DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-13 and 17-20 in the reply filed on January 21, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Rule 475(b) precludes the process and apparatus claims from a lack of unity determination. This is not found persuasive because the determination for lack of unity is not solely based on the combination of categories. Instead, in addition to determining the types of claimed subject matter and the combinations of claims to different categories, the inventions in the categories will also need to be evaluated to determine if the inventions are so linked as to form a single general inventive concept. A group of inventions is considered linked to form a single general inventive concept where there is a technical relationship among the inventions that involves at least one common or corresponding special technical feature. The expression special technical features is defined as meaning those technical features that define the contribution which each claimed invention, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. Since the special technical features of the two categories do not make a contribution over the prior art, it is deemed to lack unity.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “with which control device the measurement signals can be received” and “with which correction signals at least one of the devices can be controlled” are grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites a wherein clause that is incomplete. Please correct.
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 measuring device and a control device in claim 1, the processing device of claim 6, and the processing device of claim 13.
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.
Furthermore, the cutting device, breaking device, and grinding device of claim 1, and the drilling device of claim 12 have been evaluated for potential 112(f) interpretation. It was determined not to invoke 112(f) as cutting tools, grinding tools, breaking tools, and drilling tools are generally well understood apparatus in glass manufacturing.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 17-20 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 recites “the device” in different lines of the second wherein clause. It is unclear what device is being reference, as a cutting device, a breaking device, a grinding device, and a measuring device are recited.
Similarly, claim 1 further recites “the tool” in different lines of the second wherein clause. It is unclear what tool is being reference, as a cutting tool, a breaking tool, and a grinding tool are recited.
Claim 1 further recites “a component of the device” in different lines. The device comprises a tool. It is unclear if the component is the same as the tool, or if the component is different from the tool. Please clarify.
Claim 1 also recites “the processing step” in regards to the third measured variable. It is unclear which processing step is being reference. Is it is the same as the processing step of the first measured variable, the same as the processing step of the second measured variable, or is it a different processing step.
Claim 1 recites “the device” in regards to the fourth measured variable. It is unclear which device is being referenced. Is it the same device for the first measured variable, the same device for the second measured variable, or a different device.
Claim 1 recites a measuring device for generating signals, which comprise a first measured variable, etc. It is unclear how the first (or second, third, fourth and fifth) measured variable are related to the measuring device. The measuring device generates measurement signals, but it is not clear if the measuring device is generating the first (or second, third, fourth and fifth) measured variable. Furthermore, it is not clear how a measurement signal can be a variable. A measuring device provides data, not a variable.
In further regards to the measurement device, a singular measuring device is recited. It is unclear how a single measuring device can produce measurement signals comprising more than one variables, i.e. a first measured variable of a first processing step and a second measured variable of another processing step.
The term “state parameter” is used in several claims, including at least claims 1 and 5. It is unclear what a state parameter is. How is it different from any other parameter?
Claims 2-13 and 17-20 are also indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on claim 1.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1. The measuring device of claim 1 provides data for a first measured variable that is a function of the relative position of the respective tool and the glass pane. The features of the measuring device recited in claim 2 are indefinite as it is unclear how the same measuring device can provide data for the first measured variable according to claim 1 and also provide for features of claim 2. For example, how can the same measuring device for the first measured variable also be used to provide the second, third or fourth measured variable (i.e. in A4)?
Claim 2 recites in A1, the fifth measured variable can be detected from the useful part after breaking. However, in claim 1, the fifth measured variable is detected from the glass pane, which suggests before breaking. Please clarify.
Claim 2 recites in A2, a force, a path, a speed, a temperature, etc. It is unclear what is object is being observed for determining a force, a speed, a temperature, etc. In other word, a speed of what object, a temperature of what object.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation at least 10 Hz, and the claim also recites at least 100 Hz, at least 1000 Hz, and at least 10 KHz which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 2 recites in A5 and A6, the measuring signals comprises the second, third, fourth, and fifth measured variable. It is not clear how a measurement signal can be a variable. A measuring device provides data, not a variable. The same rejection applies to claims 5 and 7 as well.
Claim 2 recites in A8, “that defines a state parameter of the broken-off part of the glass pane”. It is unclear which variable is being further limited by this limitation. Is it the fifth variable or the further variable?
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the broken-off part”" in A8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3 and 17 recite the limitation "the algorithm" in B1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3 and 17 recite the limitation "the cutting plan and breaking plan" in B2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6 and 20 recite the control device is configured to activate a device for shaping the grinding tool as a function of the measured variables. It is unclear how the shaping/sharpening of the grinding tool can be determine based on a completely unrelated measured variable. For example, if the measured variable of claim 1 is the second measured variable for a cutting process, how can this measured variable be used for or is related to the process of sharpening/shaping a grinding tool?
Claim 7 depends on claim 1, which recites a single measurement device that generates a measured variable that is a function of a relative position of the tool to the glass pane, the measured variable defining a process parameter. Claim 7 further recites the measurement signal from the same measuring device can provide for other measured variables that define other process parameter. It is unclear how the same device can provide for more than one measured variable defining different process parameters. Also, how can the device that provides for a relative location of the tool to the glass pane also provide for process parameters such as sound, vibration of the glass pane, thickness of the glass pane, amount of cutting oi, mechanical stress, number of splinters, power of the tool, temperature, transparency, or contouring error?
Claim 8 depends on claim 1, which recites a single measurement device that generates a measured variable that is a function of a relative position of the tool to the glass pane, the measured variable defining a process parameter. Claim 8 further recites the measurement signal from the same measuring device can provide for other measured variables that define other process parameter. It is unclear how the same device can provide for more than one measured variable defining different process parameters. Also, how can the device that provides for a relative location of the tool to the glass pane also provide for process parameters such as force, speed, sound, vibration, shape, thickness, stress, temperature and intensity?
Claim 8 also recited an intensity of a breaking tool. It is unclear if this meant to be include an additional breaking tool that is different from said breaking tool. Please clarify.
Claim 9 depends on claim 1, which recites a single measurement device that generates a measured variable that is a function of a relative position of the tool to the glass pane, the measured variable defining a process parameter. Claim 9 further recites the measurement signal from the same measuring device can provide for other measured variables that define other process parameter. It is unclear how the same device can provide for more than one measured variable defining different process parameters. Also, how can the device that provides for a relative location of the tool to the glass pane also provide for process parameters such as force, speed, sound, vibration, energy, shape, temperature, target position, contouring error, light, amount of abraded particles, coolant property and state of a temperature indicator?
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the support" in the second bullet. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the coolant" in the 6th, 12th, 13th, and 14th bullets. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 depends on claim 1, which recites a single measurement device that generates a measured variable that is a function of a relative position of the tool to the glass pane, the measured variable defining a process parameter. Claim 10 further recites the measurement signal from the same measuring device can provide for other measured variables that define other process parameter. It is unclear how the same device can provide for more than one measured variable defining different process parameters. Also, how can the device that provides for a relative location of the tool to the glass pane also provide for process parameters such as dimensions of glass pane, thickness, weight, shape, stress, trace of cutting oil, roughness, translucency?
Claim 11 recites in C10, the breaking device comprises a device for heating and/or cooling the glass pane; at least one structure. It is unclear how this structure relates to the breaking device. Furthermore, it is unclear how a structure can be liquid or gaseous or in the form of light. Light is an energy, not a structure.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the same drive" in C11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the control device is configured to activate a device for shaping the drilling tool as a function of the measured variables. It is unclear how the shaping/sharpening of the drilling tool can be determine based on a completely unrelated measured variable. For example, if the measured variable of claim 1 is the second measured variable for a cutting process, how can this measured variable be used for or is related to the process of sharpening/shaping a drilling tool?
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando (WO 2004039538 machine translation provided) in view of Joz et al. (CN 107021614 machine translation provided). Regarding claim 1, Bando discloses an installation for producing a glass article, the installation comprising a cutting device having a cutting tool for cutting a glass pane, a breaking device having a breaking tool for separating out a useful part of the glass pane, and a grinding device having a grinding tool for grinding an edge of the useful part (bottom passage on page 4 to top passage on page 5), wherein each of the tools and the glass pane or useful part are movable relative to one another (glass pane travels along X-direction from cutting station to bending station to grinding station in figure 1, see also 3rd passage on page 6 for the cutting tool, 5th passage on page 7 for the breaking tool, and top line on page 9 for the grinding tool). Bando further teaches a control device and a measuring device for generating measurement signals that provides data related to a first measured variable. More specifically, Bando teaches the measurement device measures the position of the peripheral edge of the useful part to determine the amount of wear on the grinding wheel, and by means of the control device (computing means at top half of page 12, figure 11), determines a deviation value between the measured value of the peripheral edge of the useful part and a reference value, and corrects for the deviation by controlling the position of the grinding wheel (3rd-4th passages on page 2) relative to the useful part. Thus, the measuring device of Bando can generate a measurement signal (i.e. position) for providing information regarding a first parameter variable, wherein the first parameter variable is determined during a grinding processing step, is related to the relative position of the grinding wheel to the contour of the useful part, and comprises a process parameter (position) of the grinding wheel (component). However, Bando doesn’t specify additional measurement signals related to additional measured variables. Joz similarly teaches an installation comprising a cutting tool for cutting and breaking a glass pane (abstract). Joz also teaches measuring the position of the cutting tool relative to the glass pane to ensure the desired orientation of the cutting edge of the cutting tool to be applied to the glass pane in the cutting processing step (abstract, page 3). Joz teaches correcting for the orientation of the cutting tool provides for precise cutting (bottom of page 3) while preventing surface damage to the glass pane (5th passage on page 2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have further provided for measuring signals for the cutting step, wherein the measurement signal provides data for a second parameter variable, such as the orientation of the cutting tool relative to the glass pane, so as to provide for accurate cutting of the glass pane without surface damage, as taught by Joz.
Regarding claim 2, Bando teaches the measuring device is configured to measure an edge of the useful part (2nd to last passage on page 2).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Bando teaches the control device is configure to generate correction signals by including measurement data that is based on at least one of the measured variables formed during previous production of useful parts (3rd passage on page 2).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Bando teaches a computing means (6th passage on page 12) that compares a constant value to the measured value and calculates a deviation value, which suggests the installation comprises an interface for exchanging data with and external data memory or an internal data memory, as the constant value used for comparison must be stored somewhere.
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Bando teaches the measurement signal comprises a measured state variable that defines a state parameter of the grinding wheel, such as the wear on the grinding wheel, and the control device is configured to take this into account when forming the correction signals (3rd passage on page 2).
Regarding claim 7, Joz teaches providing for a measurement signal associated with the cutting step and that defines the position at which the cutting tool contacts the glass pane (7th-10th passages on page 3).
Regarding claims 9-10, Bando teaches measuring the peripheral edge of the ground useful part, which suggests the measurement signal provided can define the shape of the edge of the useful part (3rd passage on page 2).
Regarding claim 11, Bando teaches the cutting tool comprises a cutting wheel 16 (10th passage on page 5).
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando (WO 2004039538 machine translation provided) in view of Joz et al. (CN 107021614 machine translation provided) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Loesenbeck (DE 20 2010 008 624 machine translation provided. Bando recognizes the grinding tool wears down with use, and suggests adjusting for the wear and tear based on a measured variable (1st and 3rd passages on page 2), but does not specify a processing device for sharpening the grinding tool. Loesenbeck also teaches grinding tool for processing edge of a glass pane (2nd passage on page 1). Loesenbeck, like Bando, recognizes the grinding tool is subjected to wear with use (7th passage on page 3). Loesenbeck teaches providing for a sharpening device in the installation so as to allow sharpening of the grinding tool (top passage on page 5), and thereby provide for high quality grinding of the glass pane (6th passage on page 4). Loesenbeck teaches providing for a sharpening device for the grinding tool as part of the installation allows for on-demand sharpening without having to remove the grinding tool (7th passage on page 2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provide for a sharpening device in the installation of Bando and Joz so as to provide sharpening of the grinding tool, as it is recognized the grinding tool is subjected to wear with use, as taught by Loesenbeck. Furthermore, as mentioned above, Bando teaches a measured variable to indicates a wear on the grinding tool. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have adapted this measurement signal to activate the sharpening tool, to thereby provide for automated sharpening of the grinding tool.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando (WO 2004039538 machine translation provided) in view of Joz et al. (CN 107021614 machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jang et al. (KR 20130014102 machine translation provided). Brando doesn’t specify a measuring device providing for a process parameter related to the breaking step. Like Bando, Jang teaches an installation for cutting and breaking a glass pane. Jang further teaches a measuring device for generating a measurement signal that provides information for a process parameter in a breaking processing step, the process parameter comprising a force with which a breaking tool acts on the glass pane (2nd to last passage on page 3). Jang teaches measuring the force ensures a uniform contact of the glass pane with the breaking tool (page 3 to 4) to ensure the optimal breaking force (7th passage on page 4, last passage on page 9). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilize a measuring device for measuring a force of the breaking tool during the breaking step in the installation of Bando and Joz, so as to provide a uniform breaking force on the glass pane, as taught by Jang.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando (WO 2004039538 machine translation provided) in view of Joz et al. (CN 107021614 machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schenk et al. (2006/0081673). Bando doesn’t specify a drilling device. Schenk teaches a similar installation comprising a cutting tool and breaking tool for processing a glass pane ([0012]-[0014]). Schenk also teaches it is common to further process the glass pane by grinding and drilling ([0018]), which would naturally involve a grinding device and a drilling device. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for a drilling device in the installation of Bando and Joz for drilling the useful part, as there may a need to produce holes in the useful part.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bando (WO 2004039538 machine translation provided), Joz et al. (CN 107021614 machine translation provided), and Schenk et al. (2006/0081673) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Loesenbeck (DE 20 2010 008 624 machine translation provided. Bando recognizes the grinding tool wears down with use, and suggests adjusting for the wear and tear based on a measured variable (1st and 3rd passages on page 2), but does not specify a processing device for sharpening the grinding tool. Loesenbeck also teaches grinding tool for processing edge of a glass pane (2nd passage on page 1). Loesenbeck, like Bando, recognizes the grinding tool is subjected to wear with use, especially when processing glass (7th passage on page 3). Loesenbeck teaches tools used for grinding glass must produce high surface quality, and thus the grinding surfaces of the tool must be smooth as well. Thus, Loesenbeck teaches providing for a sharpening device in the installation so as to allow sharpening of the grinding tool (top passage on page 5), and thereby provide for high quality grinding of the glass pane (6th passage on page 4). Loesenbeck teaches providing for a sharpening device for the grinding tool as part of the installation allows for on-demand sharpening without having to remove the grinding tool (7th passage on page 2). Accordingly, since a drill tool is subjected to wear due to the process of glass, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provide for a sharpening device in the installation of Bando, Joz, and Schenk so as to provide sharpening of the drilling tool, as it is recognized the drilling tool is subjected to wear with use, as taught by Loesenbeck. Furthermore, as mentioned above, Bando teaches a measured variable to indicates a wear on the grinding tool. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have adapted this measurement signal to activate the sharpening tool, to thereby provide for automated sharpening of the drilling tool.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUEENIE S DEHGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/QUEENIE S DEHGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741