DETAILED ACTION
Representative Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
1160
843
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s Election of 08 September 2025
PNG
media_image2.png
206
816
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Pending Elected Claim Tree
PNG
media_image3.png
344
337
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 15-21 stand WITHDRAWN.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 JUNE 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection under Section 102 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to claim one. Applicant’s argument with respect to the 103 rejection:
“that if the goal is to improve structural stability of Welles then a person having skill in the art would not be motivated to add the complex shape of helical flights. In particular, a far easier solution than adding helical flights to Welles would be to add simple radial planar shapes, as is common in externally fed screens. Finally, adding helical flights to Welles may be detrimental to stability in some respects because the helical flights may translate a twisting rotational force into a longitudinal force that either expands or retracts the device.
Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be dissuaded from adding helical flights to Welles because doing so would introduce longitudinal torsional forces known to destabilize drum assemblies of this configuration. Accordingly, if improved rigidity for Welles is desired, it would be better to provide simple radial planar shapes rather than helical flights.
Therefore, for at least these reasons Applicant respectfully submits that a person having skill in the art would not make the proposed modification of Welles.”
These arguments are not found persuasive. Applicant has provided no evidence with respect to the level of “complexity” nor the introduction of “longitudinal force” that are asserted. Mere attorney argument is insufficient to establish what is asserted in this argument. Moreover, the combination is nothing more than an example of a use of a standard, known technique (urging of solids in a screen towards an outlet end thereof with a helical flight) to improve a similar device in a logical way. See KSR.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the withdrawn 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
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”), for example, “source of liquid”, “source of mixing gas” and “source of cleaning fluid” are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claim 13 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 the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 13, it is unclear how “wherein the flights are rigid”, limits claim one since claim 1 has been amended to specify that the flights are “rigid helical”.
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.
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 1,10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of WELLES (U.S. 3,876,548 - 1975) and ZITTEL (US 5,632,195 - 1997).
The helix of WELLES is discussed below and is not clearly depicted in the figures of WELLES.
PNG
media_image4.png
632
694
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
1188
696
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Parenthetical reference numerals and/or comments of WELLES, in the claims below map the claim limitations to WELLES.
(Previously Presented) A food processing water filtration apparatus, comprising;
a rotatable drum (80, 110) having a first end and a second end, and having a cylindrical surface at least partially comprised of a screen (80, 110);
a source (28, 90, 112 and Examiner added Arrow in Fig. 9) of liquid with suspended solids to be filtered disposed outside the drum and capable of directing at least a portion of the liquid towards the screen and into the drum;
a blade (54, 120) disposed to remove solids from the exterior of the drum;
a drain (34, 118) located below the drum to collect at least a second portion of the liquid that passes through the screen and out of the drum;
a solids outlet (See “DISCHARGE END” discussion immediately below and throughout the disclosure of WELLES) located at one of the first end of the drum and the second end of the drum;
a rotational drive (18, 84, 114) connected to at least one of the first and second ends of the drum, whereby the rotational drive can cause the drum to rotate; and
a plurality of rigid helical flights (See “Helix” discussion immediately below) affixed to the interior of the cylindrical surface of the drum, including being affixed to the screen, wherein the flights are distinct from the screen.
From WELLES:
(3) Essentially, the screening apparatus utilizes a rotary cylindrical screen which is suitably supported and suitably driven. In one form of the invention, a stream of liquid with solids is introduced above the screen and generally adjacent one end. In another form of the invention, liquid and solids are introduced along one side of the screen. The rotation of the screen will tend to move the solids to one side and the water will pass down through the screen openings. Wiper blades are positioned along one or both sides of the screen to clean it, thus providing an open area to receive the stream to be separated. After the solids have been removed, the water passes from the outside of the screen to the inside, and then from the inside to the outside. As the water passes from inside the screen to the outside, it will remove any solids which have adhered to the screen, thus providing a self-cleaning action. Although the screen element may take many shapes, preferably it is in the form of a plurality of bars or a single bar arranged in a helix such that the lead of the helix, the direction of rotation of the screen and the angle of the screen with the horizontal assist in directing the separated solids toward the discharge end of the screen.
(11) The screen itself is illustrated in detail in FIGS. 6, 7 and 8 and may be made up of a plurality of spaced bars 38 which are arranged in a helix and held together by means of transverse rods 39. In the space between adjacent rods, the individual sections may be straight as shown in FIG. 8. The bars have openings therebetween of a size consistent with the solids being filtered or screened. For example, in a sanitary sewage application, the openings may be 0.060 inch and smaller.
(16) In the screening process using the apparatus shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, a stream of liquid and solids will flow from the pipe 28 into the trough 26. The baffle 30 will vector or direct the material to be screened toward the side of the screen which has just been cleaned by the right-hand wiper 52, as indicated in FIG. 3. In the alternative, the flume 26 may be formed to accomplish the same result without a separate baffle. Thus, the material to be screened will always be directed toward a clean area of the screen. The water will pass through the screening surface to the inside of the screen and will then flow from the inside of the screen, through the screen area presently at the bottom, down to the trough 32. As the separated liquid flows from the inside of the screen to the outside, it will clean the screen and thus provide the self-cleaning action described above. The wipers 52 assist in the cleaning function as they wipe or clean the exterior of the screen. The combination of the radial force of the rotating screen, the slant of the screen and the lead of the helix on the screen assist in moving the solids down to the discharge end where they may be conveniently removed.
As the water passes from inside the screen to the outside, it will remove any solids which have adhered to the screen, thus providing a self-cleaning action. Although the screen element may take many shapes, preferably it is in the form of a plurality of bars or a single bar arranged in a HELIX such that the lead of the helix, the direction of rotation of the screen and the angle of the screen with the horizontal assist in directing the separated solids toward the DISCHARGE END of the screen.
WELLES does not clearly disclose "a plurality of rigid helical flights affixed to the interior of the cylindrical surface of the drum, including being affixed to the screen, wherein the flights are distinct from the screen," which amended independent claim 1 recites.
ZITTEL in a similar system, discloses:
(20) The food transport mechanism comprises an auger received in the drum that is formed from a plurality of generally axially spaced apart flights 50 constructed and arranged to form a helical food product urging surface. The auger is rotatably received in the tank and rotates during operation to urge food product received in the drum toward the outlet end of the tank. Preferably, portions of the outer radial peripheral edge of each auger flight are affixed to support channels of the drum to mutually strengthen the drum and auger and to cause the auger to rotate substantially in unison with the drum.
PNG
media_image6.png
590
879
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In view of the teaching of ZITTEL, it is submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add known flights 50 as taught by ZITTEL, to the interior of the similar drum of WELLES in order to urge solids within the drum toward the outlet end of the drum and/or support or strengthen the drum.
Dependent claim 10 specifies:
10. (Original) The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a first trunnion support (14) disposed at the first end of the drum to support the first end of the drum.
Dependent claim 13 specifies:
13. (Original) The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the flights (50 - ZITTEL) are rigid and thereby provide rigidity to the drum, and further wherein as the drum rotates the flights move filtered material toward the first end.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of WELLES (U.S. 3,876,548 - 1975) and ZITTEL (US 5,632,195 - 1997) as applied to claims 1,10 and 13 above, and further in view of DAVIDSON (U.S. 3,713,540).
Regarding dependent claim 2, the references as combined above do not appear to disclose the underscored:
2. (Amended) The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the screen is comprised of wedge wire (138,142), and further comprising a source of mixing gas fluidly connected to the source of liquid with suspended solids.
DAVIDSON discloses the use of dispersers (e.g., 44, 57, and 74) to provide the agitation required to keep the solids content of the liquid in suspension, in a similar separation apparatus. In view of the teachings of DAVIDSON, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of the references as combined above by incorporating dispersers to introduce a mixing gas into the source of liquid with suspended solids, in order to maintain the solids in suspension as opposed to settling.
Regarding claim 5, dependent from claim 2:
5. (Original) The apparatus of claim 2, further comprising a first trunnion (14 – WELLES) support disposed at the first end of the drum to support the first end of the drum.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WELLES (U.S. 3,876,548 - 1975) and ZITTEL (US 5,632,195 - 1997), in view of DAVIDSON (U.S. 3,713,540) as applied to claims 2 and 5 above, and further in view of SANDERS (U.S. 5,894,936).
Regarding dependent claims 3 and 6, the references as combined above do not appear to disclose any of:
3. (Amended) The apparatus of claim 2, further comprising: a source of cleaning fluid; and a plurality of nozzles fluidly connected to the source of cleaning fluid and disposed inside the drum to direct the cleaning fluid to the screen to clean the screen.
6. (Amended) The apparatus of claim 5, further comprising: a source of cleaning fluid; and a plurality of nozzles fluidly connected to the source of cleaning fluid and disposed inside the drum to direct the cleaning fluid to the screen to clean the screen.
SANDERS discloses a spray pipe 42 that extends into the drum 12 through the distal end 18. The spray pipe 42 has a plurality of apertures or nozzles disposed along its length. The size and density of the apertures along the pipe can be adjusted to affect the water pressure and penetrating depth within the agglomeration. These apertures or nozzles are directed to spray against the slurry 32 to break up any agglomerations.
In view of SANDERS, it would have been obvious to employ a spray pipe with a pluralty of nozzles inside the drum of the apparatus of the references as combined above, in order to introduce a cleaning fluid to break up any agglomerations.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of WELLES (U.S. 3,876,548 - 1975), ZITTEL (US 5,632,195 - 1997), DAVIDSON (U.S. 3,713,540) and SANDERS (U.S. 5,894,936) as applied to claims 3 and 6 above, and further in view of COMPAIN (U.S. 1,712,258).
With respect to dependent claims 4 and 7, the apparatus of the references as combined above do not appear to disclose the underscored:
4. (Amended) The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the source of cleaning fluid includes a source of cleaning gas, and wherein the source of cleaning gas is fluidly connected to the plurality of nozzles.
7. (Amended) The apparatus of claim 6, wherein the source of cleaning fluid includes a source of cleaning gas, and wherein the source of cleaning gas is fluidly connected to the plurality of nozzles.
COMPAIN discloses the use of “compressed air” discharged from a nozzle 27 disposed within a screen drum to remove debris caught in screen 11 (see, at least, numbered page 2 of COMPAIN, left column, lines 5-35). Here, it is important to note, that SANDERS also discloses to the use of compressed air as a cleaning fluid, but neglects to make a specific reference to the plurality of nozzles along the spray pipe (see col. 4, lines 45-46 and claim 11).
In view of the teachings of COMPAIN, it would have been obvious to employ compressed air as a cleaning fluid in the apparatus of the references as combined above, in order to dislodge accumulated material from the drum screen, as COMPAIN disclosed this to be a suitable screen cleaning fluid in 1929. As one skilled in the art would have readily appreciated, the use of a gas as the cleaning fluid does not add spent cleaning fluid to the wastewater burden that must be disposed of.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WELLES (U.S. 3,876,548 - 1975) and ZITTEL (US 5,632,195 - 1997), as applied to claims 1,10 and 13 above, and further in view of SANDERS (U.S. 5,894,936).
Regarding dependent claims 8 and 11, the references as combined above do not appear to disclose any of:
8. (Amended) The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a source of cleaning fluid; and a plurality of nozzles fluidly connected to the source of cleaning fluid and disposed inside the drum to direct the cleaning fluid to the screen to clean the screen.
11. (Amended) The apparatus of claim 10, further comprising: a source of cleaning fluid; and a plurality of nozzles fluidly connected to the source of cleaning fluid and disposed inside the drum to direct the cleaning fluid to the screen to clean the screen.
SANDERS discloses a spray pipe 42 that extends into the drum 12 through the distal end 18. The spray pipe 42 has a plurality of apertures or nozzles disposed along its length. The size and density of the apertures along the pipe can be adjusted to affect the water pressure and penetrating depth within the agglomeration. These apertures or nozzles are directed to spray against the slurry 32 to break up any agglomerations.
In view of SANDERS, it would have been obvious to employ a spray pipe with a plurality of nozzles inside the drum of the apparatus of the references as applied above, in order to break up any agglomerations.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WELLES (U.S. 3,876,548 - 1975) and ZITTEL (US 5,632,195 - 1997) in view of SANDERS (U.S. 5,894,936) as applied to claims 8 and 11 above, and further in view of COMPAIN (U.S. 1,712,258).
With respect to dependent claims 4 and 7, the apparatus of the references as combined above does not appear to disclose the underscored:
9. (Amended) The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the source of cleaning fluid includes a source of cleaning gas, and wherein the source of cleaning gas is fluidly connected to the plurality of nozzles.
12. (Amended) The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the source of cleaning fluid includes a source of cleaning gas, and wherein the source of cleaning gas is fluidly connected to the plurality of nozzles.
COMPAIN discloses the use of “compressed air” discharged from a nozzle 27 disposed within a screen drum to remove debris caught in screen 11 (see, at least, numbered page 2 of COMPAIN, left column, lines 5-35). Here, it is important to note, that SANDERS also discloses to the use of compressed air as a cleaning fluid, but neglects to make a specific reference to the plurality of nozzles along the spray pipe (see col. 4, lines 45-46 and claim 11).
In view of the teachings of COMPAIN, it would have been obvious to employ compressed air as a cleaning fluid in the apparatus of WELLES and SANDERS as combined above, in order to dislodge accumulated material from the drum screen, as COMPAIN disclosed this to be a suitable screen cleaning fluid in 1929. As one skilled in the art would have readily appreciated, the use of a gas as the cleaning fluid does not add spent cleaning fluid to the waste water burden that must be disposed of.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WELLES (U.S. 3,876,548 - 1975) and ZITTEL (US 5,632,195 - 1997) as applied to claims 1,10 and 13 above, and further in view of HARDEN (US 2019/0224597 A1).
The apparatus of the references as combined above do not disclose the underscored subject matter of dependent claim 14:
14. (Original) The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a variable speed module connected to the source of liquid with suspended solids to be filtered, and connected to control the rotational drive, and disposed to sense a level of fluid in the source of liquid with suspended solids to be filtered, and further connected to control a speed of the rotational drive in response thereto.
Regarding “variable speed module” from HARDEN:
[0101] According to at least one aspect, the system may include a level sensor, such as level sensor 178a that is positioned in the inlet trough 130 of the housing 125 that houses the drum filter 105 and the disc filter 115. The level sensor 178a may be configured to measure the level of wastewater 102 (influent water) in the inlet trough 130 of the housing 125. An approximate maximum water level (i.e., a predetermined level) for the influent is show in FIG. 7B. Wastewater is fed into the inlet trough 130 at a constant flow rate, which means that the water level in the inlet trough will increase as the solids build up on the filter surfaces of the drum filter 105 (i.e., the filter surface 112 becomes more clogged) and the disc filter 115. The level sensor 178a may take periodic measurements and send these measurements to the controller 176. Therefore, when the water level in the inlet trough 130 exceeds the predetermined water level (e.g., a water level such as that shown in FIG. 7B), the controller 176 may send one or more signals to the system that result in a halt to a filtration process and to start a cleaning process. For instance, the controller 176 may control a motor in the drive assembly 170 to rotate the drum filter 105 and the disc filter 115 at a lower speed and control the sprayers in the backwash system 145 to spray cleaning fluid onto the filter surfaces of each of the drum filter 105 and the disc filter 115 as described above.
PNG
media_image7.png
940
766
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The additional teachings of HARDEN are noted:
[0092] The backwash system 145 also includes a second plurality of spray nozzles 149 configured spray filtrate 122 onto the filter surface 112 of the rotary drum 110. The second plurality of spray nozzles 149 functions in a similar manner as the first plurality of spray nozzles 147. The second plurality of spray nozzles 149 are also shown in FIG. 6B. As shown, the second plurality of spray nozzles 149 are disposed on the interior of the rotary drum 110 and are positioned to spray the “clean” side (first side 114a) of the filter surface 112. While the rotary drum 110 is being rotated (also at a slow speed during backwash), the filtrate 122 or other backwash fluid is pumped to the second plurality of spray nozzles 149 and sprayed onto the first side 114a of the filter surface 112. The filtrate 122 passes through the filter surface 112 to the second side 114b and particulate matter removed from the filter surface 112 and used spray water is collected in the drum filter collection trough 140, which transports the backwash effluent out of the drum filter 105.
[0093] According to some embodiments, the first plurality of spray nozzles 147 and/or the second plurality of spray nozzles 149 may include one or more features or elements that minimize or reduce clogging. For instance, the spray nozzles may include a retractable element that includes a split spray tip or other element that is configured to retract into an orifice of the housing of the spray nozzle during non-backwashing operations. When retracted, the split spray tip “splits” outwardly such that debris that would otherwise clog the orifice of the spray nozzle is released. Once pressurized, the retractable element extends outward from the opening and the split spray tip merges back together to form a spray pattern. Suitable nozzles having these features include the MOMOJet® nozzles available from Ikeuchi USA, Inc.
[0094] As shown in FIG. 6B, The second plurality of spray nozzles 149 are angled and positioned such that the outwardly-directed spray pattern results in the backwash effluent being directed into the drum filter collection trough 140. According to one embodiment, the spray nozzles 149 are positioned to be aligned adjacent to one another across the width of the rotary drum 110. The spray nozzles 149 may also be positioned and angled to coincide with the doctor blade 162 such that the spray nozzles 149 spray at the filter surface 112 in such a way that the doctor blade 162 is more readily able to scrape waste off into the drum filter collection trough 140. In some instances, the angled orientation of the spray nozzles 149 may be 90 degrees to the filter surface 112, but in other configurations, the spray nozzles 149 may not be oriented at 90 degrees. FIG. 7A indicates one potential position for the spray nozzles 149, and FIG. 7B is an enlarged view of the circled portion of FIG. 7A that indicates the placement and approximate spray direction. In this instance, the drum filter collection trough 140 is positioned external to the rotary drum 110, but it is to be appreciated that other locations are also within the scope of this disclosure, including the interior of the rotary drum 110.
In view of the teachings of HARDEN, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of the references as combined above, by incorporating the speed controller and level controller as disclosed by HARDEN, in order to accommodate varying process conditions.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT JAMES POPOVICS whose telephone number is (571) 272-1164. The examiner can normally be reached from 10:00 AM - 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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.
/ROBERT J POPOVICS/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights