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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for priority to provisional application no. 63/566,053 filed 15 March 2024.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“a connection” in claim 1.
“wherein the connection includes a strap, a clip, a clasp, a snap, a detect, a buckle, or a removable fastener” in claim 6.
“a protrusion” and “a recess that mates with the protrusion” in claim 8.
“an electrical connection” that is “a removable connection” and is “incorporated with the connection” in claim 9.
“a removable connection,” “a key” and “keyway,” and “a quick release connection” in claim 13.
“a pad” in claim 18.
No new matter should be entered.
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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an isolation element configured to reduce vibrations between the deck base and the at least one upright” in claim 14 is interpreted as “a structure comprised of a vibration-reducing material,” “may be made of rubber, plastic, a polymer, an elastic material, leather, foam, or any other material that reduces vibrations,” “a mechanical device, structure or component for reducing vibrations,” “may be a piston, damper, spring, compliant mechanism, or any other mechanical device,” or “a pad or mat” as described in paragraphs [0064] and [0065] of the specification. The limitation meets the three-prong test as follows:
the generic place holder is “element;”
the functional language is “to reduce vibrations between the deck base and the at least one upright;” and
the generic place holder of “element” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a belt” in line 2. It is unclear if this is referring to the “continuous belt” recited previously in line 1 or to another, separate structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stauffer et al. (US 7,892,148).
Regarding claim 1, Stauffer teaches an exercise device, comprising:
an upright base (table assembly 22);
at least one upright (legs 30a, 30b) connected to the upright base;
a deck base (treadmill assembly 24) configured to detachably connect to the upright base with a connection (port 163 and cable 160) (The electrical connection between the port 163 and cable 160 is a detachable connection.); and
an exercise deck connected to the deck base (Fig. 10. The treadmill assembly 24 comprises a treadmill belt which is considered an exercise deck.).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
393
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Stauffer teaches the exercise device of claim 1, wherein the exercise deck is configured to be operational when the deck base is not connected to the upright base (Col. 10, lines 36-41: “As seen in FIGS. 1 and 2, a connecter cable 160 connects control assembly 56 to treadmill assembly 24 to facilitate control and feedback activities. The present disclosure also contemplates control assembly 56 capable of wirelessly communicating with the controller for the treadmill assembly 24.” The treadmill assembly 24 is capable of wirelessly communicating with the controller such that it does not have to be connected to the upright base in order to be operational.).
Regarding claim 3, Stauffer teaches the exercise device of claim 1, wherein the exercise deck is configured to operate with an operation when the deck base is connected to the upright base, and is configured to operate with a limited exercise operation when the deck base is not connected to the upright base (Col. 11, lines 54-67: “as a workstation user starts and stops the tread and increases and decreases the tread speed via assembly 56, the control processor would control tread 170 accordingly and provide feedback to the user. In at least some embodiments tread speed is limited to within a range having a relatively low maximum speed.” Stauffer teaches wherein the treadmill operates when it is directly connected to and indirectly connected to the upright base/desk and also teaches a limited operation when the treadmill is directly or indirectly connected to the upright base/desk. The claim does not require that the limited exercise operation is different from the typical operation.).
Regarding claim 4, Stauffer teaches the exercise device of claim 3, wherein the limited exercise operation is a limited tread operation, a limited incline operation, or a limited decline operation (Col. 11, lines 63-67: “In at least some embodiments tread speed is limited to within a range having a relatively low maximum speed.”).
Regarding claim 5, Stauffer teaches the exercise device of claim 1, further comprising a detector for identifying when the deck base is connected to the upright base (Col. 12, lines 46-52: “Assembly 24 is coupled to table assembly 22 via wheels 180 received in openings 39 (see FIG. 10) and cable 160 is used to link assembly 24 to interface device 56. After assembly, a station user can place work items on surface 70, can use keyboard 69 and mouse 73 to run programs and has easy access to interface assembly 56 for controlling treadmill 24 and receiving workout feedback.” The cable 160 acts as a detector in that when it is connected to the treadmill 24, the interface 56 detects that the treadmill has been connected and can be controlled.).
Regarding claim 6, Stauffer teaches the exercise device of claim 1, wherein the connection includes a strap, a clip, a clasp, a snap, a detent, a buckle, or a removable fastener (Fig. 10: The connection between the cable 160 and the port 163 is a removable fastener.).
Regarding claim 7, Stauffer teaches the exercise device of claim 1, wherein the deck base rests at least partially on a ground surface, and the connection aligns a resting position of the deck base with respect to the at least one upright (Figs. 1, 10: The treadmill 24 rests on the ground and the connection between the cable 160 and the port 163 can be connected when the treadmill is in a resting position with the table assembly 22.).
Regarding claim 8, Stauffer teaches the exercise device of claim 1, wherein the upright base includes a protrusion (cable 160) and the deck base includes a recess (port 163) that mates with the protrusion (Fig. 10: The cable 160 protrudes from the table assembly 22 and the port 163 is a recess within the treadmill 24.).
Regarding claim 9, Stauffer teaches the exercise device of claim 1, further comprising an electrical connection between the deck base and the upright base, wherein the electrical connection is a removable connection and is incorporated with the connection, and wherein the electrical connection is a power connection between the deck base and the upright base or a data connection between the deck base and the upright base (Figs. 1, 10: The connection between the cable 160 and the port 163 is an electrical connection that is incorporated with the connection between the treadmill 24 and the table 22. The cable 160 connects control assembly 56 to treadmill assembly 24 such that data is passed between the control assembly 56 to the treadmill 24 for controlling operation of the treadmill.).
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 10, 13-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crafton (US 2012/0088633).
Regarding claim 1, Crafton teaches an exercise device, comprising:
an upright base (workstation 2);
at least one upright (support structure 18) connected to the upright base;
a deck base (exercise element 12) configured to detachably connect to the upright base with a connection (Fig. 2A shows a connection between the flat base 4 of the workstation 2 and the exercise element 12.); and
an exercise deck (base 16) connected to the deck base (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
413
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Crafton teaches the exercise device of claim 1, wherein the exercise deck is configured to be operational when the deck base is not connected to the upright base (Crafton teaches wherein the treadmill 12 is separate from and therefore operational separate from the workstation 2.).
Regarding claim 7, Crafton teaches the exercise device of claim 1, wherein the deck base rests at least partially on a ground surface, and the connection aligns a resting position of the deck base with respect to the at least one upright (Figs. 2A, 2B show the exercise element/treadmill 12 partially on a ground surface and connected to the workstation 2 in a resting position.).
Regarding claim 8, Crafton teaches the exercise device of claim 1, wherein the upright base includes a protrusion and the deck base includes a recess that mates with the protrusion (Fig. 2A shows wherein the flat base 4 has protrusions 6, 8, 10 that mate with a recess underneath the treadmill 12 formed by the plurality of support pads 34.).
Regarding claim 10, Crafton teaches a method of using an exercise device, comprising:
detaching a deck base (exercise element 12) from an upright base (workstation 2), the deck base including an exercise deck (frame 16) and configured for an exercise operation when the deck base is connected to the upright base, wherein at least one upright (support structure 18) is connected to the upright base (Fig. 1);
positioning the deck base apart from the upright base (Fig. 1 shows wherein the exercise element 12 is apart from the workstation 2.); and
after positioning the deck base, performing the exercise operation with the exercise deck (Para. [0025]: “An ergonomic workstation design is disclosed having a treadmill component or exercise element in combination with a working area where the two cooperatively interface but with have no significant physical connection between the exercise element and the working area.” The treadmill 12 is operational independent of its connection to the workstation 2.).
Regarding claim 13, Crafton teaches the method of claim 10, wherein detaching the deck base includes disengaging a removable connection, removing a key from a keyway, or disengaging a quick release connection (Fig. 2A shows wherein the flat base 4 of the workstation 2 and the recess formed by the support pads 34 of the exercise element 12 create a removable connection between the treadmill 12 and the workstation 2.).
Regarding claim 14, Crafton teaches an exercise device, comprising:
an upright base (workstation 2);
at least one upright (support structure 18) connected to the upright base;
a deck base (exercise element 12) connected to the upright base;
an exercise deck (base 16) connected to the deck base; and
an isolation element (damping material 30) configured to reduce vibrations between the deck base and the at least one upright (Fig. 1. Para. [0042]: “A damping material 30 may be placed between an upper surface of the support features 10 and the exercise element base 16. It is anticipated that vibration, oscillatory loads, and/or impulsive loads may be transferred from the exercise element 12 to the workstation and the damping material may reduce or minimize some of the load.”).
Regarding claim 15, Crafton teaches the exercise device of claim 14, wherein the isolation element is positioned between the deck base and the upright base to reduce vibrations between the deck base and the upright base (Fig. 1. Para. [0042]: “A damping material 30 may be placed between an upper surface of the support features 10 and the exercise element base 16. It is anticipated that vibration, oscillatory loads, and/or impulsive loads may be transferred from the exercise element 12 to the workstation and the damping material may reduce or minimize some of the load.”).
Regarding claim 17, Crafton teaches the exercise device of claim 14, wherein the isolation element includes a mechanical component for reducing vibrations (Para. [0042]: “A damping system may be used in addition to or instead of a damping material. The damping system may include shock absorbing elements to dissipate the load applied to the workstation 2 by the exercise element 12.”).
Regarding claim 19, Crafton teaches the exercise device of claim 14, further comprising an additional isolation element between the upright base and the at least one upright configured to reduce vibrations between the upright base and the at least one upright (Claims 24-25: “wherein the support structure includes at least one vertical support member, and wherein struts or stabilizers or deployable struts or stabilizers are connected to any vertical support member… wherein the means of connection to or between any of the vertical support members employ any material known to absorb an impulsive force, vibratory motion, or oscillatory motion.”).
Regarding claim 20, Crafton teaches the exercise device of claim 14, wherein the deck base is removably connected to the upright base (Fig. 1).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crafton (US 2012/0088633) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Stauffer (US 7,892,148).
Regarding claim 11, Crafton teaches the method of claim 10.
Crafton does not explicitly discuss the exercise operation of the treadmill and does not teach wherein the exercise operation includes inclining the exercise deck, declining the exercise deck, advancing a continuous belt of the exercise deck, or changing a speed of a belt of the exercise deck.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Stauffer teaches an exercise device comprising an upright base (table assembly 22) connected to a deck base (treadmill assembly 24) wherein the deck base has an exercise operation including inclining the exercise deck, declining the exercise deck, advancing a continuous belt of the exercise deck, or changing a speed of a belt of the exercise deck (Col. 11, lines 54-67: “as a workstation user starts and stops the tread and increases and decreases the tread speed via assembly 56, the control processor would control tread 170 accordingly and provide feedback to the user. In at least some embodiments tread speed is limited to within a range having a relatively low maximum speed.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the treadmill of Crafton by including the exercise operation of Stauffer with the predicted result of providing a treadmill that can be adjusted for different user’s various workout needs (see MPEP 2141(III)).
Regarding claim 12, Crafton teaches the method of claim 10.
Crafton does not explicitly discuss the exercise operation of the treadmill and does not teach wherein the exercise operation is a limited exercise operation when the deck base is not connected to the upright base, wherein the limited exercise operation has a limited incline of the exercise deck, a limited decline of the exercise deck, or a limited speed of a belt of the exercise deck.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Stauffer teaches an exercise device comprising an upright base (table assembly 22) connected to a deck base (treadmill assembly 24) wherein the deck base has an exercise operation is a limited exercise operation when the deck base is not connected to the upright base, wherein the limited exercise operation has a limited incline of the exercise deck, a limited decline of the exercise deck, or a limited speed of a belt of the exercise deck (Col. 11, lines 54-67: “as a workstation user starts and stops the tread and increases and decreases the tread speed via assembly 56, the control processor would control tread 170 accordingly and provide feedback to the user. In at least some embodiments tread speed is limited to within a range having a relatively low maximum speed.” Stauffer teaches a limited speed operation when the treadmill is directly or indirectly connected to the upright base/desk. The claim does not require that the limited exercise operation is different from the typical operation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the treadmill of Crafton by including the exercise operation of Stauffer with the predicted result of providing a treadmill that can be adjusted for different user’s various workout needs (see MPEP 2141(III)).
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crafton (US 2012/0088633) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Watterson (US 2017/0326411).
Regarding claim 16, Crafton teaches the exercise device of claim 14.
Crafton does not explicitly teach wherein the isolation element includes a rubber, plastic, or polymer component for reducing vibrations.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Watterson teaches a treadmill comprising an isolation element (vibration isolators 634) configured to reduce vibrations between components of the treadmill, wherein the isolation element includes a rubber, plastic, or polymer component for reducing vibrations (Para. [0101]: “the isolators may include mechanical springs and/or spring-dampers. Pads or sheets of flexible materials such as elastomers, rubber, cork, dense foam, laminate materials, other types of material, or combinations thereof may also be used as vibration isolators.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the damping material of Crafton by specifying it be made of rubber, as taught by Watterson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to cancel, reduce, and/or eliminate vibrations” between the deck base and the upright base, as suggested by Watterson (Para. [0098]).
Regarding claim 18, Crafton teaches the exercise device of claim 14.
Crafton does not teach wherein the isolation element is a pad on a top of the upright base and wherein the deck base rests on the pad when the deck base is connected to the upright base.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Watterson teaches a treadmill comprising an isolation element (vibration isolators 634) configured to reduce vibrations between components of the treadmill, wherein the isolation element is a pad (Para. [0101]: “Pads or sheets of flexible materials such as elastomers, rubber, cork, dense foam, laminate materials, other types of material, or combinations thereof may also be used as vibration isolators.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the damping material of Crafton by specifying it be made of a rubber pad, as taught by Watterson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to cancel, reduce, and/or eliminate vibrations” between the deck base and the upright base, as suggested by Watterson (Para. [0098]).
The combination of Crafton and Watterson teaches wherein the isolation element is a pad on a top of the upright base and wherein the deck base rests on the pad when the deck base is connected to the upright base. That is, by modifying the damping material of Crafton with the pad of Watterson, the pad would be positioned between the upright base and the deck base such that the deck base rests on the pad.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Catrina Letterman whose telephone number is (303)297-4297. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday, 8am - 5pm MT.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4966. 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.
/C.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights