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 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.
Claims 6, 7, and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 contradicts claim 1. Claim 1 requires a vertical telescopic post for mounting the mailbox thereon, while claim 6 requires the mailbox to be stackable with other mailboxes. It is unclear how the mailbox can include the vertical telescopic post while simultaneously being stackable with other mailboxes. See Fig. 1 of the instant application versus Fig. 10 of the instant application.
Claim 7 contradicts claim 1. Claim 1 requires a vertical telescopic post for mounting the mailbox thereon, while claim 7 requires a structure receiving the mailbox. It is unclear how the mailbox can include the vertical telescopic post while simultaneously being received in a structure.
In claim 14, line 14, “the lock mechanism” lacks antecedent basis. Further, it is unclear if “an internal electronic lock mechanism” recited in claim 14, line 17, is referencing and/or includes the “lock mechanism” previously recited in claim 14, line 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Wingerden (US#2013/0001386) in view of Cyphers et al. (US#2010/0294007), and further in view of Kagels (US#3229940).
Regarding claim 1, Van Wingerden discloses a mailbox comprising: a body 11; a door (Fig. 2) affixed to a front portion of the body; an arch-shaped cover/handle (Fig. 2) located on the front of the door; a horizontal sliding platform 13,14 positioned below and glidably attached to the body (Fig. 3), the platform having a slide mechanism 17 (tongue and groove joint) using two parallel bars (two parallel tongues of tongue and groove joint 17) providing selective horizontal movement of the body to a plurality of non-predetermined positions, wherein the slide mechanism glides back and forth never allowing rotational movement (tongue and groove joint 17 allows linear movement only, forward and backward); and a vertical post 28 attached to the body.
Regarding claim 1, Van Wingerden fails to disclose the door having a mail slot. However, as evidenced by Cyphers, such a configuration is known in the mailbox art, see mail slot 24 in door 22. Therefore, as evidenced by Cyphers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Wingerden by including a mail slot in the door. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the mail slot would facilitate mail delivery while the door remains locked to enhance the security of the mailbox. It is noted the mail slot would be placed below the cover/handle of Van Wingerden and thus the cover/handle of Van Wingerden would “cover” the mail slot.
Regarding claim 1, Van Wingerden fails to disclose its vertical post being telescopic for providing vertical movement of the body. However, as evidenced by Kagels, such a configuration is known in the mailbox art, see vertical post 10,11 wherein post portion 11 is telescopically received within post portion 10 for vertically adjustable movement of the mailbox body 22. Therefore, as evidenced by Kagels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Wingerden by replacing its vertical post with a telescopic vertical post. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The substitution of the telescopic vertical post allowing vertical movement of the mailbox body would provide custom height adjustment of the mailbox.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Van Wingerden fails to disclose an internal electronic lock mechanism inside the body to secure the door to the body, wherein the lock mechanism provides remote locking for a mail recipient associated with the mailbox to selectively permit access to the mailbox. However, as evidenced by Cyphers, such a configuration is known in the mailbox art, see electronic lock mechanism 40 provided as a “remote access lock” inherently inside the body, ([0037]). Therefore, as evidenced by Cyphers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Wingerden by including an internal electronic lock mechanism inside the body, to secure the door to the body, wherein the lock mechanism provides remote locking for a mail recipient associated with the mailbox to selectively permit access to the mailbox. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of an internal electronic lock mechanism inside the body to secure the door to the body, wherein the lock mechanism provides remote locking for a mail recipient associated with the mailbox to selectively permit access to the mailbox, would enhance the operability and security of the mailbox.
Regarding claim 6, Van Wingerden discloses the mailbox is “stackable” (i.e. capable of being stacked) with one or more additional structurally cooperating mailboxes. It is noted the one or more additional mailboxes is/are not being claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Van Wingerden discloses a structure 21 (Fig. 3) “receives” (i.e. is directly fastened to) the forward face 23 of the platform portion 14 of the mailbox.
Regarding claim 9, see below analysis of independent claim 8. Van Wingerden fails to disclose its vertical post being telescopic for providing vertical movement of the body. However, as evidenced by Kagels, such a configuration is known in the mailbox art, see vertical post 10,11 wherein post portion 11 is telescopically received within post portion 10 for vertically adjustable movement of the mailbox body 22. Therefore, as evidenced by Kagels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Wingerden by replacing its vertical post with a telescopic vertical post. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The substitution of the telescopic vertical post allowing vertical movement of the mailbox body would provide custom height adjustment of the mailbox. The vertical post and thus body is adjusted through “power of an adjustment mechanism” which is being viewed as the manual force/power required to adjust the vertical telescopic post.
Claims 2, 3, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Wingerden (US#2013/0001386) in view of Cyphers et al. (US#2010/0294007), in view of Kagels (US#3229940), and further in view of Garey (US#6164527).
Regarding claim 2, Van Wingerden as modified fails to disclose at least one solar panel affixed to the body to power the lock mechanism, the platform, and/or the vertical telescopic post. However, as evidenced by Garey, such a configuration is known in the mailbox art, see solar panel 25 (col. 3, lines 46-50) indirectly affixed to the body 11 of the mailbox and providing the power supply 107 to power the platform 100. Therefore, as evidenced by Garey, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Wingerden by including at least one solar panel affixed to the body to power the platform. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the at least one solar panel affixed to the body to power the platform would improve operation of the mailbox via providing automation.
Regarding claim 3, Van Wingerden as modified fails to disclose a battery/electronic box affixed to the body to power the lock mechanism, the platform, and/or the vertical telescopic post. However, as evidenced by Garey, such a configuration is known in the mailbox art, see battery (col. 3, lines 46-50) indirectly affixed to the body 11 of the mailbox and providing the power supply 107 to power the platform 100. Therefore, as evidenced by Garey, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Wingerden by including a battery affixed to the body to power the platform. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the battery affixed to the body to power the platform would improve operation of the mailbox via providing automation.
Regarding claim 14, Van Wingerden discloses a mailbox comprising: a body 11; a door (Fig. 2) affixed to a front portion of the body; an arch-shaped cover/handle (Fig. 2) located on the front of the door; a horizontal sliding platform 13,14 positioned below and glidably attached to the body (Fig. 3), the platform having a slide mechanism 17 (tongue and groove joint) using two parallel bars (two parallel tongues of tongue and groove joint 17) providing selective horizontal movement of the body to a plurality of non-predetermined positions, wherein the slide mechanism glides back and forth never allowing rotational movement (tongue and groove joint 17 allows linear movement only, forward and backward); and a vertical post 28 attached to the body.
Regarding claim 14, Van Wingerden fails to disclose the door having a mail slot. However, as evidenced by Cyphers, such a configuration is known in the mailbox art, see mail slot 24 in door 22. Therefore, as evidenced by Cyphers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Wingerden by including a mail slot in the door. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the mail slot would facilitate mail delivery while the door remains locked to enhance the security of the mailbox. It is noted the mail slot would be placed below the cover/handle of Van Wingerden and thus the cover/handle of Van Wingerden would “cover” the mail slot.
Regarding claim 14, Van Wingerden fails to disclose its vertical post being telescopic for providing vertical movement of the body. However, as evidenced by Kagels, such a configuration is known in the mailbox art, see vertical post 10,11 wherein post portion 11 is telescopically received within post portion 10 for vertically adjustable movement of the mailbox body 22. Therefore, as evidenced by Kagels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Wingerden by replacing its vertical post with a telescopic vertical post. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The substitution of the telescopic vertical post allowing vertical movement of the mailbox body would provide custom height adjustment of the mailbox.
Regarding claim 14, Van Wingerden fails to disclose an internal electronic lock mechanism inside the body to secure the door to the body, wherein the lock mechanism provides remote locking for a mail recipient associated with the mailbox to selectively permit access to the mailbox. However, as evidenced by Cyphers, such a configuration is known in the mailbox art, see electronic lock mechanism 40 provided as a “remote access lock” inherently inside the body, ([0037]). Therefore, as evidenced by Cyphers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Wingerden by including an internal electronic lock mechanism inside the body, to secure the door to the body, wherein the lock mechanism provides remote locking for a mail recipient associated with the mailbox to selectively permit access to the mailbox. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of an internal electronic lock mechanism inside the body to secure the door to the body, wherein the lock mechanism provides remote locking for a mail recipient associated with the mailbox to selectively permit access to the mailbox, would enhance the operability and security of the mailbox.
Regarding claim 14, Van Wingerden as modified fails to disclose at least one solar panel affixed to the body to power the lock mechanism, the platform, and/or the vertical telescopic post. However, as evidenced by Garey, such a configuration is known in the mailbox art, see solar panel 25 (col. 3, lines 46-50) indirectly affixed to the body 11 of the mailbox and providing the power supply 107 to power the platform 100. Therefore, as evidenced by Garey, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Wingerden by including at least one solar panel affixed to the body to power the platform. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the at least one solar panel affixed to the body to power the platform would improve operation of the mailbox via providing automation.
Regarding claim 14, Van Wingerden as modified fails to disclose a battery/electronic box affixed to the body to power the lock mechanism, the platform, and/or the vertical telescopic post. However, as evidenced by Garey, such a configuration is known in the mailbox art, see battery (col. 3, lines 46-50) indirectly affixed to the body 11 of the mailbox and providing the power supply 107 to power the platform 100. Therefore, as evidenced by Garey, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Wingerden by including a battery affixed to the body to power the platform. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the battery affixed to the body to power the platform would improve operation of the mailbox via providing automation.
Regarding claim 14, Garey teaches the solar panel and battery being indirectly affixed to the body of the mailbox near the rear of the overall assembly. When incorporated into Van Wingerden (as modified), the solar panel and battery would be located near the rear of the overall assembly and thus provide a counterweight to balance the sliding platform extending near the front of the overall assembly.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Wingerden (US#2013/0001386) in view of Cyphers et al. (US#2010/0294007), and in view of Kagels (US#3229940), and further in view of Guadiano Del Bosque et al. (US#2020/0351474).
Regarding claim 4, Van Wingerden fails to disclose a camera integrally mounted within the mailbox that allows a mail recipient associated with the mailbox to monitor access to the mailbox. However, as evidenced by Guadiano Del Bosque, such a configuration is known in the mailbox art, see [0044], Fig. 7 and camera 10 integrally mounted within the mailbox 50 that allows a mail recipient associated with the mailbox to monitor access to the mailbox. Therefore, as evidenced by Guadiano Del Bosque, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Wingerden by including a camera integrally mounted within the mailbox that allows a mail recipient associated with the mailbox to monitor access to the mailbox. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the camera would enhance the security of the mailbox.
Claims 8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Wingerden (US#2013/0001386) in view of Cyphers et al. (US#2010/0294007).
Regarding claim 8, Van Wingerden discloses a mailbox comprising: a body 11; a door (Fig. 2) affixed to a front portion of the body; and a horizontal sliding platform 13,14 positioned below and glidably attached to the body (Fig. 3), the platform having a slide mechanism 17 (tongue and groove joint) using two parallel bars (two parallel tongues of tongue and groove joint 17) providing selective horizontal movement of the body to a plurality of non-predetermined positions, wherein the slide mechanism glides back and forth never allowing rotational movement (tongue and groove joint 17 allows linear movement only, forward and backward).
Regarding claim 8, Van Wingerden fails to disclose the door having a mail slot. However, as evidenced by Cyphers, such a configuration is known in the mailbox art, see mail slot 24 in door 22. Therefore, as evidenced by Cyphers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Wingerden by including a mail slot in the door. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the mail slot would facilitate mail delivery while the door remains locked to enhance the security of the mailbox. It is noted the mail slot would be placed below the cover/handle of Van Wingerden and thus the cover/handle of Van Wingerden would “cover” the mail slot.
Regarding claim 8, Van Wingerden fails to disclose an internal electronic lock mechanism inside the body to secure the door to the body. However, as evidenced by Cyphers, such a configuration is known in the mailbox art, see electronic lock mechanism 40 provided as a “remote access lock” inherently inside the body, ([0037]). Therefore, as evidenced by Cyphers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Wingerden by including an internal electronic lock mechanism, namely a remote access lock, inside the body. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of an internal electronic lock mechanism, namely a remote access lock, inside the body to secure the door to the body would allow for remote access and enhance the security of the mailbox.
Regarding claim 11, Van Wingerden discloses the mailbox is “stackable” (i.e. capable of being stacked) with one or more additional structurally cooperating mailboxes. It is noted the one or more additional mailboxes is/are not being claimed.
Regarding claim 12, Van Wingerden discloses a structure 21 (Fig. 3) “receives” (i.e. is directly fastened to) the forward face 23 of the platform portion 14 of the mailbox.
Regarding claim 13, Van Wingerden discloses an arch-shaped cover/handle (Fig. 2) located on the front of the door. It is noted the mail slot taught by Cyphers would be placed below the cover/handle of Van Wingerden and thus the cover/handle of Van Wingerden would “cover” the mail slot.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Wingerden (US#2013/0001386) in view of Cyphers et al. (US#2010/0294007),and further in view of Peterman (US#5575422).
Regarding claim 10, Van Wingerden fails to disclose wherein an interior portion of the body has a bridge lattice structure. However, as evidenced by Peterman, such a configuration is known in the mailbox art, see ribs 24,28 of an interior portion of the body 10 at least partially defining a “bridge lattice” via their row/column alignment. Therefore, as evidenced by Peterman, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Wingerden such that an interior portion of the body had a bridge lattice structure. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the bridge lattice structure would enhance the structural integrity of the body.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
It is noted McCormick (US#6543680) discloses a mailbox comprising: a body 14 having a door; a sliding platform 20,22; and a post 10 (see Fig. 2).
It is noted Rawls (US#10582795) discloses a mailbox placed in a decorative brick structure (see Figs. 9-10).
It is noted Toval (US#5632441) discloses a vertically adjustable mailbox 10 via electrical power 67 and motor 54.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM L MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7068. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00 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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
WILLIAM L. MILLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/WILLIAM L MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
