling, etc.) from plates using a CNC machine. However, other cutting means can be implemented in place of machining. For example, platform 1300 and seat 334 can be cut from a plate using other processes including, but not limited to, water jet cutting, plasma cutting, flame cutting, laser cutting, stamping/punching, drilling, and/or any other manufacturing process for removing material. Such alternate cutting processes can optionally be automated, using CNC or other systems, or manual”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amacker (US5379861) in view of Hovey (US20100270105) and further in view of Reich (US2294802).
12: Amacker in view of Hovey disclose wherein the platform member comprises a slotted receiving port (908 in Fig. 9 of Hovey). Also, Amacker in view of Hovey teach that “Such sockets may be inserted in socket apertures located in either or both of the climbing and support platforms”, [0043] of Hovey. Further, Amacker in view of Hovey teach generally that the climbing and support platforms may be transformed “into virtually flat objects that may be stacked upon one another to simplify transportation. In this collapsed position, climbing and support platforms may be easily stored under a seat, in an automobile trunk, or in a backpack, duffle bag, or the like during transportation to the user's desired location. Also, this design allows a user to carry the platforms as a backpack or contained within a backpack”, see [0030] of Hovey. Reich teaches a thumbscrew with a flattened end (27, 28), see Fig. 10 of Reich. It 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 to have included wherein the upper seat member comprises a threaded or unthreaded bolt or thumb screw having a flattened end, and the platform member comprises a slotted receiving port configured to receive said flattened end of said bolt or thumb screw, wherein when said bolt or screw is inserted into said slotted receiving port and twisted and/or tightened down, the seat and platform members are securely fastened to each other in the treestand disclosed by Amacker in view of Hovey according to the teachings of Reich in order to securely fasten the stacked seat member to the platform member at the slotted receiving port with a fastener having a “head portion which is adapted to be grasped by the hand of the user”, see lines 5-6 of Reich.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ben Pezzlo whose telephone number is (571)272-9656. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 7 to 5.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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.
/BAP/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634