DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elects claims 1-32 and Figs 1-4 in their response 5/12/2026.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) 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: “one customizable feature” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 16 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 5, 16 and 24, “the bottom lip surface is configured to rotatably engage a latching portion” should be changed to not imply that the lip surface does the moving as one interpretation. Because it doesn’t, per Applicant specification [0069] “The bottom lip surface 230 is configured to rotatably engage the latching portion 222 of the latching mechanism 216, e.g., to have the latching portion 222 of the latching mechanism 216 rotate relative thereto”. Given that clarity, examiner notes this is not a 35 USC 112.
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.
Claims 7, 11-13, 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, line 2 “the cavity” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 11, “one customizable feature” is unclear what the feature could be because it is infinitely “customizable” subjectively, thereby rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 12, “the customizable features” lack antecedent basis since parent claim 11 evaluates to one customizable feature given “at least one customizable feature”.
Claim 12 is also rejected for depending on rejected parent claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, “the interchangeable tooling insert” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 17, the term "if" 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).
Regarding claim 22, line 1 “the recess” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat 9350148 issued to Emanuel (for its Figures, and its US Pub 20140268506 for easier reference of same written specification using [##]; hereinafter “Emanuel”).
Regarding claim 1, Emanuel teaches a lid for covering a utility or meter box (Title, “Utility meter box and meter box cover”, wherein a lid is “meter box cover 50”), the lid configured to accommodate either of a selected one of a worm latch or a spring-loaded latch ([0044] “The securing mechanism may include any one of or any combination of a spring latch apparatus, a retaining hook and/or a worm gear latch”, accommodated in the lid), the lid comprising:
a top side (Fig 5, top side of 50 shown); a bottom side (Fig 6, bottom side of 50 shown); and
a region capable of receiving the selected one of the worm latch or the spring-loaded latch (Fig 6, a region of 50 is shown capable of receiving “spring latch apparatus 60”), the latch-housing region including:
a through-hole extending from the top side to the bottom side (Figs 5-6 and 25, a through-hole in 50 in the region is an aperture 75 through which the bolt 65 inserts; [0051] “an aperture 75 (shown in FIG. 25) into which a bolt 65 (shown in FIGS. 12 and 13) is positioned. Bolt 65 is secured to actuator 64 on one end using bolt retainer 67”);
the bottom side including a bottom surface that defines an opening configured to accommodate a spring of the spring-loaded latch (Fig 7, a bottom surface of the bottom side of 50 in the region is shown defining an opening capable of accommodating a “spring 63” (e.g. beneath the through-hole)).
Regarding claim 2, Emanuel further teaches the opening is a spring retainer hole in the bottom surface of the lid, the spring retainer hole configured to receive an end of the spring (see examiner annotated Emanuel Figure 7, hereinafter “EAFE7”; EAFE7, the opening is shown to be a hole into 50 that retains and receives at least an end of spring 63).
PNG
media_image1.png
429
551
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Emanuel further teaches the bottom surface has a lip coaxial with the through-hole (EAFE7, lip shown curved coaxially with the through-hole of the bolt 65), the lip extending downwardly from the bottom surface (lip shown extending downwardly), the lip having a bottom lip surface spaced apart from the bottom surface so as to define a cavity between the bottom lip surface and the bottom surface (EAFE7, a bottom surface of the lip is shown spaced apart from the bottom surface of 50 to define a cavity between).
Regarding claim 4, Emanuel further teaches the cavity is configured to accommodate at least a portion of a spring (EAFE7, the cavity is capable of accommodating at least a portion of spring 63).
Regarding claim 5, Emanuel further teaches the bottom lip surface is configured to rotatably engage a latching portion of the selected one of the worm latch or the spring-loaded latch (Fig 7, EAFE7, a latching portion of the spring-loaded latch that is shown capable of rotating and engaging the bottom lip surface is actuator 64; [0052] “the actuator 64 to rotate so that the spring 63 is compressed”).
Regarding claim 6, Emanuel further teaches the bottom side includes a plurality of ribs having a web configuration (Fig 6, “radial and annular ribs 52 and 53” are shown on the bottom side of 50 in a web configuration/shape).
Regarding claim 7, Emanuel further teaches the plurality of ribs includes a rib having a rib wall, the rib wall at least partially defining the cavity, the rib wall configured to engage at least a portion of a spring of a spring-loaded latch (EAFE7, a portion of the spring engages a rib wall of a rib – that at least partially defines the cavity).
Regarding claim 8, Emanuel further teaches the top side has a recess that is coaxial with the through-hole (Fig 5, a recess shown around bolt 65 is also shown in the top side of 50 and coaxial with the through-hole of the bolt).
Regarding claim 9, Emanuel further teaches the recess is configured to receive an engagement portion of the worm latch or the spring-loaded latch, the engagement portion being accessible to a user from the top side of the lid to move the latch mechanism between an unlatched position and a latched position (Fig 5, an engagement portion of the latch is bolt 65 shown received int the recess, used for latching and unlatching; [0052] “First, an appropriate tool is placed over the head of the bolt 65 to rotate the bolt 65… turn the bolt 65 in the opposite direction so that spring 63 returns to its original, essentially uncompressed, position”).
Regarding claim 10, Emanuel further teaches the through-hole defines an axis generally perpendicular to the top side (an axis in and of/defined by the through-hole is generally perpendicular to the top side), the through-hole configured to house the selected one of either the worm latch or the spring-loaded latch (Figs 5-7, at least a portion of the latch is housed in the through-hole, which is an engagement portion being bolt 65), such that:
when the through-hole houses a worm latch, the worm latch rotates around a worm-latch axis that is coaxial with the through-hole axis, and
when the through-hole houses a spring-loaded latch, the spring-loaded latch rotates around a spring-loaded latch axis that is also coaxial with the through-hole axis ([0052] “rotate the bolt 65” wherein the bolt axis is coaxial with the through-hole it is in).
Regarding claim 11, Emanuel further teaches the lid includes at least one customizable feature ([0050] “50 may have indicia on its top surface” such as Fig 5, [0053] “indicators 74”) molded therein via an interchangeable tooling insert (MPEP 2112.01 III, “Where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art.” – see claim 12 where this claimed “customizable feature” is “writing” or a “logo”).
Regarding claim 12, Emanuel further teaches the customizable features includes at least one of a writing, a logo, or a strengthening rib (Fig 5 [0053] “indicators 74” are at least a logo or writing).
Regarding claim 13, Emanuel further teaches the interchangeable tooling insert is configured to change a shape, size or position of at least one of the latch through-hole, a cavity for receiving a spring latch or a spring retainer hole (MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In other words the claimed tool intended use is necessarily anticipated since the prior art structures of through-hole, cavity and opening/hole are cited (read in the parent claim)).
Regarding claim 14, Emanuel teaches a lid for covering a utility or meter box (Title, “Utility meter box and meter box cover”, wherein a lid is “meter box cover 50”), the lid comprising:
a top side (Fig 5, top side of 50 shown); a bottom side (Fig 6, bottom side of 50 shown);
a through-hole extending from the top side to the bottom side (Figs 5-6 and 25, a through-hole in 50 in the region is an aperture 75 through which the bolt 65 inserts; [0051] “an aperture 75 (shown in FIG. 25) into which a bolt 65 (shown in FIGS. 12 and 13) is positioned. Bolt 65 is secured to actuator 64 on one end using bolt retainer 67”);
the top side having a recess at one end of the through-hole (Fig 5, a recess shown around bolt 65 is also shown in the top side of 50 and coaxial with the through-hole of the bolt);
the bottom side defining a bottom surface that has a lip that extends downwardly from the bottom surface (EAFE7, lip shown curved coaxially with the through-hole of the bolt 65, and is shown extending downwardly), the lip having a bottom lip surface spaced apart from the bottom surface so as to define a cavity between the bottom lip surface and the bottom surface (EAFE7, a bottom surface of the lip is shown spaced apart from the bottom surface of 50 to define a cavity between).
Regarding claim 15, Emanuel further teaches the through-hole is configured to receive a selected one of a worm latch or a spring-loaded latch (Fig 5 shows capable of receiving a spring latch; also [0044] “The securing mechanism may include any one of or any combination of a spring latch apparatus, a retaining hook and/or a worm gear latch”).
Regarding claim 16, Emanuel further teaches the bottom lip surface is configured to rotatably engage a latching portion of the selected one of the worm latch or the spring-loaded latch (Fig 7, EAFE7, a latching portion of the spring-loaded latch that is shown capable of rotating and engaging the bottom lip surface is actuator 64; [0052] “the actuator 64 to rotate so that the spring 63 is compressed”).
Regarding claim 17, Emanuel further teaches the cavity is configured to accommodate at least a portion of a spring if the selected latch is a spring-loaded latch (EAFE7, cavity shown capable of accommodating spring 63).
Regarding claim 18, Emanuel further teaches the bottom side includes a plurality of ribs having a web configuration (Fig 6, “radial and annular ribs 52 and 53” are shown on the bottom side of 50 in a web configuration/shape).
Regarding claim 19, Emanuel further teaches the bottom side includes a rib having a rib wall, the rib wall at least partially defining the cavity, the rib wall configured to engage at least a portion of a spring if the selected latch is a spring-loaded latch (EAFE7, a portion of the spring engages a rib wall of a rib – that at least partially defines the cavity).
Regarding claim 20, Emanuel teaches a lid for covering a utility or meter box (Title, “Utility meter box and meter box cover”, wherein a lid is “meter box cover 50”), the lid comprising:
a top side (Fig 5, top side of 50 shown); a bottom side (Fig 6, bottom side of 50 shown); and
a through-hole extending from the top side to the bottom side (Figs 5-6 and 25, a through-hole in 50 in the region is an aperture 75 through which the bolt 65 inserts; [0051] “an aperture 75 (shown in FIG. 25) into which a bolt 65 (shown in FIGS. 12 and 13) is positioned. Bolt 65 is secured to actuator 64 on one end using bolt retainer 67”) and defining an axis generally perpendicular to the top side (an axis in and of/defined by the through-hole is generally perpendicular to the top side), the through-hole configured to house either a worm latch or a spring-loaded latch ([0044] “The securing mechanism may include any one of or any combination of a spring latch apparatus, a retaining hook and/or a worm gear latch”), such that:
when the through-hole houses a worm latch, the worm latch rotates around a worm-latch axis that is coaxial with the through-hole axis, and
when the through-hole houses a spring-loaded latch, the spring-loaded latch rotates around a spring-loaded latch axis that is also coaxial with the through-hole axis (Figs 5-7, at least a portion of the latch is housed in the through-hole, which is an engagement portion being bolt 65; [0052] “rotate the bolt 65” wherein the bolt axis is coaxial with the through-hole it is in).
Regarding claim 21, Emanuel further teaches the top side has a recess coaxial with the through-hole (Fig 5, a recess shown around bolt 65 is also shown in the top side of 50 and coaxial with the through-hole of the bolt).
Regarding claim 22, Emanuel further teaches the recess in configured to receive an engagement portion of the worm latch or the spring-loaded latch, the engagement portion being accessible to a user from the top surface of the lid to move the latch mechanism between an unlatched position and a latched position (Fig 5, an engagement portion of the latch is bolt 65 shown received int the recess, used for latching and unlatching; [0052] “First, an appropriate tool is placed over the head of the bolt 65 to rotate the bolt 65… turn the bolt 65 in the opposite direction so that spring 63 returns to its original, essentially uncompressed, position”).
Regarding claim 23, Emanuel further teaches the bottom side defines a bottom surface (Fig 7, a bottom surface of the bottom side of 50) and has a lip that extends downwardly from the bottom surface (a lip shown extending downwardly), the lip having a bottom lip surface spaced apart from the bottom surface so as to define a cavity between the bottom lip surface and the bottom surface (EAFE7, a bottom surface of the lip is shown spaced apart from the bottom surface of 50 to define a cavity between).
Regarding claim 24, Emanuel further teaches the bottom lip surface is configured to rotatably engage a latching portion of the worm latch or the spring-loaded latch (Fig 7, EAFE7, a latching portion of the spring-loaded latch that is shown capable of rotating and engaging the bottom lip surface is actuator 64; [0052] “the actuator 64 to rotate so that the spring 63 is compressed”).
Regarding claim 25, Emanuel further teaches the cavity is configured to accommodate at least a portion of a spring of the spring-loaded latch (EAFE7, cavity shown capable of accommodating spring 63).
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.
Claims 26-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 9350148 issued to Emanuel (for its Figures, and its US Pub 20140268506 for easier reference of same written specification using [##]; hereinafter “Emanuel”) in view of DE 102007017539 by Voigt et al. (hereinafter “Voigt”).
Regarding claim 26, Emanuel teaches a lid for covering a utility or meter box (Title, “Utility meter box and meter box cover”, wherein a lid is “meter box cover 50”), the lid configured to accommodate either of a selected one of a worm latch or a spring-loaded latch ([0044] “The securing mechanism may include any one of or any combination of a spring latch apparatus, a retaining hook and/or a worm gear latch”), the lid comprising:
a top side (Fig 5, top side of 50 shown); a bottom side (Fig 6, bottom side of 50 shown),
the bottom side including a plurality of ribs having a web configuration, the web configuration including:
a plurality of rib rings,
a plurality of ribs (Fig 6, “radial and annular ribs 52 and 53” are shown on the bottom side of 50 in a web configuration/shape).
But Emanuel does not explicitly teach chordal ribs.
Voigt, however, discloses a utility cover with ribs for reinforcing the cover load capacity comprising:
a plurality of chordal ribs that intersect the rib rings (Figs 1-3, show at least two chordal ribs 6 that do not extend to the center nor center portion clearly shown, and intersect “circular ribs”/rings 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the web configuration of Emanuel to include chordal ribs as taught by Voigt in order to advantageously support heavier than anticipated loads above Emanuel’s cover use (Emanuel, [0045] “may have a load rating of 25,000 lbs and in further embodiments may have a load rating of at least 40,000 lbs capable of supporting traffic loads”) by having the additional structural ribs.
(wherein Voigt teaches related elements in light of the dependent claims:
wherein both ends of each one of the plurality of chordal ribs intersecting an outer rib ring 9 and an inner rib ring 9;
Fig 4, and page 3, para second from last, line 4, “sixteen pinnacles [6] are equally spaced around”, show at least one pair of chordal ribs is shown parallel to each other; also meaning 360 degrees divided by sixteen is 22.5 degrees, so 22.5 x 2 is 45 degrees, x 2 is 90 degrees perpendicular, x 2 is 180 degrees parallel;
Fig 4, at least one pair of chordal ribs is shown perpendicular to each other;
Fig 4, at least one pair of chordal ribs is shown 45 degrees relative to each other;
Figs 3-5, the bottom-most edge of each chordal rib lies in/defines one generally flat plane)
Regarding claim 27, Emanuel/Voigt further teaches the plurality of rib rings include an outer rib ring, both ends of each one of the plurality of chordal ribs intersecting the outer rib ring (Voigt, Fig 1, both ends of each one of the plurality of chordal ribs intersecting the outer rib ring 9). See details in the parent claim 26 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 28, Emanuel/Voigt further teaches the plurality of rib rings include an inner rib ring with which the plurality of chordal ribs intersect (Voigt, Fig 1, both ends of each one of the plurality of chordal ribs intersecting the inner rib ring 9). See details in the parent claim 26 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 29, Emanuel/Voigt further teaches the plurality of chordal ribs include at least one pair of chordal ribs that are parallel to each other (Voigt, Fig 4, at least one pair of chordal ribs is shown parallel to each other). See details in the parent claim 26 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 30, Emanuel/Voigt further teaches the plurality of chordal ribs include at least one pair of chordal ribs that are perpendicular to each other (Voigt, Fig 4, at least one pair of chordal ribs is shown perpendicular to each other). See details in the parent claim 26 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 31, Emanuel/Voigt further teaches the plurality of chordal ribs include at least one pair of chordal ribs that are at a 45 degree angle relative to each other (Voigt, Fig 4, at least one pair of chordal ribs is shown 45 degrees relative to each other). See details in the parent claim 26 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 32, Emanuel/Voigt further teaches the bottom-most edge of the plurality of chordal ribs define a generally flat plane (Voigt, Figs 3-5, the bottom-most edge of each chordal rib lies in/defines one generally flat plane). See details in the parent claim 26 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights