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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 12 Ln 1-2 states the claim limitation “gripping force maintenance means” that is modified by the functional language “for maintaining gripping force and/or position” and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the term shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure “the gripping force maintenance means is designed as a spring means, in particular an arc spring clutch , and/or as a magnetic, hydraulic, or pneumatic brake and/or as a friction means and/or as a clamping means and/or as an elastomer means”, described in the specification Claim 13, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 13 Ln 2 states the claim limitation “spring means”, that is modified by the functional language “for maintaining gripping force and/or position” and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the term shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure “a spring means, in particular as an arc spring clutch”, described in the specification [0053] and equivalents thereof.
Claim 13 Ln 3 states the claim limitation “friction means”, that is modified by the functional language “for maintaining gripping force and/or position” and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. There is no corresponding structure described in the specification. See sections 112(a & b) below.
Claim 13 Ln 4 states the claim limitation “clamping means”, that is modified by the functional language “for maintaining gripping force and/or position” and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. There is no corresponding structure described in the specification. See sections 112(a & b) below.
Claim 13 Ln 4 states the claim limitation “elastomer means”, that is modified by the functional language “for maintaining gripping force and/or position” and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. There is no corresponding structure described in the specification. See sections 112(a & b) below.
Claim 14 Ln 2 states the claim limitation “translational elasticity means”, that is modified by the functional language “for maintaining gripping force and/or position” and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the term shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure “the translational elasticity means is designed as a mechanical spring, in particular made of plastic or metal… an elastomer element, in particular made of plastic or metal… described in the specification [0073-0076] and equivalents thereof.
Claim 14 Ln 2 states the claim limitation “rotational elasticity means”, that is modified by the functional language “for maintaining gripping force and/or position” and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the term shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure “the rotational elasticity means is designed as an arc spring”, described in the specification [0073] and equivalents thereof.
Claim 15 Ln 1-2 states the claim limitation “position maintenance means”, that is modified by the functional language “for maintaining the position of the at least one jaw element” and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the term shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure “a position maintenance means is also provided, in particular in the form of a brake and/or a clamping/inhibiting mechanism”, described in the specification [0052] and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 Ln 3 states the claim limitation “friction means”. The disclosure merely recites the term “friction means” without providing any definition of what the term means. This term is indefinite as literally any structure that provides friction reads on the limitation. It is therefore unclear what the inventor was intending by the term and precludes finding the best applicable art. Because the specification fails to provide guidance as to what the corresponding structure for the “friction means” is, it would cover all means of causing friction. Therefore, the specification fails to provide evidence of possession of any or even one “friction means”.
Claim 13 Ln 4 states the claim limitation “clamping means”. The disclosure merely recites the term “clamping means” without providing any definition of what the term means. This term is indefinite as literally any structure that provides clamping reads on the limitation. It is therefore unclear what the inventor was intending by the term and precludes finding the best applicable art. Because the specification fails to provide guidance as to what the corresponding structure for the “clamping means” is, it would cover all means of causing clamping. Therefore, the specification fails to provide evidence of possession of any or even one “clamping means”.
Claim 13 Ln 4 states the claim limitation “elastomer means”. The disclosure merely recites the term “elastomer means” without providing any definition of what the term means. This term is indefinite as literally any structure that provides elasticity reads on the limitation. It is therefore unclear what the inventor was intending by the term and precludes finding the best applicable art. Because the specification fails to provide guidance as to what the corresponding structure for the “elastomer means” is, it would cover all means of causing elasticity. Therefore, the specification fails to provide evidence of possession of any or even one “elastomer means”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 2 and 13-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 Ln 1-4 states the limitation " the planetary transmission is designed as a single-stage planetary transmission and/or as a multi-stage planetary coupling transmission and/or as a reduced planetary coupling transmission and/or as a Wolfrom transmission”. It is unclear how the transmission may be a single-stage AND a multi-stage or some of the other combinations created by the used of the ‘and/or’ term used throughout the claim. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as ‘or’.
Claim 13 Ln 1-4 states the limitation " the gripping force maintenance means is designed as a spring means, in particular an arc spring clutch, and/or as a magnetic, hydraulic, or pneumatic brake and/or as a friction means and/or as a clamping means and/or as an elastomer means”. It is unclear how the maintenance means may be an arc spring clutch AND magnetic or some of the other combinations created by the used of the ‘and/or’ term used throughout the claim. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as ‘or’.
Claim 13 Ln 1-2 states the limitation "the gripping force maintenance means is designed as a spring means, in particular an arc spring clutch”. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. The use of ‘in particular’ leads to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as not further limiting the spring means.
Claim 13 Ln 3 states the claim limitation “friction means”. This limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As stated above regarding the 112(a) rejection of this limitation, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 13 Ln 4 states the claim limitation “clamping means”. This limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As stated above regarding the 112(a) rejection of this limitation, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 13 Ln 4 states the claim limitation “elastomer means”. This limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As stated above regarding the 112(a) rejection of this limitation, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 14 is rejected for its dependence upon claim 13.
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.
-(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zimmer, et al. EP 3079862 B1, hereinafter Zimmer. A translation of WO 2015085987 A1 is provided and used throughout as an English language equivalent of Zimmer.
Regarding claim 1, Zimmer discloses (Fig. 1-16) a gripping or clamping device
having a base housing (10/280),
having at least one jaw element (100) arranged to be movable in the base housing [0037], and
having a transmission unit (structures depicted in Fig. 6, hereinafter ‘gears’),
wherein the transmission unit has an input shaft (222) and an output shaft (235), wherein the input shaft can be coupled or is coupled to a drive (221) and wherein the output shaft can be coupled or is coupled to the at least one jaw element, and
wherein the transmission unit is designed as an inhibiting planetary transmission [0099].
Regarding claim 2, as far as is determinate, Zimmer discloses (Fig. 1-16) the planetary transmission is designed as a single-stage planetary transmission and/or as a multi-stage planetary coupling transmission and/or as a reduced planetary coupling transmission and/or as a Wolfrom transmission (gears is depicted as at least a single stage planetary transmission).
Regarding claim 12, Zimmer discloses (Fig. 1-16) the device further comprising a gripping force maintenance means (276) for maintaining gripping force and/or position on at least one jaw element [0066-0068).
Regarding claim 13, as far as is determinate, Zimmer discloses (Fig. 1-16) the gripping force maintenance means is designed as a spring means (276), in particular an arc spring clutch , and/or as a magnetic, hydraulic, or pneumatic brake and/or as a friction means and/or as a clamping means and/or as an elastomer means [0066-0068].
Regarding claim 14, Zimmer discloses (Fig. 1-16) the gripping force maintenance means has a translational elasticity means and a rotational elasticity means formed separately therefrom (276, [0066-0068]).
Regarding claim 15, Zimmer discloses (Fig. 1-16) the device further comprising a position maintenance means for maintaining the position of the at least one jaw element [0099].
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 of this title, 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 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmer in view of Bolz, Martin-Peter US 20040149079 A1, hereinafter Bolz. The references is/are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because the references is/are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (planetary gearsets); or the references is/are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (conversion of a rotary input to a rotary output). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 3, Zimmer discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that the planetary transmission has a first ring gear, a second ring gear formed separately therefrom, and at least one planetary gear, wherein the at least one planetary gear has a first planetary portion and a second planetary portion, and wherein the first planetary portion cooperates with the first ring gear, and the second planetary portion cooperates with the second ring gear.
Bolz discloses (Fig. 1-2) a planetary transmission having a first ring gear (16), a second ring gear (18) formed separately therefrom, and at least one planetary gear (20, 22), wherein the at least one planetary gear has a first planetary portion and a second planetary portion, and wherein the first planetary portion cooperates with the first ring gear, and the second planetary portion cooperates with the second ring gear [0019-0020].
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (first/second ring gearset) for another (single ring gearset), and the results of the substitution (conversion of a rotary input to a rotary output) would have been predictable. Because both Zimmer and Bolz teach planetary gearsets, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the first/second ring gearset for the single ring gearset to achieve the predictable result of conversion of a rotary input to a rotary output.
Regarding claim 4, Zimmer/Bolz discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that the first ring gear and the second ring gear have different numbers of teeth, wherein the first planetary portion and the second planetary portion have the same toothing, and wherein the first ring gear and/or the second ring gear and/or the first planetary portion and/or the second planetary portion have a profile shift, hereinafter claimed teething/profiling
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the claimed teething/profiling solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and
it appears that the undisclosed ratio/profiling of gear teeth of Zimmer/Bolz would perform equally well with the claimed teething/profiling as claimed by applicant,
it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the undisclosed ratio/profiling of gear teeth of Zimmer/Bolz by utilizing the claimed teething/profiling as claimed for the purpose of conversion of a rotary input to a rotary output.
Regarding claim 5, Zimmer discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that the first ring gear and the second ring gear have different numbers of teeth, wherein the at least one planetary gear is designed as a stepped planet, and the first planetary portion and the second planetary portion have different toothing, hereinafter claimed teething.
Since applicant has not disclosed that having claimed teething solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and
it appears that the undisclosed teething of Zimmer would perform equally well with the claimed teething as claimed by applicant,
it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify undisclosed teething of Zimmer by utilizing claimed teething as claimed for the purpose of conversion of a rotary input to a rotary output.
Regarding claim 6, Zimmer discloses (Fig. 1-16) the planetary transmission further has a planet carrier (40) in addition to the first ring gear (16), the second ring gear (18), and the at least one planetary gear (20, 22), and wherein the planet carrier forms an input member, and the second ring gear forms an output member [0017-0021].
Regarding claim 7, Zimmer discloses (Fig. 1-16) the planetary transmission, in addition to the first ring gear (16), the second ring gear (18), and the at least one planetary gear (20, 22), further has a sun gear (“sun wheel”, [0007]) and a planet carrier (40), and wherein the sun gear forms an input member, and the second ring gear forms an output member [0017-0021].
Regarding claim 8, Zimmer discloses (Fig. 1-16) the base housing (42) forms and/or fixes the first ring gear [0017-0021].
Regarding claim 9, Zimmer discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 2 except fails to explicitly state that the planetary transmission has a first sun gear, a second sun gear formed separately therefrom, and at least one planetary gear, wherein the at least one planetary gear has a first planetary portion and a second planetary portion, wherein the first planetary portion cooperates with the first sun gear, and the second planetary portion cooperates with the second sun gear, wherein the planetary portions have the same toothing and a profile shift or a different toothing.
Bolz discloses (Fig. 1-2) a planetary transmission having a first sun gear (“sun wheel” [0007]), a second sun gear (“sun wheel”, [0007]) formed separately therefrom, and at least one planetary gear (20, 22), wherein the at least one planetary gear has a first planetary portion and a second planetary portion, wherein the first planetary portion cooperates with the first sun gear, and the second planetary portion cooperates with the second sun gear, wherein the planetary portions have the same toothing and a profile shift or a different toothing [0019-0020].
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (first/second sun gearset) for another (single sun gearset), and the results of the substitution (conversion of a rotary input to a rotary output) would have been predictable. Because both Zimmer and Bolz teach planetary gearsets, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the first/second sun gearset for the single sun gearset to achieve the predictable result of conversion of a rotary input to a rotary output.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmer in view of Illinois Tool Works Inc. DE 102023108107 A1, hereinafter Illinois. The references is/are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because the references is/are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (planetary gearsets); or the references is/are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (conversion of a rotary input to a rotary output). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 10, Zimmer discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that a first stage of the transmission unit is formed by a first partial transmission with a first input member and a first output member, wherein a second stage of the planetary transmission is formed by a second partial transmission with a second input member and a second output member, wherein the input shaft is rotationally coupled to the first input member of the first partial transmission, wherein the first output member of the first partial transmission is rotationally coupled to the second input member of the second partial transmission, and wherein the second output member of the second partial transmission is rotationally coupled to the output shaft.
Illinois discloses (Fig. 1-2, 12) a planetary transmission having a first stage of the transmission unit is formed by a first partial transmission with a first input member (2) and a first output member (14), wherein a second stage of the planetary transmission is formed by a second partial transmission with a second input member (14) and a second output member (16), wherein the input shaft is rotationally coupled to the first input member of the first partial transmission, wherein the first output member of the first partial transmission is rotationally coupled to the second input member of the second partial transmission, and wherein the second output member of the second partial transmission is rotationally coupled to the output shaft (see Fig. 2)
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (first/second stage gearset) for another (single stage gearset), and the results of the substitution (conversion of a rotary input to a rotary output) would have been predictable. Because both Zimmer and Illinois teach planetary gearsets, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the first/second stage gearset for the single stage gearset to achieve the predictable result of conversion of a rotary input to a rotary output.
Regarding claim 11, Zimmer discloses (Fig. 1-16) the first partial transmission has a first planet carrier, at least one first planetary gear, a first ring gear, and a second ring gear , wherein the second partial transmission has a second planet carrier, at least one second planetary gear, a second sun gear, and a third ring gear, wherein the first planet carrier forms the first input member, the second ring gear forms the first output member, the second sun gear forms the second input member and the third ring gear forms the second output member (as depicted in Fig. 12, there gearset may comprise a plurality of planetary gears, ring gears (up to six) and planet carriers (up to three).
Relevant Art
The following is a listing of relevant art:
US 20180071874 A1, US 20170356506 A1 discloses planetary gearsets.
US 20190091836 A1 discloses a gripping device with gearing.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW WIBLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9836. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached on 571-272-8648. 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.
/MATTHEW WIBLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights