DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0018], ninth line from the bottom, --have—should be inserted between “may” and “any”.
[0045], fourth line from the bottom, “to” should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Fifth line from the end, --to—should be inserted between “secured” and “opposing”;
Third line from the end, “extend” should be replaced with –extending--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 6, 8-9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Suo (CN201494041).
6. A linkage for a scissor link system (Fig. 1) comprising: a link arm (3, Figs. 1 and 3) having lateral sides (visible in Fig. 1); at least one plate (17, Fig. 1 and 3) secured to at least one of the lateral sides; and a tube (18, Fig. 3) (i) extending through the link arm (3) and between the lateral sides, (ii) engaging the at least one plate (17, Fig. 3) via at least one force-fit engagement (note from Fig. 3 that the engagement between the tube 18 and the plate 17 appears to be snug per Applicant’s definition of force-fit at [0046] of the specification), and (iii) operable to rotatably receive a pivot pin (at 17 in Fig. 2).
To the extent that Suo fails to explicitly disclose at least one force-fit engagement between the tube and the plate, note that claim 6 appears to be a product-by-process claim. Per MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art. Here, Suo discloses at [0021] that “Liners (18) are welded into the holes to enhance their wear resistance. A rectangular reinforcing plate (17) is welded to one side of the middle hole to increase its bending resistance”. Suo is silent regarding the dimensions of the diameter of the tube and the orifice in the plate. However, as indicated above the arrangement appears to be a snug type of force-fit arrangement and it 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 to have included at least one force-fit engagement between the tube and the plate of Suo in order to jig the plate for welding, to further secure the tube relative to the linkage, and/or to prevent debris accumulation between the plate and the tube.
8. Suo discloses the linkage of claim 6, wherein the at least one force-fit engagement comprises at least one transition-fit engagement (as noted above with regard to claim 6, the engagement between the tube 18 and the plate 17 appears to be snug per applicant’s definition of transition-fit at [0046] of the specification).
9. Suo discloses the linkage of claim 6, wherein (i) the link arm (3) defines at least one primary orifice (the orifice in the tubular body), (ii) the at least one plate (17) defines at least one secondary orifice (the orifice in the at least one plate), and (iii) the tube (18) extends through the at least one primary orifice and the at least one secondary orifice (see Fig. 3 of Suo).
14. Suo discloses the linkage of claim 6, wherein the link arm (3) is tubular (see Figs. 1-3).
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, 3, 5, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suo (CN201494041).
1. Suo discloses a lift (Fig. 1) comprising: a base (A); a platform (C); and a linkage assembly (Fig. 1) operable to elevate the platform relative to the base, the linkage assembly having a plurality of linkages (3) rotatably interconnected via pins (see adjacent call outs 13, 10, 17, 1, and 2), wherein each linkage comprises, a tubular body (3, Fig. 3) having lateral sides (Fig. 1), the lateral sides defining primary orifices (at 18 in Fig. 3, specifically, the orifices through the tubular body), a plate (17) secured to a lateral side of the tubular body and defining a secondary orifice (the orifice in the plate 17), wherein the secondary orifices are aligned with the primary orifices (see Fig. 3), and a pivot tube (18) (i) extending through the primary orifices and the secondary orifice, (ii) engaging the plate (17) within the secondary orifice via force-fit engagements (note that the engagement between the pivot tube 18 and the secondary orifice in the plate 17 appears to be snug per applicant’s definition of force-fit at [0046] of the specification), and (iii) operable to rotatably receive one of the pins (at 17 in Fig. 2).
Suo fails to disclose a second plate on the other lateral side of the tubular body with a secondary orifice aligned with the primary orifice in the tubular body and the pivot tube in force fit engagement with the secondary orifice. However, per MPEP 2144.04.VI.B such duplication of parts is prima facie obvious. It 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 to have included a second plate on the other lateral side of the tubular body with a secondary orifice aligned with the primary orifice in the tubular body and the pivot tube in force fit engagement with the secondary orifice in order to further strengthen the tubular body and/or to impart symmetry to the tubular body.
To the extent that Suo fails to explicitly disclose at least one force-fit engagement between the pivot tube and the secondary orifice in the plate, note that claim 1 appears to be a product-by-process claim. Per MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art. Here, Suo discloses at [0021] that “Liners (18) are welded into the holes to enhance their wear resistance. A rectangular reinforcing plate (17) is welded to one side of the middle hole to increase its bending resistance”. Suo is silent regarding the dimensions of the diameter of the pivot tube and the secondary orifice in the plate. However, as indicated above the arrangement appears to be a snug type of force-fit arrangement and it 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 to have included at least one force-fit engagement between the pivot tube and the secondary orifice in the plate of Suo in order to jig the plate for welding, further secure the tube relative to the linkage, and/or to prevent debris accumulation between the plate and the tube.
3. Suo discloses the lift of claim 1, wherein the force-fit engagements are transition-fit engagements (as noted above with regard to claim 1, the engagement between the pivot tube 18 and the secondary orifice in the plate 17 appears to be snug per applicant’s definition of transition-fit at [0046] of the specification).
5. Suo discloses the lift of claim 1, wherein the plates of each linkage are secured to the tubular body of the corresponding linkage via welds (Suo [0021]: “A rectangular reinforcing plate (17) is welded to one side of the middle hole to increase its bending resistance”).
15. Suo disclose a scissor link system (Fig. 1) comprising: a plurality of linkages (far left side of Fig. 2); and a plurality pivots (one in each linkage at 17 on the far left of Fig. 2), each pivot operable to rotatably connect two or more linkages (3, Fig. 3) of the plurality of linkages to each other (see Fig. 2 at 17), wherein each pivot includes, first support plates (17, Fig. 2) secured to opposing lateral sides of a first linkage (3, Fig. 3) of the plurality of linkages, a first pivot tube (18, Fig. 3) extending through the first linkage (3, Fig. 3) and engaging the first support plate via first force-fit engagements (note that the engagement between the first pivot tube 18 and the first support plate 17 appears to be snug per applicant’s definition of force-fit at [0046] of the specification), respectively, a fourth plate secured to an opposing lateral side of a second linkage (see the right hand linkage on the far left side of Fig. 2) of the plurality of linkages, a second pivot tube (18, Fig. 3) extend through the second linkage and engaging the fourth support plate via a fourth force-fit engagement (note that the engagement between the second pivot tube 18 and the fourth plate 17 appears to be snug per applicant’s definition of force-fit at [0046] of the specification), respectively, and a pivot pin (see at 17 in Fig. 2) extending through each of the first (18) and second (18) pivot tubes.
Suo fails to disclose a second support plate on the opposing lateral side of the first linkage, the first pivot tube engaging the second plate via a second force-fit engagement, a third support plate on the opposing lateral side of the second linkage, and the second pivot tube engaging the third support plate via a third force-fit engagement. However, per MPEP 2144.04.VI.B such duplication of parts is prima facie obvious. It 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 to have included a second support plate on the opposing lateral side of the first linkage, the first pivot tube engaging the second plate via a second force-fit engagement, a third support plate on the opposing lateral side of the second linkage, and the second pivot tube engaging the third support plate via a third force-fit engagement in order to further strengthen the tubular body and/or to impart symmetry to the tubular body.
To the extent that Suo fails to explicitly disclose force-fit engagement between the pivot tubes and the plates, note that claim 1 appears to be a product-by-process claim. Per MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art. Here, Suo discloses at [0021] that “Liners (18) are welded into the holes to enhance their wear resistance. A rectangular reinforcing plate (17) is welded to one side of the middle hole to increase its bending resistance”. Suo is silent regarding the dimensions of the diameter of the pivot tube and the secondary orifice in the plate. However, as indicated above the arrangement appears to be a snug type of force-fit arrangement and it 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 to have included a force-fit engagement between the pivot tubes and the plates of Suo in order to jig the plates for welding, further secure the tubes relative to the linkages, and/or to prevent debris accumulation between the plates and the tubes.
17. Suo discloses, as modified by MPEP 2144.04.VI.B, the scissor link system of claim 15, wherein the first, second, third, and fourth force-fit engagements of each pivot are transition-fit engagements (as noted above with regard to claim 15, the engagement between the pivot tubes 18 and the plates 17 appears to be snug per applicant’s definition of transition-fit at [0046] of the specification).
20. Suo discloses, as modified by MPEP 2144.04.VI.B, the scissor link system of claim 15, wherein the first and second support plates of each pivot are secured to the first linkage of the corresponding pivot via a first set of welds and (ii) the third and fourth support plates of each pivot are secured to second linkage of the corresponding pivot via a second set of welds (Suo [0021]: “A rectangular reinforcing plate (17) is welded to one side of the middle hole to increase its bending resistance”).
Claims 2, 7, 10-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suo (CN201494041) in view of Perkins (US20080105498) and further in view of Haak (US5113972).
Note: this rejection has two parts, the first part is directed to the location of the force-fit engagement and the second part is directed to the type of force-fit engagement.
2. Suo fails to disclose the lift of claim 1, wherein the force-fit engagements are interference-fit engagements. Perkins teaches in the context of scissor lifts interference-fit engagements at a second orifice (Perkins at [0005]: “As shown in FIG. 3, the conventional steel sleeve 24 in the reinforced joint portion 22 typically also includes bushings 30 mounted in counter bores 32 formed in the ends of the sleeve. The bushings are positioned to engage the pivot pin 23 to provide for a low friction interface with the pivot pin. Accordingly, the steel sleeve must be machined and assembled with the bushings, thereby adding to the overall cost of the assembled link arm, and thus, the scissor lift assembly”). It 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 to have included a force fit engagement at a second orifice in the lift of Suo according to the teachings of Perkins in order to make the pivot tube more easily replaceable, e.g., by removing the welds of the plates to the tubular body.
Suo in view of Perkins appear to provide inherent support for the force-fit engagement being an interference fit engagement, specifically, Perkins discloses, as cited above, that “the steel sleeve must be machined and assembled with the bushing” – as there appears to be no fasteners and no disclosure of welding or other engagement, it appears that the engagement is necessarily an interference fit engagement.
To the extent that Suo in view of Perkins fail to explicitly disclose wherein the force-fit engagements are interference fit engagements, Haak teaches, in the context of scissor lifts, wherein the force-fit engagements are interference-fit engagements (see Haak at col. 4, lines 25-27: “The scissor arms 1b, 2b and 3b have bores 14 for sleeves 16 which are provided with a respective press-fit mounting sleeve 17 for the mounting bolts 15”). It 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 to have included wherein the force-fit engagements are interference-fit engagements in the lift of Suo in view of Perkins according to the teachings of Haak in order to implement a bushing that extends beyond a reinforcement plate to further stabilize and reduce wear on the pin.
7. Suo fails to disclose the linkage of claim 6, wherein the at least one force-fit engagement comprises at least one interference-fit engagement.
Note: this rejection has two parts, the first part is directed to the location of the force-fit engagement and the second part is directed to the type of force-fit engagement.
Perkins teaches in the context of scissor lifts a force fit engagement at a plate (Perkins at [0005]: “As shown in FIG. 3, the conventional steel sleeve 24 in the reinforced joint portion 22 typically also includes bushings 30 mounted in counter bores 32 formed in the ends of the sleeve. The bushings are positioned to engage the pivot pin 23 to provide for a low friction interface with the pivot pin. Accordingly, the steel sleeve must be machined and assembled with the bushings, thereby adding to the overall cost of the assembled link arm, and thus, the scissor lift assembly”). It 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 to have included a force fit engagement at a plate in the linkage of Suo according to the teachings of Perkins in order to make the pivot tube more easily replaceable, e.g., by removing the welds of the plates to the tubular body.
Suo in view of Perkins appear to provide inherent support for the force-fit engagement being an interference fit engagement, specifically, Perkins discloses, as cited above, that “the steel sleeve must be machined and assembled with the bushing” – as there appears to be no fasteners and no disclosure of welding or other engagement, it appears that the engagement is necessarily an interference fit engagement.
To the extent that Suo in view of Perkins fail to explicitly disclose wherein the force-fit engagements are interference fit engagements, Haak teaches, in the context of scissor lifts, wherein the force-fit engagements are interference-fit engagements (see Haak at col. 4, lines 25-27: “The scissor arms 1b, 2b and 3b have bores 14 for sleeves 16 which are provided with a respective press-fit mounting sleeve 17 for the mounting bolts 15”). It 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 to have included wherein the force-fit engagements are interference-fit engagements in the linkage of Suo in view of Perkins according to the teachings of Haak in order to avoid welding related heat weakening of the plate in the vicinity of the pivot tube.
10. Suo in view of Perkins and further in view of Haak disclose the linkage of claim 7, wherein the tube (18) engages the at least one plate (17) via the at least one force-fit engagement within the at least one secondary orifice (see Fig. 3 of Perkins, note the force-fit engagement of the bushing 30 within the second orifice, i.e., at the plate 28).
11. Suo in view of Perkins and further in view of Haak disclose the linkage of claim 10, wherein the at least one force-fit engagement comprises at least one interference-fit engagement (see Haak at col. 4, lines 25-27: “The scissor arms 1b, 2b and 3b have bores 14 for sleeves 16 which are provided with a respective press-fit mounting sleeve 17 for the mounting bolts 15”).
12. Duo in view of Perkins and further in view of Haak disclose the linkage of claim 10, wherein the at least one force-fit engagement comprises at least one transition-fit engagement (as noted above with regard to claim 6, the engagement between the tube 18 and the plate 17 appears to be snug per applicant’s definition of transition-fit at [0046] of the specification).
13. Suo in view of Perkins and further in view of Haak disclose the linkage of claim 10, wherein the tube engages the link arm via at least one clearance-fit engagement within the at least one primary orifice (see Perkins at [0004]: “The steel sleeve is welded to the link arm around one of the holes.” - note that the clearance fit engagement at the at least one primary orifice is located on the same side of the linkage as the force-fit engagement at the secondary orifice.)
16. Suo fails to disclose the scissor link system of claim 15, wherein the first, second, third, and fourth force-fit engagements of each pivot are interference-fit engagements.
Note: this rejection has two parts, the first part is directed to the location of the force-fit engagement and the second part is directed to the type of force-fit engagement.
Perkins teaches in the context of scissor lifts a force fit engagement at a plate (Perkins at [0005]: “As shown in FIG. 3, the conventional steel sleeve 24 in the reinforced joint portion 22 typically also includes bushings 30 mounted in counter bores 32 formed in the ends of the sleeve. The bushings are positioned to engage the pivot pin 23 to provide for a low friction interface with the pivot pin. Accordingly, the steel sleeve must be machined and assembled with the bushings, thereby adding to the overall cost of the assembled link arm, and thus, the scissor lift assembly”). It 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 to have included wherein the first, second, third, and fourth force-fit engagements of each pivot are interference-fit engagements in the linkages of Suo according to the teachings of Perkins in order to make the pivot tube more easily replaceable, e.g., by removing the welds of the plates to the tubular body.
Suo in view of Perkins appear to provide inherent support for the force-fit engagement being an interference fit engagement, specifically, Perkins discloses, as cited above, that “the steel sleeve must be machined and assembled with the bushing” – as there appears to be no fasteners and no disclosure of welding or other engagement, it appears that the engagement is necessarily an interference fit engagement.
To the extent that Suo in view of Perkins fail to explicitly disclose wherein the force-fit engagements are interference fit engagements, Haak teaches, in the context of scissor lifts, wherein the force-fit engagements are interference-fit engagements (see Haak at col. 4, lines 25-27: “The scissor arms 1b, 2b and 3b have bores 14 for sleeves 16 which are provided with a respective press-fit mounting sleeve 17 for the mounting bolts 15”). It 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 to have included wherein the force-fit engagements are interference-fit engagements in the linkage of Suo in view of Perkins according to the teachings of Haak in order to avoid welding related heat weakening of the plate in the vicinity of the pivot tube.
Claims 4, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suo (CN201494041) in view of Murrill (US4930598).
4. Suo appears, per MPEP 2113, to disclose the lift of claim 1, wherein the pivot tube (18, Fig. 3) of each linkage engages the tubular body (3) of the corresponding linkage within the primary orifices (the holes in the tubular body) via clearance-fit engagements. To the extent that this arrangement is not explicitly disclosed by Suo, it 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 to have included wherein the pivot tube of each linkage engages the tubular body of the corresponding linkage within the primary orifices via clearance-fit engagements in order to facilitate indexing and alignment of the pin within the tubular body prior to welding.
Further, and to the extent that Suo fails to disclose wherein the pivot tube of each linkage engages the tubular body of the corresponding linkage within the primary orifices via clearance-fit engagements, Murrill teaches, in the context of scissor lifts, wherein a pivot tube of each linkage engages the tubular body of the corresponding linkage within the primary orifices via clearance-fit engagements (see Murrill at Figs. 7-8A and Murrill at col. 7, lines 56-59: “A boss 125 extends through the web of the tube 123 at its midpoint. The boss 125 cooperates with a pin to define a pivot connection between the outside support arms and a center arm of the present invention” – also see Murrill at col. 9, lines 22-24: “The bushing 125 of the outside support arm 123 is tapped to engage securely the threads of bolts placed in the holes 174”). It 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 to have included wherein the pivot tube of each linkage engages the tubular body of the corresponding linkage within the primary orifices via clearance-fit engagements in the lift of Suo according to the teachings of Murrill in order to reduce stress on the tubular body (see at 67 in Fig. 1 of Murrill).
18. Suo appears, per MPEP 2113, to disclose the scissor link system of claim 15, wherein the first pivot tube of each pivot engages the first linkage of the corresponding pivot via at least one clearance-fit engagement. To the extent that this arrangement is not explicitly disclosed by Suo it 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 to have included wherein the pivot tube of each linkage engages the tubular body of the corresponding linkage within the primary orifices via clearance-fit engagements in order to facilitate indexing and alignment of the pin within the tubular body prior to the welding disclosed by Suo..
Further, and to the extent that Suo fails to disclose wherein the pivot tube of each linkage engages the tubular body of the corresponding linkage within the primary orifices via clearance-fit engagements, Murrill teaches, in the context of scissor lifts, wherein a pivot tube of each linkage engages the tubular body of the corresponding linkage within the primary orifices via clearance-fit engagements (see Murrill at Figs. 7-8A and Murrill at col. 7, lines 56-59: “A boss 125 extends through the web of the tube 123 at its midpoint. The boss 125 cooperates with a pin to define a pivot connection between the outside support arms and a center arm of the present invention” – also see Murrill at col. 9, lines 22-24: “The bushing 125 of the outside support arm 123 is tapped to engage securely the threads of bolts placed in the holes 174”). It 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 to have included wherein the pivot tube of each linkage engages the tubular body of the corresponding linkage within the primary orifices via clearance-fit engagements in the lift of Suo according to the teachings of Murrill in order to reduce stress on the tubular body (see at 67 in Fig. 1 of Murrill).
19. Suo appears, per MPEP 2113, to disclose the scissor link system of claim 18, wherein the second pivot tube of each pivot engages the second linkage of the corresponding pivot via at least one clearance-fit engagement. To the extent that this arrangement is not explicitly disclosed by Suo it 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 to have included wherein the pivot tube of each linkage engages the tubular body of the corresponding linkage within the primary orifices via clearance-fit engagements in order to facilitate indexing and alignment of the pin within the tubular body prior to the welding disclosed by Suo..
Further, and to the extent that Suo fails to disclose wherein the pivot tube of each linkage engages the tubular body of the corresponding linkage within the primary orifices via clearance-fit engagements, Murrill teaches, in the context of scissor lifts, wherein a pivot tube of each linkage engages the tubular body of the corresponding linkage within the primary orifices via clearance-fit engagements (see Murrill at Figs. 7-8A and Murrill at col. 7, lines 56-59: “A boss 125 extends through the web of the tube 123 at its midpoint. The boss 125 cooperates with a pin to define a pivot connection between the outside support arms and a center arm of the present invention” – also see Murrill at col. 9, lines 22-24: “The bushing 125 of the outside support arm 123 is tapped to engage securely the threads of bolts placed in the holes 174”). It 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 to have included wherein the pivot tube of each linkage engages the tubular body of the corresponding linkage within the primary orifices via clearance-fit engagements in the lift of Suo according to the teachings of Murrill in order to reduce stress on the tubular body (see at 67 in Fig. 1 of Murrill).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ben Pezzlo whose telephone number is (571)272-9656. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 7 to 5.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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.
/BAP/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights