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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “a cooking applicant” in claim 13 should read “a cooking appliance’.
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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a support member configured to support at least one of the first or second plate at different heights” in claim 7.
“an elevation part configured to move at least one of the first plate or the second plate in an ascending direction or a descending direction” in claim 8.
“a convection part configured to supply convection heat to the cavity through one surface of the cavity” in claim 12.
“an elevation part configured to adjust the height of the at least one of the first plate and the second plate” in claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 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.
Claim 12 is 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 limitation “a convection part configured to supply convection heat to the cavity through one surface of the cavity” in claim 12 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (US 2020/0120959) (cited in IDS)
Regarding claim 13, Wu teaches a cooking applicant comprising:
a first plate (first plate; see the annotation of fig.3);
a second plate (second plate; see the annotation of fig.3); and
a radio frequency (RF) generator (RF signal source 320) configured to generate RF power for generating electric fields (RF signal source 320 is capable to generate RF power), the RF generator (RF signal source 320) being electrically connected to the first and second plates (first and second plates),
wherein a height of at least one of the first plate (first plate) and the second plate (second plate) is adjustable (operator can adjust the height of the first and second plates).
Regarding claim 14, Wu teaches the first plate (first plate) includes an anode member, and the second plate (second plate) includes a cathode member (See para.[0041] “the first electrode 340 alternatively may be referred to herein as an “anode,” and the second electrode 372 may alternatively be referred to herein as a “cathode.””).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2020/0120959) in view of Shin (WO 2021215593).
PNG
media_image1.png
744
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a cooking appliance comprising:
a housing (containment structure 366) including a cavity (cavity 360);
a door connected to the housing and configured to open and close the cavity (See para.[0038] “More specifically, the containment structure 366 may include bottom, top, and side walls, that may include a portion of a door or hatch for containment structure 366, the interior surfaces of which define the cavity 360 (e.g., cavity 110, FIG. 1).”);
a radio frequency (RF) generator (RF signal source 320) configured to generate RF power for generating electric fields in the cavity (RF signal source 320 is capable to generate RF power);
an RF matcher (variable impedance matching network 370) configured to match an impedance of the RF power with a load of the cavity (See para.[0044] “. The variable impedance matching network 370 may be configured to perform an impedance transformation from an output impedance of the RF signal source 320 (e.g., about 10 ohms) to “match” an input impedance of the defrosting cavity 360, as modified by the load 364 (e.g., on the order of hundreds or thousands of ohms, such as about 1000 ohms to about 4000 ohms or more).”); and
Wu does not explicitly teach a working coil configured to emit magnetic fields toward the cavity.
However, Shin teaches in the same field of endeavor of a cooking appliance, comprising a working coil (working coil 140) configured to emit magnetic fields toward the cavity (see para.[0042] “The working coil (140, see Fig. 4) can generate a magnetic field.”).
PNG
media_image2.png
312
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify cooking appliance of Wu by adding a working coil as taught by Shin, in order to heat the object in the cooking appliance (see para.[0004] of Shin).
Regarding claim 3, Wu teaches a first plate (first plate; see the annotation of fig.3); and a second plate (second plate; see the annotation of fig.3) disposed opposite to the first plate (first plate) (see fig.3),
wherein the first and second plates (first plate and second plate) are configured to heat an object based on the electric fields or the magnetic fields (see para.[0022] “Thus, in order to concentrate the electric field, a conductive (e.g., metal or partially metal) plate may be inserted into the cavity (e.g., at a location between the bottom and top interior surfaces of the cavity).”), and
wherein the second plate (second plate) is in contact with opposite side surfaces of the cavity (see fig.3).
Regarding claim 4, Wu teaches the second plate (second plate) is disposed between the first plate (first plate) and the bottom surface of the cavity (bottom surface of containment structure 366).
Regarding claim 5, Wu teaches the first and second plates (first and second plates) are configured to generate the electric fields based on the RF power (See para.[0042] “the voltage across the first electrode 340 and the second electrode 372 heats the load 364 within the cavity 360. According to various embodiments, the RF subsystem 310 is configured to generate the RF signal to produce voltages between the first electrode 340 and the second electrode 372 in a range of about 90 volts to about 3,000 volts, in one embodiment, or in a range of about 3000 volts to about 10,000 volts, in another embodiment, although the system may be configured to produce lower or higher voltages between the first electrode 340 and the second electrode 372, as well.”).
Regarding claim 6, Wu teaches the second plate (second plate) is made of a material configured to be heated by the magnetic fields emitted by the working coil [Examiner’s note: second plate comprises electrode which is can be heated by magnetic fields.].
Regarding claim 7, Wu teaches a support member (support structures 422) configured to support at least one of the first or second plate at different heights (See fig.3 and para.[0057] “The first and second electrodes 440, 472 are separated across the cavity 460 by a distance 452, which may vary as the shelf 424 is repositioned to be disposed on different pairs of the support structures 422 (e.g., by the user to accommodate loads of varying size).”).
Regarding claim 10, the modification of Wu and Shin teaches the working coil (working coil 140 of Shin) is disposed between the second plate (plate 115 of shin) and the bottom surface of the cavity (surface of bottom; see the annotation of fig,5 of Shin).
Regarding claim 11, Wu teaches the first plate (first plate) includes an anode member, and the second plate (second plate) includes a cathode member (See para.[0041] “the first electrode 340 alternatively may be referred to herein as an “anode,” and the second electrode 372 may alternatively be referred to herein as a “cathode.””).
Regarding claim 15, Wu does not explicitly teach a working coil configured to emit magnetic fields toward the cavity.
However, Shin teaches in the same field of endeavor of a cooking appliance, comprising a working coil (working coil 140) configured to emit magnetic fields toward the cavity (see para.[0042] “The working coil (140, see Fig. 4) can generate a magnetic field.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify cooking appliance of Wu by adding a working coil as taught by Shin, in order to heat the object in the cooking appliance (see para.[0004] of Shin).
Claim(s) 2 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Wu and Shin in view of a second embodiment of Wu (figure 5 of WO 2021215593).
Regarding claim 2, the modification of Wu and Shin does not explicitly teach a bottom surface of the cavity includes at least one hole configured to allow the magnetic fields to pass through the housing and enter the cavity.
However, a second embodiment of Wu teaches a bottom surface (surface of lower region 514) of the cavity includes at least one hole (the location of heating element 551) configured to allow the magnetic fields to pass through the housing and enter the cavity (the location of heating element 551 is capable to allow magnetic fields to pass through the housing and enter the cavity).
PNG
media_image3.png
418
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the location of the heater of the modification of Wu and Shin with the heater embedded in the bottom surface of the cavity as taught by a second embodiment of Wu, in order to perform heating operations and defrosting operations (see para.[0070] of Wu).
Regarding claims 16-17, the modification of Wu and Shin does not explicitly teach the second plate includes at least one hole configured to pass the magnetic fields through the second plate, wherein the at least one hole in the second plate is filled with a material configured to pass the magnetic fields therethrough.
However, a second embodiment of Wu teaches a plate (bottom of lower region 514) includes at least one hole (the location of heating element 551) configured to pass the magnetic fields through the second plate (the location of heating element 551 is capable to allow magnetic fields to pass through the bottom of lower region), wherein the at least one hole (the location of heating element 551) in the second plate (bottom of lower region 514) is filled with a material (heating element 551) configured to pass the magnetic fields therethrough (heating element 551 is capable to allow magnetic fields to pass through the bottom of lower region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the location of the heater of the modification of Wu and Shin with the heater embedded in the bottom surface of the cavity as taught by a second embodiment of Wu, in order to perform heating operations and defrosting operations (see para.[0070] of Wu).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Wu and Shin in view of Lee (US 2022/0290869).
Regarding claim 8, the modification of Wu and Shin does not explicitly teach an elevation part configured to move at least one of the first plate or the second plate in an ascending direction or a descending direction.
However, Lee teaches in the same field of endeavor of a cooking appliance, comprises an elevation part (movable platform 128) configured to move a plate (platter 154) in an ascending direction or a descending direction (see figures and para.[0023] “the movable platform 128 is configured to move along the vertical direction V between a bottom position and an elevated position and the lower heater module 124 moves with the movable platform 128.”).
PNG
media_image4.png
686
566
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
858
534
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the cooking appliance by adding an elevation part for moving a plate in an ascending direction or a descending direction as taught by Lee, in order to move food items closer to heating elements of the cooking appliance, so that reducing the loss of heat energy, resulting in shorter cooking times and more efficient energy use (para.[0003]-[0004] of Lee)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Wu and Shin in view of Kim (US 2004/0144773) (hereafter Kim’773) (cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 12, the modification of Wu and Shin does not explicitly teach a convection part configured to supply convection heat to the cavity through one surface of the cavity,
However, Kim’773 teaches in the same field of endeavor of a cooking appliance, comprising a convection part (convection fan 140) configured to supply convection heat to the cavity through one surface of the cavity (see para.[0012] “a convection fan 140 is installed at the rear side of the cavity 200 where the convection heater 114 is installed. The convection fan 140 supplies air heated by the convection heater 114 to the cavity 200.”),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify cooking appliance of the modification of Wu and Shin by adding a convection fan as taught by Kim’773, in order to supply heat to the cavity so that increase the heating efficiency (See para.[0012] of Kim’773).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Lee (US 2022/0290869).
Regarding claim 18, Wu does not explicitly teach an elevation part configured to adjust the height of the at least one of the first plate and the second plate.
However, Lee teaches in the same field of endeavor of a cooking appliance, comprises an elevation part (movable platform 128) configured to adjust the height of a plate (platter 154) (see figures and para.[0023] “the movable platform 128 is configured to move along the vertical direction V between a bottom position and an elevated position and the lower heater module 124 moves with the movable platform 128.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the cooking appliance of Wu by adding an elevation part for moving a plate in an ascending direction or a descending direction as taught by Lee, in order to move food items closer to heating elements of the cooking appliance, so that reducing the loss of heat energy, resulting in shorter cooking times and more efficient energy use (para.[0003]-[0004] of Lee)
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Shin WO 2021215593) and Lee (US 2022/0290869).
Regarding claim 19, Wu does not explicitly teach a working coil configured to emit magnetic fields for heating an object; and an elevation part configured to adjust the height of the at least one of the first plate and the second plate to increase a strength of the electric fields, wherein the working coil is configured to move along with a movement of the at least one of the first plate and the second plate
Shin teaches in the same field of endeavor of a cooking appliance, comprising a working coil (working coil 140) configured to emit magnetic fields toward the cavity (see para.[0042] “The working coil (140, see Fig. 4) can generate a magnetic field.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify cooking appliance of Wu by adding a working coil as taught by Shin, in order to heat the object in the cooking appliance (see para.[0004] of Shin).
However, Lee teaches in the same field of endeavor of a cooking appliance, comprises an elevation part (movable platform 128) configured to adjust the height of a plate (platter 154) (see figures and para.[0023] “the movable platform 128 is configured to move along the vertical direction V between a bottom position and an elevated position and the lower heater module 124 moves with the movable platform 128.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the cooking appliance the modification of Wu and Shin by adding an elevation part for moving a plate in an ascending direction or a descending direction as taught by Lee, so that the working coil is configured to move along with a movement of the plate, in order to move food items closer to heating elements of the cooking appliance, so that reducing the loss of heat energy, resulting in shorter cooking times and more efficient energy use (para.[0003]-[0004] of Lee)
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Shin (WO 2021215593) and Thorogood (US 2021/0161151).
Regarding claim 20, Wu does not explicitly teach a working coil configured to emit magnetic fields for heating an object; and an elevation part configured to adjust the height of the at least one of the first plate and the second plate to increase a strength of the electric fields, wherein the working coil is configured to remain stationary while the at least one of the first plate and the second plate moves closer to the working coil.
Shin teaches in the same field of endeavor of a cooking appliance, comprising a working coil (working coil 140) configured to emit magnetic fields toward the cavity (see para.[0042] “The working coil (140, see Fig. 4) can generate a magnetic field.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify cooking appliance of Wu by adding a working coil as taught by Shin, in order to heat the object in the cooking appliance (see para.[0004] of Shin).
However, Thorogood teaches in the same field of endeavor of a cooking appliance, comprises an elevation part (slotted profile 2052) configured to adjust the height of a plate (ceiling 2058) (see figures and para.[0258] “as the shield 2054 is angularly rotated about the axis 2029 in a counter-clockwise direction 2056 when viewed towards the floor 2016, the pin 2050 slides towards the end 2052 a of the profile 2052 which is furthest away from the floor 2016 thereby raising the shield 2054 away from the floor 2016.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the cooking appliance the modification of Wu and Shin by adding an elevation part for moving a plate in an ascending direction or a descending direction as taught by Thorogood, so that the working coil is configured to remain stationary while top plate moves closer to the working coil, in order to move food items closer to heating elements of the cooking appliance, so that reducing the loss of heat energy, resulting in shorter cooking times and more efficient energy use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS Q LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8241. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/CHRIS Q LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights