DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The scope of the claim invention is not distinct; the claim language does not distinctly identify the limitation “ another magnet module, … whereby the other magnet module directs the magnetic field of the other magnet module ...” (added remarks). The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the above limitation cannot be ascertained to define the boundaries of the subject matter encompassed by the claim. For instance, it is unknown whether the first “other magnet module” is the same as the second “other magnet module,” the “another magnet module,” the “magnetic module” (cited on claim 1) or a completely different magnetic module Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Under compact prosecution, the terms another magnet module and other magnet module are considered to be the same magnet module.
Claims 3-4 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claims.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The scope of the claim invention is not distinct; the claim language does not distinctly identify the limitation “ the gripping system comprising another magnet module, … whereby the other magnet module directs the magnetic field of the other magnet module ...” (added remarks). The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the above limitation cannot be ascertained to define the boundaries of the subject matter encompassed by the claim. For instance, it is unknown whether the first “other magnet module” is the same as the second “other magnet module,” the “another magnet module,” the “magnetic module” (cited on claim 8) or a completely different magnetic module Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Under compact prosecution, the terms another magnet module and other magnet module are considered to be the same magnet module.
Claims 10-11 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claims.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The scope of the claim invention is not distinct; the claim language does not distinctly identify the limitation “ the gripping system comprising another magnet module, … whereby the other magnet module directs the magnetic field of the other magnet module ...” (added remarks). The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the above limitation cannot be ascertained to define the boundaries of the subject matter encompassed by the claim. For instance, it is unknown whether the first “other magnet module” is the same as the second “other magnet module,” the “another magnet module,” the “magnetic module” (cited on claim 15) or a completely different magnetic module Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Under compact prosecution, the terms another magnet module and other magnet module are considered to be the same magnet module.
Claims 17-18 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claims.
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, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) / 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Spicer at al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0052147 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Spicer at al. disclose a conformable magnetic holding device for holding a workpiece, comprising:
a magnet module (e.g., base 256 comprising electro-magnetic elements (258) – par. 18 and Figure 2 );
an elastic bladder (e.g., conformable jamming element 250 – par.18) affixed to the magnet module (e.g., Figure 2 shows conformable jamming element (250) attached to the base 256 – par. 18 and Figure 2);
a magnetorheological (MR) fluid (e.g., magnetic fluids 254 magnetorheological fluids – par. 18) contained within the elastic bladder (e.g., Figure 2 shows conformable jamming element 250 containing magnetic fluids 254 magnetorheological fluids – par. 18 and Figure 2); and
a controller (e.g., an electro-magnet activation controller 240 for a robotic arm – par. 18 ) operable to vary a magnetic field of the magnet module (e.g., the controller 240 configured to control electro-magnetic elements 258 – par. 18), whereby the magnet module directs the magnetic field to the MR fluid in the elastic bladder to rigidize the elastic bladder about an object to grip the object with the elastic bladder (e.g., “The electro-magnet activation controller 240 activates the controllable electro-magnetic elements 258, which grips the workpiece ” (par. 19) via jamming element 250 containing the magnetorheological fluids that increase apparent viscosity in the presence of a magnetic field and become viscoelastic solids with a high, controllable yield stress (par. 18 and Figure 2) ).
Regarding claim 2, Spicer at al. disclose a conformable magnetic holding device, further comprising:
another magnet module (e.g., Figures 3-4 show a plurality of bases (316 / 416) – par. 20-21); and
another elastic bladder filled with the MR fluid and affixed to the other magnet module (e.g., Figures 3-4 show a plurality of conformable jamming elements (312 / 412) containing magnetic fluids – par. 20-21), wherein the controller is further operable to vary a magnetic field of the other magnet module (e.g., wherein the electro-magnet activation controller 240 / 440 activates the controllable electro-magnetic elements 418, causing the ferromagnetic materials 414 to generate a holding force – par. 22 and 18),
whereby the other magnet module directs the magnetic field of the other magnet module to the MR fluid in the other elastic bladder to rigidize the other elastic bladder about the object to grip the object with both elastic bladders (e.g., an electro-magnet activation controller 440 / 240 activates the controllable electro-magnetic elements 418 / 258, causing the ferromagnetic materials 414 to generate a holding force (par. 22) to grip the workpiece via jamming element containing the magnetorheological fluids that increase apparent viscosity in the presence of a magnetic field and become viscoelastic solids with a high, controllable yield stress (par. 18 and Figures 2-4)).
Regarding claim 5, Spicer at al. disclose a conformable magnetic holding device for holding a workpiece, wherein: the magnet module comprises an array of electropermanent magnets (EPMs) ( e.g., wherein the magnetic elements 58 are permanent magnets (par. 13), which covers electropermanent magnets).
Regarding claim 7, Spicer at al. disclose a conformable magnetic holding device for holding a workpiece, wherein: the magnet module comprises an electromagnet (e.g., wherein the magnetic elements 58 are controllable electro-magnetic elements (par. 13), which covers an electromagnet).
Regarding claim 8, Spicer at al. disclose a method for conformable magnetic holding device comprising
positioning a gripping system proximate to a target graspable feature of an object (e.g., an end effector of a robotic arm configured to grip or otherwise hold onto a workpiece or assist in holding onto a workpiece via a conformable jamming element 250 (par. 18), which requires the end effector to be positioned near the workpiece – Figures 3-4 show workpiece being griped by jamming elements (par. 20-21 and Figures 3-4)),
the gripping system comprising
a magnet module (e.g., base ( 256) comprising electro-magnetic elements 258 – par. 18 and Figure 2 ), an elastic bladder (e.g., conformable jamming element (250) – par.18) affixed to the magnet module (e.g., Figure 2 shows conformable jamming element 250 attached to the base 256 – par. 18 and Figure 2), and a magnetorheological (MR) fluid (e.g., magnetic fluids 254 / magnetorheological fluids – par. 18) contained within the elastic bladder (e.g., Figure 2 shows conformable jamming element 250 containing magnetic fluids 254 / magnetorheological fluids – par. 18 and Figure 2) and
via a controller (e.g., an electro-magnet activation controller 240 – par. 18), varying a magnetic field of the magnet module (e.g., the controller 240 configured to control electro-magnetic elements 258 – par. 18), whereby the magnet module directs the magnetic field to the MR fluid in the elastic bladder to rigidize the elastic bladder about the target graspable feature of the object to grip the object with the elastic bladder (e.g., “The electro-magnet activation controller 240 activates the controllable electro-magnetic elements 258, which grips the workpiece ” (par. 19) via jamming element 250 containing the magnetorheological fluids that increase apparent viscosity in the presence of a magnetic field and become viscoelastic solids with a high, controllable yield stress (par. 18 and Figure 2) ).
Regarding claim 9, Spicer at al. disclose a method for conformable magnetic holding device wherein:
the gripping system comprises another magnet module (e.g., Figures 3-4 show a plurality of bases 316 / 416 – par. 20-21), and another elastic bladder filled with the MR fluid and affixed to the other magnet module (e.g., Figures 3-4 show a plurality of conformable jamming elements 312 / 412 containing magnetic fluids – par. 20-21); and
the method further comprises varying a magnetic field of the other magnet module (e.g., wherein the electro-magnet activation controller (240 / 440) activates the controllable electro-magnetic elements 418, causing the ferromagnetic materials 414 to generate a holding force – par. 22 and 18), whereby the other magnet module directs the magnetic field of the other magnet module to the MR fluid in the other elastic bladder to rigidize the other elastic bladder about the target graspable feature of the object to grip the object with both elastic bladders (e.g., an electro-magnet activation controller 440 / 240 activates the controllable electro-magnetic elements 418 / 258, causing the ferromagnetic materials 414 to generate a holding force (par. 22) to grip the workpiece via jamming element containing the magnetorheological fluids that increase apparent viscosity in the presence of a magnetic field and become viscoelastic solids with a high, controllable yield stress (par. 18 and Figures 2-4)).
Regarding claim 12, Spicer at al. disclose a method for conformable magnetic holding device, wherein: the magnet module comprises an array of electropermanent magnets (EPMs) ( e.g., wherein the magnetic elements 58 are permanent magnets (par. 13),which covers an array of electropermanent magnets).
Regarding claim 14, Spicer at al. disclose a method for conformable magnetic holding device, wherein: the magnet module comprises an electromagnet (e.g., wherein the magnetic elements 58 are controllable electro-magnetic elements (par. 13), which covers an electromagnet).
Regarding claim 15, Spicer at al. disclose a memory and storage devices comprising one or more software or firmware programs or routines and be executed by an electro-magnet activation controller (240) (par. 17-18) to
position a gripping system proximate to a target graspable feature of an object (e.g., an end effector of a robotic arm configured to grip or otherwise hold onto a workpiece or assist in holding onto a workpiece via a conformable jamming element 250 (par. 18), which requires the end effector to be positioned near the workpiece – Figures 3-4 show workpiece being griped by jamming elements (par. 20-21 and Figures 3-4)),
the gripping system comprising
a magnet module (e.g., base 256 comprising electro-magnetic elements 258 – par. 18 and Figure 2 ), an elastic bladder (e.g., conformable jamming element 250 – par.18) affixed to the magnet module (e.g., Figure 2 shows conformable jamming element 250 attached to the base 256 – par. 18 and Figure 2), and a magnetorheological (MR) fluid (e.g., magnetic fluids 254 / magnetorheological fluids – par. 18) contained within the elastic bladder (e.g., Figure 2 shows conformable jamming element 250 containing magnetic fluids 254 / magnetorheological fluids – par. 18 and Figure 2) and
vary a magnetic field of the magnet module (e.g., the controller 240 configured to control electro-magnetic elements 258 – par. 18), whereby the magnet module directs the magnetic field to the MR fluid in the elastic bladder to rigidize the elastic bladder about the target graspable feature of the object to grip the object with the elastic bladder (e.g., “The electro-magnet activation controller 240 activates the controllable electro-magnetic elements 258, which grips the workpiece” (par. 19) via jamming element 250 containing the magnetorheological fluids that increase apparent viscosity in the presence of a magnetic field and become viscoelastic solids with a high, controllable yield stress (par. 18 and Figure 2) ).
Regarding claim 16, Spicer at al. disclose a memory and storage devices wherein the gripping system comprises another magnet module (e.g., Figures 3-4 show a plurality of bases 316 / 416 – par. 20-21), and another elastic bladder filled with the MR fluid and affixed to the other magnet module (e.g., Figures 3-4 show a plurality of conformable jamming elements 312 / 412 containing magnetic fluids – par. 20-21); and
the instructions further direct the controller to vary a magnetic field of the other magnet module (e.g., wherein the electro-magnet activation controller (240 / 440) activates the controllable electro-magnetic elements 418, causing the ferromagnetic materials 414 to generate a holding force – par. 22 and 18), whereby the other magnet module directs the magnetic field of the other magnet module to the MR fluid in the other elastic bladder to rigidize the other elastic bladder about the target graspable feature of the object to grip the object with both elastic bladders (e.g., an electro-magnet activation controller 440 / 240 activates the controllable electro-magnetic elements 418 / 258, causing the ferromagnetic materials 414 to generate a holding force (par. 22) to grip the workpiece via jamming element containing the magnetorheological fluids that increase apparent viscosity in the presence of a magnetic field and become viscoelastic solids with a high, controllable yield stress (par. 18 and Figures 2-4)).
Regarding claim 19, Spicer at al. disclose a method for conformable magnetic holding device, wherein: the magnet module comprises at least one of an array of electropermanent magnets (EPMs) or an electromagnet ( e.g., wherein the magnetic elements 58 are permanent magnets (par. 13) or controllable electro-magnetic elements (par. 13), which covers at least one of an array of electropermanent magnets (EPMs) or an electromagnet).
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 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, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spicer at al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0052147 A1) in view of Kunimoto et al. ( JP 6385014 B2 – machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, Spicer at al. failed to specifically disclose a linear actuator configured with the elastic bladders and the magnet modules, wherein the elastic bladders oppose each other on the linear actuator, and wherein the controller is operable to move the elastic bladders towards each other via the linear actuator to grip the object.
However, Kunimoto et al. teach a robot gripping mechanism / device comprising a motor to linearly move and change the space of the gripping section 34 and 35 having gripping mechanism 10 to grip an object (par. 33 and 31 and Figure 7); wherein gripping mechanism 10 comprises a flexible bag 12 containing a modified magnetic fluid 11, and an electromagnet 13 positioned on one side of the bag 12 (par. 22). Figure 7 shows the two gripping sections 34 and 35 moving from opposite section / position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the electro-magnet activation controller (240) for a robotic arm as taught by Spicer at al., such that the robotic arm comprise a motor and its controller configures to linearly move and change the space of the gripping sections to grip an object using flexible bag containing a modified magnetic fluid, and an electromagnet positioned on one side of the bag, in view of Kunimoto et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of providing a modified magnetic fluid that has a lower relative specific gravity than conventional magnetic fluid and greater gripping force while being able to easily grasp objects (par 8 and 7).
Regarding claim 10, Spicer at al. failed to specifically disclose wherein the elastic bladders oppose each other; and the method further comprises linearly actuating the elastic bladders and the magnet modules to move the elastic bladders towards each other to grip the object.
However, Kunimoto et al. teach a robot gripping mechanism / device comprising a motor to linearly move and change the space of the gripping section 34 and 35 having gripping mechanism 10 to grip an object (par. 33 and 31 and Figure 7); wherein gripping mechanism 10 comprises a flexible bag 12 containing a modified magnetic fluid 11, and an electromagnet 13 positioned on one side of the bag 12 (par. 22). Figure 7 shows the two gripping sections 34 and 35 moving from opposite section / position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the electro-magnet activation controller (240) for a robotic arm as taught by Spicer at al., such that the robotic arm comprise a motor and its controller configures to linearly move and change the space of the gripping sections to grip an object using flexible bag containing a modified magnetic fluid, and an electromagnet positioned on one side of the bag, in view of Kunimoto et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of providing a modified magnetic fluid that has a lower relative specific gravity than conventional magnetic fluid and greater gripping force while being able to easily grasp objects (par 8 and 7).
Regarding claim 17, Spicer at al. failed to specifically disclose wherein the elastic bladders oppose each other; and the instructions further direct the controller to linearly actuate the elastic bladders and the magnet modules to move the elastic bladders towards each other to grip the object.
However, Kunimoto et al. teach a robot gripping mechanism / device comprising a motor to linearly move and change the space of the gripping section 34 and 35 having gripping mechanism 10 to grip an object (par. 33 and 31 and Figure 7); wherein gripping mechanism 10 comprises a flexible bag 12 containing a modified magnetic fluid 11, and an electromagnet 13 positioned on one side of the bag 12 (par. 22). Figure 7 shows the two gripping sections 34 and 35 moving from opposite section / position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the electro-magnet activation controller (240) for a robotic arm as taught by Spicer at al., such that the robotic arm comprise a motor and its controller configures to linearly move and change the space of the gripping sections to grip an object using flexible bag containing a modified magnetic fluid, and an electromagnet positioned on one side of the bag, in view of Kunimoto et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of providing a modified magnetic fluid that has a lower relative specific gravity than conventional magnetic fluid and greater gripping force while being able to easily grasp objects (par 8 and 7).
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spicer at al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0052147 A1) in view of Kunimoto et al. ( JP 6385014 B2 – machine translation) and Tadakuma et al. (US 2021/0122063 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Spicer at al., as modified by Kunimoto et al., teach the linear actuator is operable to draw (e.g., linearly move and change the space of the gripping sections 34 and 35, via a motor, having gripping mechanism 10 to grip an object. Figure 7 shows the two gripping sections 34 and 35 moving from opposite section / position (Kunimoto et al.’s par. 33 and 31)).
However, Spicer at al., as modified by Kunimoto et al., failed to specifically disclose the elastic bladder and the magnet module are configured on a first arm; the other elastic bladder and the other magnet module are configured on a second arm hingeably affixed with the first arm to the linear actuator.
However, Tadakuma et al. teach a robot comprising two fingertip parts (16) (par. 54) hinged at a palm part 17 (par. 54), wherein each finger part comprising bag parts 2a and 2b filled with magneto rheological fluid (MR fluid) (par. 26) for grasping a workpiece (6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to further modify the robot as taught by Spicer at al. view of Kunimoto et al., such that the robot comprise two fingertip parts hinged at a palm part for grasping a workpiece using their respective bag parts filled with magneto rheological fluid (MR fluid), in view of Tadakuma et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of grasping various objects with increased deformable capacity of bag member (Tadakuma et al.’s par. 10) by linearly moving and changing the space of the fingertip parts / gripping sections to grasp the object (Kunimoto et al.’s par. 33 and 31))..
Regarding claim 11, Spicer at al., as modified by Kunimoto et al., teach drawing the two (e.g., linearly move and change the space of the gripping sections 34 and 35, via a motor, having gripping mechanism 10 to grip an object. Figure 7 shows the two gripping sections 34 and 35 moving from opposite section / position (Kunimoto et al.’s par. 33 and 31)).
However, Spicer at al., as modified by Kunimoto et al., failed to specifically disclose the elastic bladder and the magnet module are configured on a first arm; the other elastic bladder and the other magnet module are configured on a second arm hingeably affixed with the first arm to a linear actuator
However, Tadakuma et al. teach a robot comprising two fingertip parts (16) (par. 54) hinged at a palm part 17 (par. 54), wherein each finger part comprising bag parts 2a and 2b filled with magneto rheological fluid (MR fluid) (par. 26) for grasping a workpiece (6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to further modify the robot as taught by Spicer at al. view of Kunimoto et al., such that the robot comprise two fingertip parts hinged at a palm part for grasping a workpiece using their respective bag parts filled with magneto rheological fluid (MR fluid), in view of Tadakuma et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of grasping various objects with increased deformable capacity of bag member (Tadakuma et al.’s par. 10) by linearly moving and changing the space of the fingertip parts / gripping sections to grasp the object (Kunimoto et al.’s par. 33 and 31)).
Regarding claim 18, Spicer at al., as modified by Kunimoto et al., teach to draw the two arms towards the object from opposing sides of the object via the linear actuator (e.g., linearly move and change the space of the gripping sections 34 and 35, via a motor, having gripping mechanism 10 to grip an object. Figure 7 shows the two gripping sections 34 and 35 moving from opposite section / position (Kunimoto et al.’s par. 33 and 31)).
However, Spicer at al., as modified by Kunimoto et al., failed to specifically disclose the elastic bladder and the magnet module are configured on a first arm; the other elastic bladder and the other magnet module are configured on a second arm hingeably affixed with the first arm to a linear actuator
However, Tadakuma et al. teach a robot comprising two fingertip parts (16) (par. 54) hinged at a palm part 17 (par. 54), wherein each finger part comprising bag parts 2a and 2b filled with magneto rheological fluid (MR fluid) (par. 26) for grasping a workpiece (6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to further modify the robot as taught by Spicer at al. view of Kunimoto et al., such that the robot comprise two fingertip parts hinged at a palm part for grasping a workpiece using their respective bag parts filled with magneto rheological fluid (MR fluid), in view of Tadakuma et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of grasping various objects with increased deformable capacity of bag member (Tadakuma et al.’s par. 10) by linearly moving and changing the space of the fingertip parts / gripping sections to grasp the object (Kunimoto et al.’s par. 33 and 31)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6. 13 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yerazunis et al. (US 20220161427 A1) is directed to multi-tentacular soft robotic grippers for grasping object of variable size.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jorge O. Peche whose telephone number is (571)270-1339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Khoi H. Tran can be reached at 571 272 6919. 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.
/Jorge O Peche/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights