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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the claimed not shown features have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the replacement drawing(s). Accordingly, the drawing objection regarding the claimed not shown features has been withdrawn. However, Applicant did not address the objection regarding the reference character(s), which is maintained below.
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. Accordingly, the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. Please see below for new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), necessitated by Amendment.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot. Applicant is arguing about limitations added to the claims in an amendment, which are addressed in the new/modified grounds of rejection, necessitated by Amendment.
Applicant may wish to consider scheduling an interview with the Examiner to discuss additional structural details that could be added to the claims to overcome the rejection of record.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 100. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
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 16-17 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 16 recites the limitation “an outer surface”. Claim 16 as amended is dependent on claim 1, which already recites “an outer surface”. To expedite prosecution, “an outer surface” has been interpreted as “the outer surface”. Claim 17 is rejected insofar as it is dependent on claim 16 and therefore includes the same error(s).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westinghouse (GB 338447: previously cited) in view of Chauhan et al. (US 2023/0184480).
Regarding claim 1, Westinghouse discloses a refrigerator (see at least refrigerator #10), comprising:
a refrigerated area (see at least chamber #11) and a cabinet (see at least casing #45);
a separation wall dividing the refrigerated area and the cabinet (see at least insulated wall #43);
a refrigeration system comprising an evaporator disposed in the refrigerated area (see at least evaporator #37), a condenser unit disposed in the cabinet (see at least condenser #24) and a conduit connecting the condenser unit with the evaporator (see at least pipe(s) #40/#41), wherein the conduit extends through the separation wall (see at least pipe(s) #40/#41 extending through recess(es) #20/#21 of portion #17 of wall #43); and
a conduit support having an opening through which the conduit extends (see at least spacing member(s) #26/#27; page 2, lines 13-19), wherein the separation wall comprises a recess shaped to receive the conduit support such that the conduit support can be separated from the separation wall for removal of the condenser unit from the cabinet (see at least recess(es) #20/#21 of portion #17 of wall #43; page 2, lines 20-30).
Westinghouse does not disclose wherein an outer surface of the conduit support includes an outwardly projecting ridge, wherein the recess includes a further recessed groove shaped to matingly receive the outwardly projecting ridge.
Chauhan et al. teaches another refrigerator with separation wall (see at least wall #30) with recess shaped to receive a conduit support (see at least pass-through opening #38), and conduit support (see at least pass-through insulation feature; paragraph [0024]), wherein an outer surface of the conduit support includes an outwardly projecting ridge (see at least Figure 5, plurality of ridges on pass-through insulation feature #80), wherein the recess includes a further recessed groove shaped to matingly receive the outwardly projecting ridge (see at least Figure 5, plurality of corresponding grooves on pass-through opening #38 to matingly receive the ridges on pass-through insulation feature #80).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigerator of Westinghouse with wherein an outer surface of the conduit support includes an outwardly projecting ridge, wherein the recess includes a further recessed groove shaped to matingly receive the outwardly projecting ridge, as taught by Chauhan et al., to improve the refrigerator of Westinghouse by allowing for greater stability and reduced movement between the conduit support and the recess, thus limiting noise from vibration).
Regarding claim 2, Westinghouse further discloses wherein the condenser unit is removable from the cabinet in a removal direction (see at least page 2, lines 38-41), wherein the separation wall is parallel to the removal direction and the conduit extends perpendicularly to the separation wall (see at least page 2, lines 20-30 and page 2, lines 38-41: see Figure 1, pipe(s) #40/#41 within spacing member(s) #26/#27 extend perpendicular to wall #43 which is parallel to the removal direction).
Regarding claim 3, Westinghouse further discloses wherein the refrigerator has a front surface (see at least Figure 1, surface with door(s) #14/#52), wherein the refrigerated area has a door on the front surface (see at least door #14), wherein the cabinet is located to a side of the refrigerated area (see at least casing #45 is located at a top side of chamber #11) and the condenser unit is removable from the front surface of the refrigerator see at least via door #52; page 2, lines 38-41).
Regarding claim 7, Westinghouse as modified by Chauhan et al. further discloses the conduit support includes a main body portion from which the outwardly projecting ridge projects (see at least Chauhan et al. Figure 5, plurality of ridges on pass-through insulation feature #80), the recess includes a main recess portion shaped to receive the main body portion (see at least Chauhan et al. pass-through opening #38), and the further recessed groove is recessed relative to the main recess portion (see at least Chauhan et al. Figure 5, plurality of corresponding grooves on pass-through opening #38 to matingly receive the ridges on pass-through insulation feature #80).
Regarding claim 8, Westinghouse further discloses wherein the conduit support comprises a first support portion (spacing member #26) releasably attached to a second support portion (see at least spacing member #27: Examiner notes that releasable attachment is by virtue of the mounting to the evaporator and compressor).
Alternatively, to the extent that first/second portions may not allow the use of #26/#27, a position Examiner does not concede, Westinghouse in view of Chauhan et al. may be seen not to disclose wherein the conduit support comprises a first support portion releasably attached to a second support portion.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the conduit support comprises a first support portion releasably attached to a second support portion would result in a difference in function of the Westinghouse in view of Chauhan et al. refrigerator. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the refrigerator of Westinghouse in view of Chauhan et al., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed arrangement. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed arrangement solves any stated problem (see Figures 2-3 and 4A-C where single piece and multiple piece conduit supports are shown), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the arrangement as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigerator of Westinghouse in view of Chauhan et al. with wherein the conduit support comprises a first support portion releasably attached to a second support portion as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 9, Westinghouse in view of Chauhan et al. does not disclose wherein the first support portion comprises a first portion of the outwardly projecting ridge and the second support portion comprises a second portion of the outwardly projecting ridge.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the first support portion comprises a first portion of the outwardly projecting ridge and the second support portion comprises a second portion of the outwardly projecting ridge would result in a difference in function of the Westinghouse in view of Chauhan et al. refrigerator. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the refrigerator of Westinghouse in view of Chauhan, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed arrangement. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed arrangement solves any stated problem, indicating “In examples, the first support portion comprises a first portion of the ridge and the second support portion comprises a second portion of the ridge.” (see paragraph [0013]; see also Figures 2-3 and 4A-C where single piece and multiple piece conduit supports are shown), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the arrangement as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigerator of Westinghouse in view of Chauhan et al. with wherein the first support portion comprises a first portion of the outwardly projecting ridge and the second support portion comprises a second portion of the outwardly projecting ridge as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 11, Westinghouse as modified by Chauhan et al. further discloses wherein the further recessed groove and the outwardly projecting ridge are configured to form a seal when the outwardly projecting ridge is received in the further recessed groove (see at least Chauhan et al. Figure 5, plurality of corresponding grooves on pass-through opening #38 to matingly receive the ridges on pass-through insulation feature #80).
Regarding claim 12, Westinghouse further discloses wherein the first support portion defines a first conduit engaging surface (see at least portion #28/#30 of #26) and the second support portion defines a second conduit engaging surface (see at least portion #29/#31 of #27), the first and second conduit engaging surfaces together defining the opening (see at least #28/#30 or #29/#31 together define the opening for pipe #40 or #41: Examiner notes in the context of a comprising claim, multiple openings are not excluded).
Regarding claim 13, Westinghouse further discloses wherein the conduit support is configured to seal against the recess and the conduit (see at least spacing member(s) #26/#27 secure (i.e. seal) the pipe(s) #40/#41 and secure (i.e. seal) within the recess(es) #20/#21 of portion #17 of wall #43).
Regarding claim 14, Westinghouse further discloses wherein the conduit support comprises a cavity for receiving a mounting plate for attaching the conduit support to the condenser unit (see at least vertical portions #28/#29 of spacing members #26/#27 form a cavity for base #22 of the condenser unit).
Regarding claim 15, Westinghouse further discloses wherein the first support portion and the second support portion each define a portion of the cavity (see at least portions #28/#29 each form part of the cavity for the base #22 of the condenser unit).
Regarding claim 16, Westinghouse further discloses wherein a portion of an outer surface of the conduit support comprises a planar surface (see at least portions of #26/#27 tangent to a given plane include(s) a planar surface(s)).
Regarding claim 17, Westinghouse does not disclose wherein the planar surface is arranged flush with the mounting plate when the mounting plate is received in the cavity.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the planar surface is arranged flush with the mounting plate when the mounting plate is received in the cavity would result in a difference in function of the Westinghouse refrigerator. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the refrigerator of Westinghouse, would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed position. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed position solves any stated problem, indicating “In examples, the planar surface is arranged flush with the mounting plate when the mounting plate is received in the cavity.” (see paragraph [0022]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the position as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigerator of Westinghouse with wherein the planar surface is arranged flush with the mounting plate when the mounting plate is received in the cavity as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 18, Westinghouse further discloses wherein the condenser unit comprises a condenser (see at least condenser #24), a compressor (see at least compressor #23) and an expansion valve (see at least expansion valve #38).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westinghouse in view of Chauhan et al. applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith (US 2,002,646: previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, Westinghouse is silent regarding wherein the separation wall comprises a first wall panel proximal the refrigerated area and a second wall panel proximal the cabinet.
Smith teaches another refrigerator with a separation wall, regarding wherein the separation wall comprises a first wall panel proximal the refrigerated area (see at least Figures 1 and 3, wall panel #24; see also column 1, lines 42-51) and a second wall panel proximal the cabinet (see at least Figures 1 and 3, wall panel #22; see also column 1, lines 42-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigerator of Westinghouse in view of Chauhan et al. with wherein the separation wall comprises a first wall panel proximal the refrigerated area and a second wall panel proximal the cabinet, as taught by Smith, to improve the refrigerator of Westinghouse in view of Chauhan et al. by allowing for improved ease of cleaning and preventing the insulation from absorbing moisture.
Regarding claim 5, Westinghouse in view of Chauhan et al. as modified by Smith to include the first/second wall panels further discloses wherein the separation wall comprises insulation between the first wall panel and the second wall panel (see at least Smith column 1, lines 42-51; insulated wall #43 of Westinghouse).
Regarding claim 6, Westinghouse in view of Chauhan et al. as modified by Smith to include the first/second wall panels further discloses wherein the recess is arranged between the first wall panel and the second wall panel (see at least Westinghouse recess(es) #20/#21 extend from the top to the bottom of panel #17 of wall #43, thus as modified by Smith, the recess(es) are arranged between the first wall panel and second wall panel).
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westinghouse in view Chauhan et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Whitehead et al. (US 1,896,385: previously cited).
Regarding claim 19, Westinghouse does not disclose further comprising a coupling configured for disconnecting the conduit from the evaporator within the refrigerated area.
However, it was old and well-known in the art to provide a refrigerator with comprising a coupling configured for disconnecting the conduit from the evaporator within the refrigerated area, as evidenced by Whitehead et al. (see at least page 2, column 1, lines 5-24).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigerator of Westinghouse in view of Chauhan et al. with further comprising a coupling configured for disconnecting the conduit from the evaporator within the refrigerated area, since, as evidenced by Whitehead et al., such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of allowing for the compressor and condenser unit to be removed from the refrigerator for servicing or replacement.
Regarding claim 20, Westinghouse in view of Chauhan et al. as modified by Whitehead et al. does not disclose wherein the coupling is arranged on the evaporator.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing the coupling is arranged on the evaporator would result in a difference in function of the Westinghouse in view of Whitehead et al. refrigerator. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the refrigerator of Westinghouse in view of Chauhan et al. and Whitehead et al., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed position. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed position solves any stated problem, indicating that “In this example, a coupling (not shown) is provided such that the conduit 90 can be disconnected from the evaporator to detach the condenser unit 512 from the rest of the refrigerator 500. It is envisaged that the coupling can be arranged on the evaporator or between the evaporator and the conduit support 10” (see paragraph [0049]), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the position as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the refrigerator of Westinghouse in view of Chauhan et al. and Whitehead et al. with wherein the coupling is arranged on the evaporator as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art (see also In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).).
Regarding claim 21, Westinghouse in view of Chauhan et al. as modified by Whitehead et al. further discloses wherein the coupling is arranged between the evaporator and the conduit support (see at least Whitehead et al. page 2, column 1, lines 11-19).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westinghouse (GB 338447: previously cited) in view of Chauhan et al. (US 2023/0184480).
Regarding claim 22, Westinghouse discloses a conduit support (see at least spacing member(s) #26/#27) for supporting a conduit (see at least conduit(s) #40/#41) that extends through a separation wall between a refrigerated area of a refrigerator and a condenser unit of the refrigerator (see at least conduit(s) #40/#41 and spacing member(s) #26/#27 extend through wall #43 separating refrigerated area #11 from the condenser #24 on base #22), the conduit support comprising an opening for the conduit (see at least page 2, lines 13-19) and the conduit support being shaped to engage a recess formed in the separation wall such that the conduit support can be separated from the separation wall for removal of the condenser unit from the refrigerator (see at least page 2, lines 20-30; page 2, lines 38-41: recess(es) #20/#21 in wall #17).
Westinghouse does not disclose wherein an outer surface of the conduit support includes an outwardly projecting ridge, wherein the recess includes a further recessed groove shaped to matingly receive the outwardly projecting ridge.
Chauhan et al. teaches another refrigerator with separation wall (see at least wall #30) with recess shaped to receive a conduit support (see at least pass-through opening #38), and conduit support (see at least pass-through insulation feature; paragraph [0024]), wherein an outer surface of the conduit support includes an outwardly projecting ridge (see at least Figure 5, plurality of ridges on pass-through insulation feature #80), wherein the recess includes a further recessed groove shaped to matingly receive the outwardly projecting ridge (see at least Figure 5, plurality of corresponding grooves on pass-through opening #38 to matingly receive the ridges on pass-through insulation feature #80).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the conduit support in the refrigerator of Westinghouse with wherein an outer surface of the conduit support includes an outwardly projecting ridge, wherein the recess includes a further recessed groove shaped to matingly receive the outwardly projecting ridge, as taught by Chauhan et al., to improve the conduit support in the refrigerator of Westinghouse by allowing for greater stability and reduced movement between the conduit support and the recess, thus limiting noise from vibration).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westinghouse (GB 338447: previously cited) in view of Chauhan et al. (US 2023/0184480).
Regarding claim 24, Westinghouse shows a separation wall (see at least insulated wall #43) for a refrigerator, the refrigerator comprising a refrigerated area (see at least chamber #11) and a cabinet (see at least casing #45) for housing a condenser unit (see at least condenser #24), wherein the separation wall divides the refrigerated area and the cabinet (see at least wall #43 dividing chamber #11 from casing #45), and wherein the separation wall comprises a recess (see at least recess(es) #20/#21) shaped to receive a conduit support of the condenser unit (see at least spacing member(s) #26/#27) such that the conduit support can be separated from the separation wall for removal of the condenser unit from the refrigerator (see at least page 2, lines 20-30; page 2, lines 38-41: recess(es) #20/#21 in wall #17).
Westinghouse does not disclose wherein an outer surface of the conduit support includes an outwardly projecting ridge, wherein the recess includes a further recessed groove shaped to matingly receive the outwardly projecting ridge.
Chauhan et al. teaches another refrigerator with separation wall (see at least wall #30) with recess shaped to receive a conduit support (see at least pass-through opening #38), and conduit support (see at least pass-through insulation feature; paragraph [0024]), wherein an outer surface of the conduit support includes an outwardly projecting ridge (see at least Figure 5, plurality of ridges on pass-through insulation feature #80), wherein the recess includes a further recessed groove shaped to matingly receive the outwardly projecting ridge (see at least Figure 5, plurality of corresponding grooves on pass-through opening #38 to matingly receive the ridges on pass-through insulation feature #80).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the conduit support in the refrigerator of Westinghouse with wherein an outer surface of the conduit support includes an outwardly projecting ridge, wherein the recess includes a further recessed groove shaped to matingly receive the outwardly projecting ridge, as taught by Chauhan et al., to improve the conduit support in the refrigerator of Westinghouse by allowing for greater stability and reduced movement between the conduit support and the recess, thus limiting noise from vibration).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights