DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 1-7, 9-10, 12-18, 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.
Claims 1, 14 recite “detecting a water temperature” and “obtaining the water temperature”. It is not clear if these are the same step, or not. If not, it is not clear when these separate steps occur.
Claims 1, 14 recite “operating a magnetron… in accordance with the cooking parameters”, as well as “operating the magnetron to adjust the water temperature to a target cooking temperature’. It is not clear if these are the same step, or not. If not, it is not clear when the separate steps occur.
Claims 1, 14 recite “deenergizing the magnetron prior to obtaining the water temperature’. It is not clear if the magnetron must be off during temperature measurement, or not. It is not clear if simply switching the magnetron off (eg. at the end of a previous cook cycle) would satisfy this requirement , or not.
Claim 12 recites “a temperature sensor”. It is not clear is this is the same temperature sensor of claim 1, or not.
Claim 20 depends from canceled claim 19. It is not clear if claim 20 should depend from claim 14, or not.
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 1-5, 7, 9-10, 14-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen [US 4,317,017] in view of Bhogal et al [US 11,022,321], Head [US 6,936,801B1], and Baek et al [US 2020/0008274A1].
Bowen teaches a microwave steamer (title) comprising a microwave oven including a cabinet and cook chamber (Figure 1, #12), a steam cooker assembly (Figure 1, #10), a container with a water reservoir (Figure 2, #24, 32), a steamer insert with a pair of food cavities (Figure 2, #28, 72), the potential danger of a no load condition with no water in the system (column 6, lines 41-45), operating a magnetron to perform the steam cooking (Figure 1, #14; column 6, line 30-36), and means for control (Figure 1, dials).
Bowen does not explicitly recite a target fill line (claim 1), a sensing assembly, receiving a request for steam cooking, detect water temperature, obtain food type and target doneness, determine cooking parameter (claim 1, 14), deenergizing the magnetron before obtaining a temperature (claim 1), determine target cook time (claim 2, 15), determine a power schedule with multiple stages of power and duration (claim 3-4, 16-17), monitor water level with sensor assembly (claim 5), optical sensor for obtaining and analyzing an image to detect water level (claim 7), obtaining a water temperature (claim 1, 19), operating at a first power level when below the target temperature (claim 9, 20), a second lower power level after reaching the target temperature (claim 10).
Head teaches a microwave oven and method (column 2, line 6) comprising a control system with a user interface (Figure 1, #12), a microprocessor (column 3, line 20), the system receiving a cook cycle request by the user depressing cook touch control pad (column 4, line 50), displaying and selecting pre-programmed control information such as food type (column 3, lines 55 to column 4, line 12), displaying and selecting a temperature setting, power level, and/or target doneness (column 4, lines 32-41), and the system automatically displaying a pre-programmed cooking time after receiving the inputs (column 5, line 10).
Bhogal et al teach a method of using cooking appliance accessories comprising a cooking appliance with a cook chamber (Figure 1, #102), steam cooking (column 2, line 15), a cooking appliance accessory including a vessel (Figure 1, #100, 110), the vessel containing a steamer insert and water reservoir (Figure 5 & 13A-B, #110, 116, 180), a temperature probe in the vessel for monitoring the water temperature (Figure 5, #120), an optical sensor to detect the presence of a vessel and/or working fluid level (column 4, line 19), a temperature probe connected to the appliance (column 4, line 27-34), the vessel including water volume indicating markings (column 6, lines 11-25; Figure 10, #114), a camera for observing the water level (column 6, lines 39-44), accessory identifiers such as optical patterns or electromagnetic identifiers for detecting the presence of components (column 13, lines 19-35; column 18, lines 60-68), detecting the presence of the temperature probe by a wired or wireless connection (column 19, lines 7-19), initially operating the heat source at full power to preheat the water (column 21, lines 13-17), a steaming stage and other stages operated at a lower power level and different durations (column 21, lines 18-39), and turning off the heat source below a target temperature to avoid temperature overshoot (column 22, lines 25-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed cook request, obtaining of food type and target doneness, and determination of target time into the invention of Bowen, in view of Head, since both are directed to methods of microwave cooking, since Bowen already included a microwave oven with controls (Figure 1) but simply did not mention how the microwave would be operated, since microwave oven systems commonly included a control system with a user interface (Figure 1, #12), a microprocessor (column 3, line 20), the system receiving a cook cycle request by the user depressing cook touch control pad (column 4, line 50), displaying and selecting pre-programmed control information such as food type (column 3, lines 55 to column 4, line 12), displaying and selecting a temperature setting, power level, and/or target doneness (column 4, lines 32-41), and the system automatically displaying a pre-programmed cooking time after receiving the inputs (column 5, line 10) as shown by Head; since many different food types were cooked in microwave ovens and they required many different power settings, doneness, and cook times; and since inputting the cook, request, target doneness, and food type in order to determine a cook time would have enabled more accurate and precise control of the food qualities in the system of Bowen, in view of Head.
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed target fill line, optical sensor, temperature sensing, water level detection, and control of power level and duration into the invention of Bowen, in view of Head and Bhogal et al, since all are directed to methods of steam and/or microwave cooking foods, since Bowen already included a microwave oven with controls (Figure 1) but simply did not mention how the microwave would be operated during steaming, since microwave ovens commonly included control system with a user interface (Figure 1, #12), a microprocessor (column 3, line 20), the system receiving a cook cycle request by the user depressing cook touch control pad (column 4, line 50), displaying and selecting pre-programmed control information such as food type (column 3, lines 55 to column 4, line 12), displaying and selecting a temperature setting, power level, and/or target doneness (column 4, lines 32-41), and the system automatically displaying a pre-programmed cooking time after receiving the inputs (column 5, line 10) as shown by Head; since steam cooking systems commonly included a temperature probe in the vessel for monitoring the water temperature (Figure 5, #120), an optical sensor to detect the presence of a vessel and/or working fluid level (column 4, line 19), a temperature probe connected to the appliance (column 4, line 27-34), the vessel including water volume indicating markings (column 6, lines 11-25; Figure 10, #114), a camera for observing the water level (column 6, lines 39-44), accessory identifiers such as optical patterns or electromagnetic identifiers for detecting the presence of components (column 13, lines 19-35; column 18, lines 60-68), detecting the presence of the temperature probe by a wired or wireless connection (column 19, lines 7-19), initially operating the heat source at full power to preheat the water (column 21, lines 13-17), a steaming stage and other stages operated at a lower power level (column 21, lines 18-39), and turning off the heat source below a target temperature to avoid temperature overshoot (column 22, lines 25-34) as shown by Bhogal et al; since accurately monitoring the amount of water would have better ensured that proper steaming was occurring the system of Bowen and also avoiding a potential no load occurrence or potential overflow occurrence, since a target fill line would have been an easy way for the user to verify that the correct amount of water was present before initiating the steaming process, since an optical sensor or camera would have easily automated the water level monitoring function and provided an additional safeguard in the system of Bowen, since a temperature sensor would have enabled easy and convenient monitoring of the water of Bowen and ensured that steaming was occurring at the intended times, and since many different foods were cooked in microwave and/or steam cooking systems and these foods required many different temperature settings, duration, and power levels in order to provide acceptable food qualities in the system of Bowen, in view of Head and Bhogal et al.
Baek et al teach a microwave oven for defrosting and drying food (title) comprising a humidity sensor (Figure 7, #90), a magnetron (Figure 7, #20), and the humidity sensor preferably operating when the magnetron is off to prevent signal interference (paragraph 0128).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed deenergizing of the magnetron before temperature sensing in the invention of Bowen, in view of Head, Baek et al, and Bhogal et al, since all are directed to methods of steam and/or microwave heating foods, since Bowen already included microwave steam heating but simply did not mention specific details about how to control the process, since steam cooking systems commonly included a wireless temperature probe in the vessel for monitoring the water temperature (Figure 5, #120; column 19, lines 7-19) and turning off the heat source below a target temperature to avoid temperature overshoot (column 22, lines 25-34) as shown by Bhogal et al, since microwave heating systems commonly included a humidity sensor preferably operating when the magnetron is off to prevent signal interference (paragraph 0128) as shown by Baek et al, since repeatedly sensing the water temperature throughout the cooking process of Bowen would have ensured that the water was being converted to steam at the required times and in the required amounts, and since sensing the water temperature after the magnetron was deenergized would have prevented possible signal interference in the combined method of Bowen, in view of Head, Baek et al, and Bhogal et al.
In conclusion, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 6, 13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen, in view of Head, Baek et al, and Bhogal et al, as applied above, and further in view of Shibuya et al [US 2017/0311394A1].
Bowen, Head, Baek et al, and Bhogal et al teach the above mentioned concepts and components. Bowen does not explicitly recite a user notification to add water (claim 6, 18), a user notification if the sensor assembly is not connected (claim 13).
Bhogal et al also teach an optical sensor to detect the presence of a vessel and/or working fluid level (column 4, line 19), the vessel including water volume indicating markings (column 6, lines 11-25; Figure 10, #114), a camera for observing the water level (column 6, lines 39-44), accessory identifiers such as optical patterns or electromagnetic identifiers for detecting the presence of components (column 13, lines 19-35; column 18, lines 60-68), detecting the presence of the temperature probe by a wired or wireless connection (column 19, lines 7-19).
Shibuya et al teach a microwave cooking device comprising a water supply tank and drain tank (Figure 2, #7-8), a controller (Figure 3, #40), a float sensor for monitoring a water level (Figure 2, #28), a user notification if the drain tank is too full (paragraph 0074), and a user notification if the drain tank is removed during cooking (paragraph 0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed user notifications into the invention of Bowen, in view of Head, Bhogal et al, and Shibuya et al; since all are directed to methods of microwave and/or steam cooking foods, since Bowen already included a microwave oven with controls (Figure 1) but simply did not mention how the microwave would be operated during steaming, since steam cooking systems commonly included monitoring the water level and detecting whether the temperature probe was present as shown by Bhogal et al above, since microwave cooking systems commonly included a float sensor for monitoring a water level (Figure 2, #28), a user notification if the drain tank is too full (paragraph 0074), and a user notification if the drain tank is removed during cooking (paragraph 0075) as shown by Shibuya et al; and since a user notification of the water level being low or the temperature probe being absent would have enabled the user to correct these deficiencies before any adverse actions occurred.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen, in view of Head, Baek et al, and Bhogal et al, as applied above, and further in view of Lion et al [US 2022/0117438A1].
Bowen, Head, Baek et al, and Bhogal et al teach the above mentioned concepts and components. Bowen does not explicitly recite estimating a remining time (claim 12). Lion et al teach a method for estimating remining cooking time based upon a sensed temperature (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed remaining time estimation into the invention of Bowen, in view of Head, Bhogal et al, and Lion et al, since all are directed to methods of cooking foods, since Bowen simply did not mention how the microwave was controlled, since microwave systems commonly included automatically displaying a pre-programmed cooking time after receiving the inputs (column 5, line 10) as shown by Head, since cooking systems commonly included a temperature probe in the vessel for monitoring the water temperature (Figure 5, #120), initially operating the heat source at full power to preheat the water (column 21, lines 13-17), a steaming stage and other stages operated at a lower power level and different durations (column 21, lines 18-39) as shown by Bhogal et al; since cooking systems commonly included estimation of a remaining cook time by use of a temperature probe (abstract) as shown by Lion et al, since monitoring the water temperature would indicate when boiling and steam creation had commenced in the combined system of Bowen, in view of Bhogal et al; since Head also included the input a target doneness by the user, and since an accurate prediction of remaining cook time would have prevented over- or under-cooking of the food of Bowen, in view of Head.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 (particularly claim 14) are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 (particularly claim 18) of copending Application No. 18/890,011 in view of Head, Baek et al, and Bhogal et al.
The ‘011 application claims a microwave oven with a cabinet, steam cooker assembly, water reservoir, and steamer insert (claim 15), as well as sensor assembly (claim 18).
The ‘011 application does not explicitly claim a controller configured to perform the listed steps: receive a request, detect water temperature, obtain food type and target doneness, determine cooking parameters, operate the magnetron, and deenergize the magnetron.
Head teaches a microwave oven and method (column 2, line 6) comprising a control system with a user interface (Figure 1, #12), a microprocessor (column 3, line 20), the system receiving a cook cycle request by the user depressing cook touch control pad (column 4, line 50), displaying and selecting pre-programmed control information such as food type (column 3, lines 55 to column 4, line 12), displaying and selecting a temperature setting, power level, and/or target doneness (column 4, lines 32-41), and the system automatically displaying a pre-programmed cooking time after receiving the inputs (column 5, line 10).
Bhogal et al teach a method of using cooking appliance accessories comprising a cooking appliance with a cook chamber (Figure 1, #102), steam cooking (column 2, line 15), a cooking appliance accessory including a vessel (Figure 1, #100, 110), the vessel containing a steamer insert and water reservoir (Figure 5 & 13A-B, #110, 116, 180), a temperature probe in the vessel for monitoring the water temperature (Figure 5, #120), an optical sensor to detect the presence of a vessel and/or working fluid level (column 4, line 19), a temperature probe connected to the appliance (column 4, line 27-34), the vessel including water volume indicating markings (column 6, lines 11-25; Figure 10, #114), a camera for observing the water level (column 6, lines 39-44), accessory identifiers such as optical patterns or electromagnetic identifiers for detecting the presence of components (column 13, lines 19-35; column 18, lines 60-68), detecting the presence of the temperature probe by a wired or wireless connection (column 19, lines 7-19), initially operating the heat source at full power to preheat the water (column 21, lines 13-17), a steaming stage and other stages operated at a lower power level and different durations (column 21, lines 18-39), and turning off the heat source below a target temperature to avoid temperature overshoot (column 22, lines 25-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed cook request, obtaining of food type and target doneness, and determination of target time into the invention of ‘011, in view of Head, since both are directed to methods of microwave cooking, since ‘011 already included a microwave oven but simply did not mention how the microwave would be operated, since microwave oven systems commonly included a control system with a user interface (Figure 1, #12), a microprocessor (column 3, line 20), the system receiving a cook cycle request by the user depressing cook touch control pad (column 4, line 50), displaying and selecting pre-programmed control information such as food type (column 3, lines 55 to column 4, line 12), displaying and selecting a temperature setting, power level, and/or target doneness (column 4, lines 32-41), and the system automatically displaying a pre-programmed cooking time after receiving the inputs (column 5, line 10) as shown by Head; since many different food types were cooked in microwave ovens and they required many different power settings, doneness, and cook times; and since inputting the cook, request, target doneness, and food type in order to determine a cook time would have enabled more accurate and precise control of the food qualities in the system of ‘011, in view of Head.
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed temperature sensing into the invention of ‘011, in view of Head and Bhogal et al, since all are directed to methods of steam and/or microwave cooking foods, since ‘011 already included a microwave oven but simply did not mention how the microwave would be operated during steaming, since microwave ovens commonly included control system with a user interface (Figure 1, #12), a microprocessor (column 3, line 20) as shown by Head; since steam cooking systems commonly included a temperature probe in the vessel for monitoring the water temperature (Figure 5, #120), the temperature probe connected to the appliance (column 4, line 27-34), as shown by Bhogal et al; since a temperature sensor would have enabled easy and convenient monitoring of the water of ‘011 and ensured that steaming was occurring at the intended times, and since many different foods were cooked in microwave and/or steam cooking systems and these foods required many different temperature settings, duration, and power levels in order to provide acceptable food qualities in the system of ‘011, in view of Head and Bhogal et al.
Baek et al teach a microwave oven for defrosting and drying food (title) comprising a humidity sensor (Figure 7, #90), a magnetron (Figure 7, #20), and the humidity sensor preferably operating when the magnetron is off to prevent signal interference (paragraph 0128).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed deenergizing of the magnetron before temperature sensing in the invention of ‘011, in view of Head, Baek et al, and Bhogal et al, since all are directed to methods of steam and/or microwave heating foods, since ‘011 already included microwave steam heating but simply did not mention specific details about how to control the process, since steam cooking systems commonly included a wireless temperature probe in the vessel for monitoring the water temperature (Figure 5, #120; column 19, lines 7-19) and turning off the heat source below a target temperature to avoid temperature overshoot (column 22, lines 25-34) as shown by Bhogal et al, since microwave heating systems commonly included a humidity sensor preferably operating when the magnetron is off to prevent signal interference (paragraph 0128) as shown by Baek et al, since repeatedly sensing the water temperature throughout the cooking process of ‘011 would have ensured that the water was being converted to steam at the required times and in the required amounts, and since sensing the water temperature after the magnetron was deenergized would have prevented possible signal interference as well as accurate timing as to when to reinitiate the magnetron if the water temperature decreases too much in the combined method of ‘011, in view of Head, Baek et al, and Bhogal et al.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Armstrong teaches a cooking system including input of doneness and food type (Figure 6, #610), Staun teaches a microwave system for sous vide cooking with a water reservoir and temperature sensor, Heimerdinger teaches a microwave system for sous vide cooking with a temperature sensor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, 12-18, 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Baek et al teach a microwave oven for defrosting and drying food (title) comprising a humidity sensor (Figure 7, #90), a magnetron (Figure 7, #20), and the humidity sensor preferably operating when the magnetron is off to prevent signal interference (paragraph 0128).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed deenergizing of the magnetron before temperature sensing in the invention of Bowen, in view of Head, Baek et al, and Bhogal et al, since all are directed to methods of steam and/or microwave heating foods, since Bowen already included microwave steam heating but simply did not mention specific details about how to control the process, since steam cooking systems commonly included a wireless temperature probe in the vessel for monitoring the water temperature (Figure 5, #120; column 19, lines 7-19) and turning off the heat source below a target temperature to avoid temperature overshoot (column 22, lines 25-34) as shown by Bhogal et al, since microwave heating systems commonly included a humidity sensor preferably operating when the magnetron is off to prevent signal interference (paragraph 0128) as shown by Baek et al, since repeatedly sensing the water temperature throughout the cooking process of Bowen would have ensured that the water was being converted to steam at the required times and in the required amounts, and since sensing the water temperature after the magnetron was deenergized would have prevented possible signal interference in the combined method of Bowen, in view of Head, Baek et al, and Bhogal et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm 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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights