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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, “the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper.” Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification should be amended to include a “(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S):” section, see MPEP § 608.01(f), as reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
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:
the melt (4) drawn off from this melting furnace (1) is “fiberized in a fiberizing device” in claim 1 (fiberizing device described on pages 1 and 2 of the instant specification);
“fiberizing of the melt (39) with a fiberizing device” in claim 16; and
“accumulation of the produced fibers with a fiber accumulation device” in claim 16 (fiber accumulation device described on page 2 of the instant specification).
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“trimming and cutting of the hardened strand by means of saws” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-24 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 limitation “the waste-free production of mineral wool insulation” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the waste-free production of mineral wool insulation” and insert therein - - waste-free production of mineral wool insulation - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the feed material” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the feed material” and insert therein - - the fed material - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “this melting furnace” in lines 4, 5, and 9. It is unclear is the “this melting furnace” specifically the gas-fired melting furnace (as provides antecedent basis for melting furnace) or merely one of the cupola furnace or the electric arc furnace or the gas-fired melting furnace? It appears the limitation is directed to one of the cupola furnace or the electric arc furnace or the gas-fired melting furnace and not only the gas-fired melting furnace. It is suggested to delete “this melting furnace” in each of lines 4, 5, and 9 of claim 1 and insert therein - - the furnace - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the melt (4)” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the melt (4)” and insert therein - - a melt (4) - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the mineral fibers” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the mineral fibers” and insert therein - - mineral fibers - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the granular and fibrous production waste (19) - (29)” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the granular and fibrous production waste (19) - (29)” and insert therein - - granular and fibrous production waste (19) - (29) - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Regarding claim 1, line 9 the phrase “in particular” during fiberizing (7) and in the subsequent processing steps (8) - (14) appears to set forth a preference and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Because the granular and fibrous production waste includes that produced after the melt has emerged from the melting furnace wherein the only steps claimed after the melt has emerged from the melting furnace is the fiberizing and the subsequent processing steps it appears the limitations are intended as part of the claimed invention. It is suggested to delete “in particular during fiberizing (7) and in the subsequent processing steps (8) - (14)” and insert therein - - including during fiberizing (7) and in the subsequent processing steps (8) - (14) - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Regarding claim 1, line 11 the phrase “in particular” exclusively inductively heated appears to set forth a preference and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Because the melting furnace (38) is recited as inductively heated it does not appear “in particular exclusively inductively heated” is necessarily intended to be part of the claimed invention. It is suggested to delete “, in particular exclusively inductively heated,” to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the feed material (37)” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the feed material (37)” and insert therein - - a feed material (37) - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the melt (39)” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the melt (39)” and insert therein - - a melt (39) - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the known processing steps (40)” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not set forth any known processing steps. It is suggested to delete “the known processing steps (40)” and insert therein - - processing steps (40) - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the granular and fibrous production waste formed in the processing steps (40)” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the granular and fibrous production waste formed in the processing steps (40)” and insert therein - - granular and fibrous production waste formed in the processing steps (40) - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the power and media supply, the automation, the logistics, the raw material preparation, the production waste preparation, the binder preparation, the packaging, the commissioning, the maintenance and repair facilities” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the power and media supply, the automation, the logistics, the raw material preparation, the production waste preparation, the binder preparation, the packaging, the commissioning, the maintenance and repair facilities” and insert therein - - power and media supply, automation, logistics, raw material preparation, production waste preparation, binder preparation, packaging, commissioning, maintenance and repair facilities - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the coarse-grained raw materials (2)” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the coarse-grained raw materials (2)” and insert therein - - coarse-grained raw materials - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the fiber collecting means (5)” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, i.e. fiber collecting means “(5)”, in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the fiber collecting means (5)” and insert therein - - the fiber collecting means (8) - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the binder-containing water (18)” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the binder-containing water (18)” and insert therein - - binder-containing water (18) - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the dewatered production waste (23)” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the dewatered production waste (23)” and insert therein - - dewatered production waste (23) - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the primary felt” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the primary felt” and insert therein - - a primary felt - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the desired dimensions” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the desired dimensions” and insert therein - - desired dimensions - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “edge section and offcut (27)” in line 8. It is unclear what is the edge section? It appears the edge section is edge trimmings (such as see claim 12 and as described in the instant specification). It is suggested to delete “edge section and offcut (27)” and insert therein - - edge trimmings and offcut (27) - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the dust (28)” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “The method according to claim 1” and insert therein - - The method according to claim 9 - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Regarding claim 10, line 2 the phrase “in particular” during trimming and cutting of the hardened strand by means of saws appears to set forth a preference and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Because the dust is formed during trimming and cutting of the hardened strand by means of saws it appears the limitations are intended as part of the claimed invention. It is suggested to delete “in particular” to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the quality control and the packaging” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the quality control and the packaging” and insert therein - - quality control and packaging - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the packaging station (14)” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the packaging station (14)” and insert therein - - a packaging station (14) - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the grain size or bale diameter” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the grain size or bale diameter” and insert therein - - a grain size or bale diameter - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the principle of a mixing silo” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the principle of a mixing silo” and insert therein - - a principle of a mixing silo - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a melt (39) is generated in a second production area (B) in an inductively heating melting furnace (38)” in line 2. The limitation is unclear and confusing as is the “a melt (39)”, “a second production area (B)”, and “an inductively heated melting furnace (38)” the melt, the second production area (B) and the inductively heated melting furnace (38) the same as that of claim 1 or different? It appears they are the same. It is suggested to delete “a melt (39) is generated in a second production area (B) in an inductively heating melting furnace (38)” and insert therein - - the melt (39) is generated in the second production area (B) in the inductively heating melting furnace (38) - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the known processing steps (40)” in line 3. The claim does not set forth any known processing steps. It is suggested to delete “the known processing steps (40)” and insert therein - - processing steps - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the fiberizing of the melt (39)” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the fiberizing of the melt (39)” and insert therein - - fiberizing of the melt (39) - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the accumulation of the produced fibers” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the accumulation of the produced fibers” and insert therein - - accumulation of the produced fibers - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the processing steps (40) are limited to those which are necessary for generating a simple insulation material product such as loose mineral wool”. The limitation is unclear as the claim does not set forth those steps necessary for generating a simple insulation material product. Further, the phrase “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is suggested to delete “the processing steps (40) are limited to those which are necessary for generating a simple insulation material product such as loose mineral wool” and insert therein - - the processing steps (40) generate a simple insulation material product of loose mineral wool - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the production waste (33)” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the production waste (33)” and insert therein - - the production waste component (33) - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the production waste (34)” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the production waste (34)” and insert therein - - the production waste component (34) - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the shredded production waste (33)” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the shredded production waste (33)” and insert therein - - the shredded production waste component (33) - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the shredded production waste (33)” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the shredded production waste (33)” and insert therein - - the shredded production waste component (33) - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the shredded production waste (33)” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the shredded production waste (33)” and insert therein - - the shredded production waste component (33) - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the accumulation of production waste (19) - (29)” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the accumulation of production waste (19) - (29)” and insert therein - - accumulation of production waste (19) - (29) - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the duration of the melting” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the duration of the melting” and insert therein - - a duration of the melting - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “production waste (34)” in line 2. The limitation is unclear as “(34)” is a production waste component of the feed material (see claim 1). It is suggested to delete “production waste (34)” and insert therein - - the production waste component (34) - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended as suggested above to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Liebert (U.S. Patent 4,396,561) discloses waste-free manufacturing of mineral-wool mats or slabs including raw materials (2-4) are fed to a melting furnace (6), the fed material is melted in the furnace, a melt from the furnace is fiberized (in a spinner 7) and mineral fibers obtained are processed in a plurality of processing steps (8-12) to form mineral-wool mats or slabs wherein waste which is produced after the melt has emerged from the furnace, including during fiberizing and in the subsequent processing steps, is crushed (in crushing machine 15), unraveled (in unraveling machine 20), mixed (in chamber 14) and fed to a through-type furnace (16) as a component of a feed material, the melt from the through-type furnace is processed with a hot briquetting machine (18) and returned (via conveying equipment 5’) back to the melting furnace as part of the materials fed to the melting furnace for manufacturing of mineral-wool mats or slabs (Figure and Column 2, lines 22-24 and Column 3, line 33 to Column 4, line 21).
Slotte (WO 2021/004601) discloses waste-free manufacturing of mineral-wool product, in which, in a first production area, mineral input material (at inlet 14) and coke (at inlet 18) are fed to a cupola furnace (12/12”), the fed material is melted in the furnace, a melt (at outlet 16) from the furnace is fiberized (spinning stage 24) and mineral fibers obtained are processed in a plurality of processing steps (24, 26, 28, and 30/22) to form a mineral-wool product wherein waste (in waste return line 64) which is produced after the melt has emerged from the furnace, including during fiberizing and in the subsequent processing steps, is shredded (inlet at 48 for shredded waste), mixed (in fluidized bed reactor 32) and fed in a second production area to an electric arc furnace (12’’’) as a component of a feed material (in line 66’), a melt (at outlet 16) from the furnace is processed with processing steps (at 22) to form a mineral-wool product (Figures 1 and 3 and Paragraphs 0037, 0038, 0041, 0042, 0053, and 0054).
Ma et al. (CN 103588393 and see also the machine translation) discloses furnaces for forming mineral wool fiber are inductively heated melting furnaces including as an improvement over a cupola furnace or an electric arc furnace (Paragraphs 0001-0005 and 0013).
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a method for waste-free production of mineral wool insulation products as claimed and including in combination the furnace in the first production area (A) is a cupola furnace or an electric arc furnace or a gas-fired melting furnace, the furnace in the second production area (B) is an inductively heated melting furnace, and granular and fibrous production waste formed in the processing steps in the second production area (B) to form an insulation material product being fed (not to the first production area and/or to a third furnace but back) to the inductively heated melting furnace as a component of the feed material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746