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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Per the Request for Continued Examination filed 23 January 2026, the Amendment filed 23 December 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20 are pending. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 23 October 2025.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at line 11 recites, “the longitudinal axis , wherein”. The space between “axis” and the comma should be deleted.
Claim 16 at line 3 recites, “at first end of the pole”. This recitation should read – at a first end of the pole –.
Claim 16 at line 8 recites, “the longitudinal axis , wherein”. The space between “axis” and the comma should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 at lines 10-11 recites, “wherein the handle portion comprises a grip area that extends along the longitudinal axis and is coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis”. This recitation is indefinite due to the run-on nature of the recitation. In particular it is unclear whether “and is coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis” is modifying “a grip area”, or whether “and is coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis” is modifying “the handle portion”. The grammar of the claim allows the claim to be interpreted either way, and either interpretation is consistent with the present specification. However, the difference in interpretation is important in applying prior art. Consider US Pub. No. 2013/0161047 A1 to Hallendorff. Hallendorff discloses a handle portion 112 that is coaxially aligned with a longitudinal axis of a pole, but a grip area 116 that is spaced from the longitudinal axis of the pole. As such, the lack of clarity regarding the intended interpretation of claim 1 makes it unclear whether Hallendorff discloses the feature of “and is coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis”. The examiner suggests amending the recitation in the form of – wherein the handle portion comprises a grip area that extends along the longitudinal axis, and wherein the [insert structure name] is coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis –. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 1 as requiring that the grip portion is coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis.
Claim 1 at lines 11-12 recites, “wherein the grip area is rotatable thereabout relative to the top portion and the base portion”. This recitation is indefinite because the structure referred to by “thereabout” is unclear. The clause at issue only refers to the grip area, and thus there is no structure that is clearly linked to “thereabout”. It is unclear, for example, whether “thereabout” must refer to some particular structure, such as the longitudinal axis, or whether “thereabout” can be interpreted as referring to any structure. The examiner suggests replacing “thereabout” with a phrase such as – about the [insert structure name] –.
Claim 16 at lines 7-8 recites, “wherein the handle portion comprises a grip area that extends along the longitudinal axis and is coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis”. This recitation is indefinite due to the run-on nature of the recitation. In particular it is unclear whether “and is coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis” is modifying “a grip area”, or whether “and is coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis” is modifying “the handle portion”. The grammar of the claim allows the claim to be interpreted either way, and either interpretation is consistent with the present specification. However, the difference in interpretation is important in applying prior art. Consider US Pub. No. 2013/0161047 A1 to Hallendorff. Hallendorff discloses a handle portion 112 that is coaxially aligned with a longitudinal axis of a pole, but a grip area 116 that is spaced from the longitudinal axis of the pole. As such, the lack of clarity regarding the intended interpretation of claim 16 makes it unclear whether Hallendorff discloses the feature of “and is coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis”. The examiner suggests amending the recitation in the form of – wherein the handle portion comprises a grip area that extends along the longitudinal axis, and wherein the [insert structure name] is coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis –. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 16 as requiring that the grip portion is coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2013/0161047 A1 to Hallendorff in view of EP 1 106 044 A1 to Robba.
Regarding claim 1, Hallendorff discloses a hedge trimmer 100 (see Fig. 1, where the illustrated power tool is configured to trim hedges because a chainsaw usable to trim small branches, leaves, and other features of a hedge; also, consistent with MPEP 2111.02, the body of claim 1 fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states a purpose or an intended use of the invention as being for trimming hedges, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, such that “the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”) comprising:
an elongated blade assembly 106 (see Fig. 1 showing the blade assembly 106 having an elongated shape);
a housing comprising a base portion 102 (see Figs. 1-3; the base portion 102 is considered as including the portion of the housing rearward of receiving portion 336 in Fig. 3 – see the annotated Fig. 3 below) rotatably connected to a handle portion 112 (see annotated Fig. 1 below and paragraph 27);
a motor disposed in the housing and operable to actuate the elongated blade assembly (see paragraph 25); and
an actuator 208 disposed on the housing (see Fig. 2; the handle portion 112 is considered as part of the housing as noted above; moreover, see the modification of Hallendorff below that changes the position of the grip area), wherein actuation of the actuator 208 causes the motor to actuate the elongated blade assembly (see paragraph 31);
a pole 104 extending along a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1, where the longitudinal axis is along the pole 104), the elongated blade assembly 106 being connected to the housing via the pole 104 (see Fig. 1);
a top portion disposed between the handle portion 112 and the elongated blade assembly 116 relative to the longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig. 1 below), wherein the handle portion 112 comprises a grip area 114 that extends along the longitudinal axis (the grip area 114 of the handle portion 112 extends along the longitudinal axis because “extends along” permits being spaced apart from the longitudinal axis and only requires a particular direction of extent; moreover, see the modification of Hallendorff below that changes the position of the grip area), wherein the grip area 114 is rotatable thereabout [i.e., about the longitudinal axis] relative to the top portion and the base portion (see Fig. 3 and paragraph 37), and wherein the top portion is rotationally fixed relative to the base portion (see Figs. 1 and 3 and paragraphs 27 and 36);
a first rotational connection disposed between the base portion 102 and the handle portion 112 (see the annotated Fig. 2 below); and
a second rotational connection disposed between the handle portion 112 and the top portion (see the annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
580
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
606
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
728
864
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hallendorff discloses that the actuator 208 is disposed on the handle portion 112 of the housing (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Hallendorff discloses that the motor is disposed in the base portion 102 of the housing (see paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 4, Hallendorff discloses that the handle portion 112 is between the base portion 102 of the housing and the elongated blade assembly 106 (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Hallendorff discloses that the handle portion 112 comprises a smaller cross sectional diameter (e.g., a cross-sectional diameter jointly defined by slots 310 and 312) than the base portion (see Fig. 1, where the cross-sectional diameter defined by the slots 310 and 312 of the handle portion 112 is smaller than a height of the base portion, noting that the claim only recites “than the base portion” without specifying any particular feature of the base portion that the cross-sectional diameter must be smaller than; however, the cross-sectional diameter of the handle portion 112 is also smaller than a cross-section of the base portion where the cross-section is taken along a maximum dimension of the base portion, to the extent that claim 5 is read as necessarily requiring a comparison to a cross-sectional diameter of the base portion).
Regarding claim 8, Hallendorff discloses that the handle portion 112 is disposed between the base portion 102 and the top portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, Hallendorff discloses that the pole 104 extends through the handle portion 112 and into the base portion 102 of the housing (see the annotated Fig. 3 above, where the pole 104 extends through the semicircular slots 310 and 312 of the handle portion and into the front section of the base portion).
Regarding claim 14, Hallendorff discloses that the handle portion 112 can rotate at least 90 degrees with respect to the base portion 102 (see paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 16, Hallendorff discloses an extended reach hedge trimmer 100 (see Fig. 1, where the illustrated power tool is configured to trim hedges because a chainsaw usable to trim small branches, leaves, and other features of a hedge, and where the trimmer 100 is ‘extended reach’ due to inclusion of the pole 104; also, consistent with MPEP 2111.02, the body of claim 16 fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states a purpose or an intended use of the invention as being for trimming hedges, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, such that “the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”) comprising:
an elongated blade assembly 106 (see Fig. 1 showing the blade assembly 106 having an elongated shape);
a pole 104 connected to the elongated blade assembly 106 at [a, sic] first end of the pole 104 (see Fig. 1), the pole extending along a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1, where the longitudinal axis extends axially through a center of the pole 104);
a housing connected to the pole 104 at a second end of the pole 104 (see Fig. 1 and the discussion of the housing in this paragraph), the housing comprising a handle portion 112 disposed between a base portion 102 and a top portion along the longitudinal axis (see annotated Figs. 1-3 above; the base portion 102 is considered as including the portion of the housing rearward of receiving portion 336 in Fig. 3 – see the annotated Fig. 3 below), wherein the handle portion 112 comprises a grip area 114 that extends along the longitudinal axis (the grip area 114 of the handle portion 112 extends along the longitudinal axis because “extends along” permits being spaced apart from the longitudinal axis and only requires a particular direction of extent; moreover, see the modification of Hallendorff below that changes the position of the grip area), wherein the grip area 114 is rotatable about the longitudinal axis with respect to the base portion and the top portion (see Fig. 3 and paragraph 37);
a motor disposed in the housing and operable to actuate the elongated blade assembly (see paragraph 25);
an actuator 208 disposed on the housing (see Fig. 2; the handle portion 112 is part of the housing; moreover, see the modification of Hallendorff below that changes the position of the grip area), wherein actuation of the actuator 208 causes the motor to actuate the elongated blade assembly 106 (see paragraph 31);
a first rotational connection disposed between the base portion 102 and the handle portion 112 (see the annotated Fig. 2 above); and
a second rotational connection disposed between the handle portion 112 and the top portion (see the annotated Fig. 2 below).
Regarding claim 17, Hallendorff discloses that the actuator 208 is disposed on the handle portion 112 of the housing (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Hallendorff discloses that the motor is disposed in the base portion 102 of the housing (see paragraph 25).
Further, relevant to claims 1 and 16, Hallendorff teaches that the grip area 114 “may enclose a portion of the guide tube 104” (see paragraph 30).
Hallendorff fails, at least in the embodiment illustrated in Fig. 1, fails to disclose that the grip area is coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis, and also fails to disclose a rotational locking switch selectively extending between the top portion and the handle portion to selectively inhibit rotation of the handle portion as required by claim 1. Hallendorff fails to disclose that the rotation locking switch is biased into a locked position as required by claim 13. Hallendorff fails to disclose that the grip area is coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis, and also fails to disclose a rotational locking switch selectively extending between the top portion and the handle portion to selectively inhibit rotation of the handle portion as required by claim 16. Finally, Hallendorff fails to disclose that the rotational locking switch is disposed on the handle portion of the housing as required by claim 20.
Like Hallendorff, Robba also teaches a hedge trimmer (see Fig. 2) having a rotatable handle portion 2. Regarding claimed features, and first in regards to the grip portion being coaxially aligned with a longitudinal axis of a pole, Robba teaches two configurations of the grip portion. In a first configuration of a grip portion of the handle portion 2 shown in Figs. 3A and 3B of Robba, the grip portion is coaxially aligned with a longitudinal axis of a pole 4 (see the annotated Fig. 3A below indicating the grip portion, and see Fig. 3B illustrating the grip portion being coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the pole 4, since the grip portion rotates about the pole 4). [Claims 1 and 16] In a second configuration of a grip portion of a handle portion shown in Fig. 4, Robba teaches a grip portion 30 that is spaced apart from the pole 4, in a similar manner as the grip portion of Hallendorff. Thus, Robba teaches that a hedge trimmer can be provided with either of a grip portion that is coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the pole (see the embodiment of Figs. 3A and 3B of Robba), or a grip portion that is axially spaced from the pole (see the embodiment of Fig. 4 of Robba).
PNG
media_image4.png
508
738
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As noted above, while the illustrated embodiment of Hallendorff includes the grip area 114 being spaced apart from the pole 104, Hallendorff discloses an alternative configuration where the grip area 114 “may enclose a portion of the guide tube [pole] 104” (see Hallendorff paragraph 30). Robba teaches that a grip area may enclose a portion of a pole by being coaxially aligned with a longitudinal axis of the pole, as can be seen in Figs. 3A and 3B of Robba. Not only that, but Robba also teaches that a hedge trimmer can be provided with a rotatable handle portion either by having a grip area of the handle portion coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the pole, or by having the grip area of the handle portion spaced apart from the longitudinal axis of the pole, such that Robba teaches that these two configurations of the grip area are equivalent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hallendorff by making the grip area of the handle portion coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the pole, since the position of the grip area is a design choice in view of the evidence of both Hallendorff and Robba. One of ordinary skill in the art is motivated by the preferred ergonomic preferences of an intended user group to provide the grip area of the handle portion of Hallendorff to be coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the pole. This modification allows for marketing an alternative hedge trimmer configuration to appeal to the ergonomic preferences of a particular group of users. E.g., manufacturers of the device of Hallendorff can off two options for grip area configurations – one option as disclosed by Hallendorff pre-modification and another option where the grip area is moved to be coaxial to the longitudinal axis of the tube. This way, manufacturers of the device of Hallendorff serve more users’ ergonomic preferences, rather than offering a single grip area configuration. Indeed, evidence of the obviousness of this modification is supported by Hallendorff explicitly disclosing that the grip area can be provided to enclose the pole and Robba teaching that a grip area of a handle portion can be offered either spaced apart from the pole or coaxial to the pole.
Regarding the rotational locking switch, Robba also teaches different embodiments related to rotation of the handle portion 2, including a first embodiment where the handle portion 2 is freely rotatable on bushings or plastic shells 24 (see Fig. 3B and paragraphs 23-23) and a second embodiment where the handle portion 2 includes a rotational locking switch 27 (see Fig. 5 and paragraphs 28-29). The embodiment of Fig. 5 is pertinent to claimed features, and the embodiment of Fig. 5 of Robba teaches a rotational locking switch 27 (see Fig. 5 and paragraph 29; the switch 27 of Robba is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘switch’, whose definition includes name for various mechanical devices for altering the direction of something, making a connection or disconnection, or other purposes per the Oxford English Dictionary definition 1.3, and the switch 27 of Robba is a mechanical device that makes a rotational connection and a rotational disconnection between two parts; see claim 2 of Robba describing the switch 27 performing a locking function) selectively extending between a top portion 29 and the handle portion 2 (see Fig. 5 and paragraph 28; the switch 27 is inserted within flange 25 such that the switch 27 slides axially relative to the flange 25 to ‘selectively extend between’ the top portion 29 and the handle portion 2 – the switch 27 extends between the top portion 29 and the handle portion when biased toward top portion 29 by the spring 26) that selectively inhibits rotation of the handle portion 2 (rotation is inhibited when the switch engages the top portion 29; see Fig. 5 and paragraph 29). [Claims 1 and 16] Robba further teaches that the rotational locking switch 27 is biased into a locked position (by spring 26; see Fig. 5 and paragraph 28) [claim 13] and that the rotational locking switch 27 is disposed on the handle portion 2 of the housing (see Fig. 5 and paragraph 28) [claim 20].
Robba teaches that providing the rotational locking switch on the handle is advantageous in order to selectively permit rotation of the handle while retaining the handle in position to offer better control when the cutting plane remains constant for a long extension of space or for a certain period of time (see paragraph 29). Not only that, but the rotational locking switch of Robba offers this advantage without the disadvantages of hypothetical locking switches contemplates by Hallendorff. That is, the locking switch of Robba does not require an operator to interrupt his or her work because the locking switch allows for rotation of the handle portion merely by applying a sufficient torque to the handle portion – i.e., a user need not remove his or her hand from the handle portion to disengage any lock in order to rotate the handle, such that the user can continue to operate the tool while rotating the handle portion. Moreover, the locking switch of Robba does not require the operator to remove a hand from the handle portion to disengage the locking switch, since the locking switch of Robba is disengaged by rotation of the handle portion itself. As such, the locking switch of Robba is actuatable during operation of the hedge trimmer and while retaining a hand on the handle portion, and the locking switch of Robba is also advantageous to offer better control of the hedge trimmer during certain operating conditions including when the cutting plane is held constant for a long period of space or time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the hedge trimmer of Hallendorff with a rotational locking switch between the top portion and the handle portion, where the rotational locking switch selectively inhibits rotation of the handle portion, as taught by Robba. This modification is advantageous because it allows for better control of the hedge trimmer during certain operating conditions, such as when performing cuts along a constant plane for a long length or for a long time. Indeed, in Hallendorff prior to this modification, an operator performing a long cut is unable to use the handle portion to control the cutting plane of the hedge trimmer, since the handle portion rotates freely. Any effort at holding a rotational position of the hedge trimmer of Hallendorff with the handle portion will merely produce rotation of the handle portion relative to the remainder of the hedge trimmer, not holding a rotational position of the hedge trimmer as a whole. As such, all effort of maintaining a constant cutting plane with the hedge trimmer of Hallendorff is directed to the user’s hand on a second handle ‘108’ (see Fig. 1 of Hallendorff). In Hallendorff, only one hand is responsible for holding a rotational position of the hedge trimmer, which increases fatigue relative to two hands holding a rotational position where the load can be shared between the two hands. However, following this modification, the user is able to share the load of maintaining the hedge trimmer at a constant cutting plane between both hands, since the rotational locking switch allows for the hand on the handle portion to sustain some of the burden of holding the rotational plane of the hedge trimmer. This modification therefore reduces the effort required to cut at a constant plane for a long period of time or for a long length. Critically, this modification achieves the advantage of reducing the effort required to retain the rotational position of the hedge trimmer being concentrated on one hand of the operator without the drawbacks contemplated by Hallendorff. That is, while Hallendorff cautions against locking the position of the handle portion, Hallendorff does so because locks contemplated by Hallendorff require interrupting operation of the hedge trimmer or adopting an unergonomic grip (see paragraph 29 of Hallendorff, discussing these drawbacks of contemplated locks; see also paragraph 5 of Hallendorff, discussing a complex adjustable handle configuration). The rotational locking switch of Robba does not suffer from the disadvantages contemplated by Hallendorff. As such, Hallendorff does not teach away from this modification because this modification does not result in a lock that requires interrupting of work to adjust the position of the handle portion, does not require a user to remove his or her hand from the handle portion to adjust the position of the handle portion, and does retain the ability for a user to select an ergonomic handle portion position on-the-fly by rotation of the handle portion with a sufficient torque to overcome the force of the locking switch. As further evidence of the obviousness of this modification, Robba teaches that a hedge trimmer can be provided with either of a freely rotatable handle portion (see the embodiment of Fig. 3B of Robba), which corresponds to the configuration disclosed by Hallendorff prior to modification, and a lockable handle portion (see the embodiment of Fig. 5 of Robba). Since Robba teaches that a hedge trimmer can be provided with either of a freely rotatable handle portion and a lockable rotatable handle portion, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be discouraged from modifying Hallendorff to provide a lockable rotatable handle portion instead of a freely rotatable handle portion. In summary, this modification of Hallendorff makes performing long cuts at a constant angle easier on an operator without the drawbacks contemplates by Hallendorff.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallendorff as modified by Robba as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US Pat. No. 7,866,048 B2 to Kodama et al., as evidenced by US Pub. No. 2017/0066119 A1 to Fu et al.
Hallendorff, as modified by Robba, fails to disclose a safety trigger disposed on the handle portion of the housing, wherein the safety trigger selectively inhibits actuation of the actuator as required by claim 7.
Kodama, though, teaches a safety trigger 17 disposed on a rotatable handle portion 3 of a housing (see Fig. 1; compare Figs. 4 and 5 to see various rotatable positions of the handle portion 3), where the safety trigger 17 selectively inhibits actuation of an actuator 4 (see Fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 29-32). It is known in the art to be advantageous to provide a handle portion with a safety trigger to improve safety by reducing the likelihood that a user mistakenly triggers a main actuator, thus avoiding a situation where a motor starts in an undesired situation (see Fu at paragraphs 36 and 87).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the handle portion of Hallendorff, as modified, with a safety trigger that inhibits actuator of the actuator in view of the teachings of Kodama. This modification is advantageous to reduce the likelihood that a user inadvertently starts operation of the tool by pressing the actuator, since the user following this modification is required to actuate both the safety trigger and the actuator. As such, this modification enhances safety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 December 2025 with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 16 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments fail to contemplate the particular modifications of Hallendorff set forth herein, in particular in relation to the requirement in claims 1 and 16 that the grip area is coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724