DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to the claims filed on April 28, 2026.
The terminal disclaimer filed April 20, 2026 has been approved.
The replacement figures filed April 20, 2026 have been approved.
Status of claims: claim 7 is cancelled; claims 1-6 and 8-22 are hereby examined below.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 20, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 11 – shouldn’t “the direction” be amended to “a direction”?
Claim 22, line 11 – shouldn’t “the direction” be amended to “a direction”?
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because it is unclear what constitutes the elements indicated below in FIGS. 3a and 3b. More specifically, since the first and second projections 74,76 are illustrated and no projections extend from the other side of the carriage, as illustrated in FIGS. 5a, 5b, 6a and 6b, what are the elements indicated below?
[AltContent: textbox (?)][AltContent: textbox (?)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
830
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10077594 to Fingerle.
Fingerle discloses a door, wherein the door comprises:
a) a sill 52 with a running rail; (see FIG. 10)
b) a leaf 50 configured to be displaced in parallel with the running rail;
c) a carriage 12 on a which the leaf is supported downward on the running rail; wherein the carriage comprises a roller part with a running roller 25,26 rolling on the running rail and a control cam 10 (see FIGS. 2,7) running at least in sections at an angle to a main plane of the leaf, wherein the roller part is designed to be movable transversely to the main plane of the leaf; (see FIG. 2)
and the leaf comprises a driving bar 2 with a control pin 9 which is arranged or formed on the driving bar and protrudes into the control cam wherein a movement of the driving bar in the direction of its longitudinal axis causes a movement of the roller part transverse to the main plane of the leaf in order to move the leaf transversely to the running rail; (see FIG. 2)
wherein the sill comprises recesses on the upper side, (see annotated FIG. 10 below)
wherein the recesses at their uppermost point are delimited by jump lines extending in parallel with the running rail, wherein the jump lines lie in a virtual plane that is horizontally disposed. (see annotated FIG. 10 below)
Fingerle fails to disclose wherein the sill comprises recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and/or whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door, to save on material costs as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and/or whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door and to save on material costs. (claim 1)
[AltContent: textbox (Uppermost points of the recesses – claim 1)][AltContent: textbox (Leaf recess – claim 2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Recesses – claim 1)][AltContent: textbox (Sections of the underside of the leaf)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Virtual plane)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
492
212
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
108
132
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fingerle further discloses where the leaf at its underside dips in sections into a leaf recess of the sill wherein the leaf extends in sections below the upper side of the sill. (see annotated FIG. 10 above) (claim 2)
Fingerle further discloses wherein the leaf recess and/or the leaf comprises a sealing strip 55 which extends in parallel with the running rail and via which the leaf in its closed position in the leaf recess bears against the sill in a sealing manner. (see FIG. 10 above) (claim 3)
Fingerle further discloses wherein the leaf comprises an extension part extending down. (see one of the “sections of the underside of the lead” annotated in FIG. 10 above) (claim 6)
Fingerle discloses a door, wherein the door comprises:
a) a sill 52 with a running rail; (see FIG. 10)
b) a leaf 50 configured to be displaced in parallel with the running rail;
c) a carriage 12 on which the leaf is supported downward on the running rail;
wherein the carriage comprises a roller part with a running roller 25,26 rolling on the running rail and a control cam 10 (see FIGS. 2,7) running at least in sections at an angle to a main plane of the leaf, wherein the roller part is designed to be movable transversely to the main plane of the leaf; (see FIG. 2)
and the leaf comprises a driving bar 2 with a control pin 9 which is arranged or formed on the driving bar and protrudes into the control cam wherein a movement of the driving bar in the direction of its longitudinal axis causes a movement of the roller part transverse to the main plane of the leaf in order to move the leaf transversely to the running rail; (see FIG. 2)
wherein the sill comprises recesses on an upper side, (see annotated FIG. 10 above)
wherein the recesses at their uppermost point are delimited by jump lines extending in parallel with the running rail, wherein the jump lines lie in a virtual plane that is horizontally disposed forming a continuous support surface configured for traversal across the sill.
Fingerle fails to disclose the sill comprises recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door, to save on material costs as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door and to save on material costs. (claim 22)
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fingerle, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 11098513 to Liu et al. (hereinafter “Liu”)
Fingerle further discloses wherein the leaf extends at its underside in sections near the uppermost point of the running rail, but fails to disclose the leaf extends at its underside in sections below the uppermost point of the running rail.
Liu teaches the leaf 11 extends at its underside in sections below the uppermost point of the running rail. (see annotated Fig. 5 below)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Running rail)][AltContent: textbox (Sections of underside)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
430
580
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend the Fingerle leaf sections below the uppermost point of the running rail, as taught by Liu, in order to minimize dirt and debris from passing under the leaf and to minimize drafts and unwanted airflow below the leaf. (claim 4)
Fingerle fails to disclose the running rail is formed on a pivotable rail.
Liu teaches of the running rail that is formed on a pivotable rail. (see FIG. 5 above of Liu. Note the running rail is attached to a larger body rail, wherein the larger body rail is detachable and pivotable about element 21.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the running rail disclosed in Fingerle with the running rail taught in Liu with a reasonable expectation of success in order to assist with assembly of the door, particularly with placement of the leaf on the sill as well as to assist with maintenance of the sill since if an issue with the running rail were to arise, only the running rail and the entire sill would require replacement. (claim 5)
Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015010925 to Fingerle, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of CN 20150595052.
Fingerle further discloses wherein the sill comprises a first guide groove extending in parallel with the running rail, wherein a first projection 13 of the carriage into the first guide groove wherein the carriage can be supported via the first projection on the side wall of the first guide groove and/or the side of the running rail when the leaf is loaded transversely to an extension of the running rail. (see annotated FIG. 10 below)
Fingerle fails to disclose the first projection extends down beyond the runner roller.
CN 20150595052 teaches of several projections 162, including a first projection 162, that extends down beyond a running rail 342. (see FIGS. 1 and 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to swap the Fingerle first projection with the projections that extends down beyond the runner rail as taught in CN 20150595052 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to further secure the leaf along the running rail since extending the projection beyond the runner roller would increase contact between the first projection and running rail and sill. (claim 8)
Fingerle, as applied above, further discloses wherein the first projection comprises a bearing that can roll on a side wall of the first guide groove and/or a side of the running rail when the lead is loaded transversely to the extension of the running rail. (see annotated FIG. 10 below and FIG. 1 of CN 20150595052) (claim 9)
Fingerle, as applied above, further discloses wherein the roller part comprises an attachment 164 with the first projection, which is fastened to a roller part body 146. (see FIG. 1 of CN 20150595052) (claim 10)
PNG
media_image5.png
414
616
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fingerle, as applied above, further discloses wherein the roller part comprises a second projection which extends down beyond the running roller into the first guide groove wherein the carriage can be supported via the second projection on a side wall of the first guide groove and/or the side of the running rail when the leaf is loaded transversely to the extension of the running rail. (see FIGS. 1 and 2 of CN 20150595052) (claim 11)
Fingerle, as applied above, further discloses wherein the first projection and the second projection are formed identically. (claim 12)
Fingerle, as applied above, further discloses wherein the sill comprises a second guide groove extending in parallel with the running rail, wherein the running rail is arranged or formed between the first guide groove and the second guide groove when viewed horizontally, and wherein a further projection 162 of the carriage (see FIG. 1 of CN 20150595052 and FIG. 10 above) extends down beyond the running roller into the second guide groove wherein the carriage can be supported via the further projection on the side wall of the second guide groove and/or the side of the running rail when the leaf is loaded transversely to the extension of the running rail. (claim 13)
Fingerle, as applied above, further discloses wherein the first projection and the further projection are formed identically. (claim 14)
Fingerle, as applied above, further discloses wherein the sill comprises a first guide groove extending in parallel with the running rail, wherein a first projection of the carriage extends down beyond the running roller into the first guide groove wherein the carriage can be supported via the first projection on the side wall of the first guide groove and/or the side of the running rail when the leaf is loaded transversely to the extension of the running rail, wherein the roller part comprises an attachment 164 with the first projection, which is fastened to a roller part body 146, (see FIG. 1 of CN 20150595052) and wherein the attachment is formed mirror-symmetrically to a virtual plane extending vertically and in the longitudinal direction of the running rail in the middle of the running rail. (claim 15)
Claims 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fingerle, as applied to claim 1 above.
Fingerle fails to disclose wherein the recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door, to save on material costs as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door and to save on material costs. (claim 16)
Fingerle fails to disclose wherein the recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 45 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 45 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door, to save on material costs as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 45 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door and to save on material costs. (claim 17)
Fingerle fails to disclose wherein the recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 40 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 40 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door, to save on material costs as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 40 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 3 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door and to save on material costs. (claim 18)
Fingerle fails to disclose wherein the recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door, to save on material costs as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 50 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door and to save on material costs. (claim 19)
Fingerle fails to disclose wherein the recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 45 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 45 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door, to save on material costs as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 45 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door and to save on material costs. (claim 20)
Fingerle fails to disclose wherein the recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 40 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 40 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door, to save on material costs as well as since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the sill recesses on the upper side whose respective maximum horizontal width perpendicular to the running rail does not exceed 40 mm and whose respective maximum vertical depth does not exceed 2 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize the chance of someone or something getting caught in the sill when passing through the door and to save on material costs. (claim 21)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 20, 2026 and April 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the applicant’s response filed April 20, 2026, the applicant states:
PNG
media_image6.png
56
628
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the claim 1 rejection above and the annotated figure below, the jump lines do in fact extend “in parallel with the running rail, wherein the jump lines lie in a virtual plane that is horizontally disposed,” as recited in claims 1 and 22.
[AltContent: textbox (Uppermost points of the recesses that are delimited by jump lines – claim 1)][AltContent: textbox (Recesses )][AltContent: textbox (Virtual plane)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
492
212
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
108
132
media_image3.png
Greyscale
On pages 8 and 9 of the applicant’s response filed April 20, 2026, the applicant states:
PNG
media_image7.png
164
626
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
86
622
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s points appear to be arguing limitations not recited in the claims. More specifically, claim 1 does not recite a certain number of jump lines. The rejection notes of two jump lines at uppermost points of the recesses and these two jump lines extend along a virtual plane, as recited in claim 1.
On page 9 of the applicant’s response filed April 20, 2026, the applicant states:
PNG
media_image9.png
162
640
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully submits there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining or modifying references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969). Thus, motivation to combine or modify prior art is not required to be explicitly disclosed in the prior art, rather the motivation to combine or modify can come from a person of ordinary skill in the art.
On page 7 of the applicant’s response filed April 28, 2026, the applicant states:
PNG
media_image10.png
222
638
media_image10.png
Greyscale
As noted above, Applicant’s points appear to be arguing limitations not recited in the claims. More specifically, claim 1 does not recite a certain number of jump lines. The rejection notes of two jump lines at uppermost points of the recesses and these two jump lines extend along a virtual plane, as recited in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS MENEZES whose telephone number is (571)272-5225. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 7:30 -4 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Daniel Cahn can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Marcus Menezes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights