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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 03.02.2026 fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Further, foreign cite no. 1 appears to have the wrong country code. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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:
“centering structure” (claim 58, line 1).
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 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Karube in view of Johnson and Jameson
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130298626 A1 (“Karube”) in view of US 4681264 A (“Johnson”) and US 20030098364 A1 (“Jameson”).
Karube pertains to a descaling apparatus including a cavitating nozzle (Abstr.; Figs. 4-6; ¶¶ 0012-0015). Johnson pertains to an apparatus including nozzles for a cavitating liquid jet (Abstr.; Fig. 8). Jameson pertains to a nozzle design for cavitating fluids (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0002-0004, 0047). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 15, Karube discloses a cavitation peening nozzle (Figs. 4-6; ¶¶ 0012-0015, 0044), comprising:
a cylindrical pipe (Figs. 4-6, see annotated Fig. 5 below),
and a converging cavitator at a distal end of the cylindrical pipe, configured to deliver a cavitating jet of high-pressure fluid (see annotated Fig. 5 below; ¶¶ 0012-0019, 0033, 0044, 0049, the cavitator is capable of delivering a cavitating jet of high-pressure fluid),
the converging cavitator comprising:
an inner tip portion with a proximal section toward the cylindrical pipe and a distal section (see annotated Fig. 5 below);
and an interchangeable cavitation insert received in the inner tip portion and secured between the distal end of the cylindrical pipe and the distal section of the inner tip portion (Figs. 4-6; see annotated Fig. 5 below; ¶ 0036-0037, 0042, the cavitation insert is capable of being removed and interchanged with a different cavitation insert (e.g., a second, replacement cavitation insert)),
wherein an inner passage of the interchangeable cavitation insert has an inlet section and an outlet section, the inlet section disposed between the distal end of the cylindrical pipe and the outlet section (see annotated Fig. 5 below; Examiner interprets, based on Applicant’s remarks (11/11/2024 Reply at 10, 13), that the “outlet section” is a section within the distal wall of the cavitation insert, and does not mean a “section” that does not include the distal wall of the cavitation insert (e.g., Spec. Figs. 8-14, elements 416, 516, 616, 716); see discussion below re “outlet section”),
the outlet section converging from an entrance to the outlet section to a...exit opening of the interchangeable cavitation insert (see annotated Fig. 5 below),
and wherein the entrance to the outlet section has a first diameter and the...exit opening has a second diameter, the first diameter being larger than the second diameter (see annotated Fig. 5 below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“Distal section” of “inner tip portion”)][AltContent: textbox (“Proximal section” of “inner tip portion”)][AltContent: textbox (“Inlet section”)][AltContent: textbox (“Inner tip portion”, “converging cavitator” includes the “inner tip portion” and the “interchangeable cavitation insert”)][AltContent: textbox (“Interchangeable cavitation insert” (elements 12 and 17))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“Distal end of the cylindrical pipe”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Cylindrical pipe (part of element 2b))][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
1417
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (“Outlet section” with “entrance” at upper portion and “exit opening” 15 )]Karube Fig. 5 (annotated)
Karube does not explicitly disclose:
a circular exit opening.
And to the extent Karube does not explicitly disclose the limitation “the outlet section converging from an entrance to the outlet section to a...exit opening of the interchangeable cavitation insert, and wherein the entrance to the outlet section has a first diameter and the...exit opening has a second diameter, the first diameter being larger than the second diameter”, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson combination makes obvious this claim.
Jameson discloses the outlet section converging from an entrance to the outlet section to a circular exit opening of the interchangeable cavitation insert, and wherein the entrance to the outlet section has a first diameter and the circular exit opening has a second diameter, the first diameter being larger than the second diameter (Figs. 1-2, see annotated Fig. 2 below, outlet section converges from entrance opening 160 to exit opening 112 by way of chamber 142 with tapered walls 144; ¶¶ 0025-0026 (referring to the diameters of elements 112, 142, 144), 0023, 0047).
[AltContent: textbox (“Outlet section” with “entrance” 160 and circular exit opening 112)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
984
936
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jameson Fig. 2 (annotated)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Johnson and Jameson with Karube, modifying the outlet section of Karube interchangeable cavitation insert to have the claimed configuration (as taught by Jameson). Examiner notes that Jameson teaches an embodiment that includes an interchangeable/removable cavitation insert 136 (Jameson Fig. 1). This modification would have been obvious because with an interchangeable/removable cavitation insert (as taught by Karube and Jameson), a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the cavitation insert could be replaced or exchanged for a different nozzle insert with different fluid/spray characteristics (see e.g., Jameson Figs. 1, 3, 4-7; ¶ 0023, “The tip 136 may comprise a separate, interchangeable component”; see also US 2666669 A (“Wahlin”) 4:48-54, “readily removable, the nozzle may be readily adapted to other spray capacity or volume by merely substituting a spray tip 13”).
Further, this modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is a matter of design choice, as different geometric configurations (including the use of a circular exit opening (compared to other shapes such as elliptical as disclosed in Karube Fig. 6) lead to different fluid cavitation characteristics and could be customized for the task at hand (e.g., better cavitation performance). Jameson teaches that chamber 142 could have a variety of tapered wall configurations (Jameson Figs. 4-7; ¶ 0044), where the wall surfaces 164 and tip 150 could be manipulated “to establish various desirable effects on the liquid stream, for example to increase the flow rate of the liquid, to atomize the liquid, to emulsify the liquid, and/or to cavitate the liquid” (Jameson ¶ 0047). Johnson explains that the nozzle design dimensions can be found experimentally, where such design dimensions also depend on external variables such as fluid velocity (Johnson 17:50-60, table showing dimensional relationships; 12:23-27, “I have found experimentally that by properly designing the nozzle contour, as will be discussed below, the critical Strouhal number for which the jet structures into discrete rings may be varied from about 0.3 to 0.8.”; 15:58-65; 20:17-23). Additionally, Applicant has not disclosed any particular nozzle dimensional geometry as being critical, and instead indicated that “In some examples, other relative diameters may be selected to optimize the organ pipe effect and/or cavitation intensity.” (Spec. p. 14, lines 6-8) (see also Spec. p. 4, lines 13-18 “Dimensions of the inner passage geometry such as resonance chamber length or angle of conicity may be selected or tuned to optimize resulting increases to cavitation intensity.”). Accordingly, this particular nozzle design is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Karube in view of Johnson, Jameson, and Sanders
Claims 20 and 49-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130298626 A1 (“Karube”) in view of US 4681264 A (“Johnson”), US 20030098364 A1 (“Jameson”), and US 20190062858 A1 (“Sanders”).
Karube pertains to a descaling apparatus including a cavitating nozzle (Abstr.; Figs. 4-6; ¶¶ 0012-0015). Johnson pertains to an apparatus including nozzles for a cavitating liquid jet (Abstr.; Fig. 8). Jameson pertains to a nozzle design for cavitating fluids (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0002-0004, 0047). Sanders pertains to a cavitation device having nozzles for cavitation peening (¶¶ 0006-0007). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 20, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson combination makes obvious the cavitation peening nozzle of claim 15 as applied above. Karube further discloses a nozzle assembly comprising the cavitation peening nozzle of claim 15 wherein the nozzle assembly is configured to deliver a first stream of fluid through the cavitation peening nozzle (Figs. 3-6; ¶ 0033, nozzle assembly (elements 1 and 61) is capable of delivering a first stream of fluid through the cavitation peening nozzle 1.
Karube, Johnson, and Jameson do not explicitly disclose:
the nozzle assembly configured to deliver...a second stream of fluid concentrically around the first stream through an outer nozzle, the first stream being delivered at higher pressure than the second stream.
However, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson/Sanders combination makes obvious this claim.
Sanders discloses the nozzle assembly (Figs. 4, 5A-C, 6, nozzle assembly 212; ¶ 0056) configured to deliver a first stream of fluid through the cavitation peening nozzle (Figs. 4, 5A-C, 6, fluid flows through channel 258 of inner cavitation peening nozzle 264 to produce inner stream 220; ¶ 0056), and a second stream of fluid concentrically around the first stream through an outer nozzle (Figs. 4, 5A-C, 6, outer nozzle 262 for outer stream 222, which is concentric around first stream 220; ¶ 0059), the first stream being delivered at higher pressure than the second stream (¶ 0058, “Conduit 226 is connected to inner channel 258 and supplies fluid at a first pressure, while conduit 224 is connected to outer channel 260 and supplies fluid at a second pressure...The first pressure is higher than the second pressure”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Sanders with the Karube/Johnson/Jameson, adding the Karube/Johnson/Jameson cavitation peening nozzle to the nozzle assembly as taught by Sanders that includes an outer nozzle. This is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The Sanders nozzle assembly already includes an inner cavitation nozzle (along with an outer nozzle). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the difference in cavitation performance between the nozzle design disclosed in Sanders and the one in Karube (and the proposed Karube/Johnson/Jameson combination), and it would have been simple to swap (or modify) one cavitation nozzle for the other (while keeping the Sanders outer nozzle and the Sanders nozzle assembly the same) in order to obtain the desired cavitation performance for the task at hand. In fact, Sanders contemplates using different inner cavitation nozzles: “Inner channel 258 is defined by an inner nozzle 264 which is shown with a cavitator, spacer, and nozzle plate. Inner nozzle 264 may also have any effective geometry.” (Sanders ¶ 0057).
Regarding claim 49, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson/Sanders combination makes obvious the nozzle assembly of claim 20 as applied above. Sanders further discloses:
a manifold configured to receive the first stream of fluid from a first fluid source and the second stream of fluid from a second fluid source (Figs. 3-6; ¶¶ 0042-0060, first fluid source 226 provides the first/inner stream of fluid 220 to manifold 214, second fluid source 224 provides the second/outer stream of fluid 222 to manifold 214.
The obviousness rationale for claim 49 is the same as for claim 20.
Regarding claim 50, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson/Sanders combination makes obvious the nozzle assembly of claim 49 as applied above. Sanders further discloses:
an inner conduit comprising the cylindrical pipe, the inner conduit coupled to the manifold and defining an inner flow path configured to convey the first stream of fluid (Figs. 3-6; ¶¶ 0042-0060, as modified in the Karube/Johnson/Jameson/Sanders combination, an inner conduit comprising the cylindrical pipe of Karube (replacing element 264 of Sanders) is coupled to the manifold 214 and defines an inner flow path (replacing element 258 of Sanders) to convey the first/inner stream of fluid 220).
The obviousness rationale for claim 50 is the same as for claim 49.
Regarding claim 51, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson/Sanders combination makes obvious the nozzle assembly of claim 50 as applied above. Sanders further discloses:
wherein the outer nozzle comprises an outer conduit coupled to the manifold and disposed radially outward of at least a portion of the inner conduit (Figs. 3-6; ¶¶ 0042-0060, outer nozzle 262 includes an outer conduit that is coupled to the manifold 214 and is disposed radially outward of the inner conduit including the cylindrical pipe of Karube (replacing element 264 of Sanders)).
The obviousness rationale for claim 51 is the same as for claim 50.
Regarding claim 52, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson/Sanders combination makes obvious the nozzle assembly of claim 51 as applied above. Sanders further discloses:
wherein the outer conduit and the inner conduit define an outer flow path configured to convey the second stream of fluid (Figs. 3-6; ¶¶ 0042-0060, as modified in the Karube/Johnson/Jameson/Sanders combination, the inner conduit comprising the cylindrical pipe of Karube (replacing element 264 of Sanders) and outer conduit of the outer nozzle 262 define an outer flow path 260 to convey the second/outer stream of fluid 222).
The obviousness rationale for claim 52 is the same as for claim 51.
Regarding claim 53, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson/Sanders combination makes obvious the nozzle assembly of claim 52 as applied above. Sanders further discloses:
wherein the interchangeable cavitation insert is disposed in the inner flow path (Figs. 3-6; ¶¶ 0042-0060, as modified in the Karube/Johnson/Jameson/Sanders combination, the inner interchangeable cavitation insert of Karube is disposed in the inner flow path).
The obviousness rationale for claim 53 is the same as for claim 52.
Regarding claim 54, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson/Sanders combination makes obvious the nozzle assembly of claim 53 as applied above. Sanders further discloses:
wherein the first stream of fluid is discharged from the circular exit opening of the interchangeable cavitation insert, and the second stream of fluid is discharged from the outer flow path surrounding the first stream of fluid (Figs. 3-6; ¶¶ 0042-0060, as modified in the Karube/Johnson/Jameson/Sanders combination, the first/inner stream of fluid 220 is discharged from the circular exit opening of the interchangeable cavitation insert of Karube (circular as modified by Jameson and Johnson), and the second/outer stream of fluid 222 is discharged from the outer flow path 260, where the second/outer stream of fluid 222 surrounds the first/inner stream of fluid 220).
The obviousness rationale for claim 54 is the same as for claim 53.
Regarding claim 55, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson/Sanders combination makes obvious the nozzle assembly of claim 54 as applied above. Sanders further discloses:
wherein the manifold includes a proximal section and a distal section coupled to the proximal section (Figs. 3-6; ¶¶ 0042-0060, manifold 214 includes a proximal section (near reference 238 in Fig. 4) and a distal section (away from reference 238 in Fig. 4).
The obviousness rationale for claim 55 is the same as for claim 54.
Regarding claim 56, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson/Sanders combination makes obvious the nozzle assembly of claim 55 as applied above. Sanders further discloses:
wherein the cylindrical pipe extends through the distal section of the manifold and is coupled to the proximal section of the manifold (Figs. 3-6; ¶¶ 0042-0060, as modified in the Karube/Johnson/Jameson/Sanders combination, an inner conduit comprising the cylindrical pipe of Karube (replacing element 264 of Sanders) extends through the distal section of the manifold is coupled to the proximal section of the manifold 214 in order to provide an inner flow path (replacing element 258 of Sanders) to convey the first/inner stream of fluid 220 from first fluid source 226).
The obviousness rationale for claim 56 is the same as for claim 55.
Regarding claim 57, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson/Sanders combination makes obvious the nozzle assembly of claim 56 as applied above. Sanders further discloses:
wherein the outer conduit comprises an outer pipe coupled to the distal section of the manifold and surrounding the cylindrical pipe (Figs. 3-6; ¶¶ 0042-0060, outer nozzle 262 includes an outer conduit having an outer pipe (middle part of body shown in Fig. 4, near reference 240) coupled to the distal section of the manifold 214 and surrounding the cylindrical pipe of Karube (replacing element 264 of Sanders)).
The obviousness rationale for claim 57 is the same as for claim 56.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 58 is 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 58, the Karube/Johnson/Jameson/Sanders combination makes obvious the nozzle assembly of claim 57 as applied above. The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious the limitation “a centering structure disposed between the proximal section and the distal section of the manifold to maintain alignment of the cylindrical pipe relative to the outer pipe” (“centering structure” is interpreted under § 112(f), which includes centering ring 270, and equivalents thereof (Spec. p. 10, line 25–p. 11, line 2)).
In view of the prior art of record and its deficiencies, Applicant’s invention is novel, non-obvious, and allowable as claimed. Claims 59-66 are allowable for depending from claim 58.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claims 1-14, 16-19, 21-28 have been canceled. Claims 29-48 are not entered. Claims 15, 20, and 49-66 are pending. Claims 15, 20, and 49-57 are rejected. Claims 58-66 are objected to.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments for claim 15 (Reply at 8) are not persuasive for the reasons stated in the § 103 rejection of claim 15 above. Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights