DETAILED ACTION
In Request for Continued Examination filed on 09/02/2025, claims 1-7 and 9-21 are pending. Claims 10-15 are withdrawn as nonelected species. Claims 1 and 18 are currently amended. Claims 1-7, 9 and 16-21 are considered in the current Office 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 .
Status of Previous Objections/Rejections
35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-7, 9, 16-17, and 19 are withdrawn. However, new rejections have been established.
35 USC 103 rejections of claims 18 and 20 are withdrawn. However, new rejections have been established.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/02/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-7, 9 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 18 recite the limitation “a bottom wall of the casing does not include another drainage port at an intersection between the rear end wall and the bottom wall of the casing or at an area directly below the introduction port” fails to comply with the written description requirement. At most, Figure 1 does not appear to contain any drainage port at the bottom wall. However, the instant specification has no indication that the applicant considered whether or not to put ports in the bottom wall and there is no discussion in the specification directed to significant of lack/presence of port at the bottom wall. Thus, the recited limitation fails to comply with the written description and is rejected under USC 112(a).
Claims 2-7, 9, 16-17, and 19-21 are rejected by virtue of depended upon a rejected claims 1 and 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7, 16-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2017/202657 (Okamoto), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 01/31/2024, and US2017/0050400 (Sugawara).
Regarding Claim 1, Okamoto teaches a conical twin-screw extruder (Figure 1) for compression of a water-containing material ([0001], the material generates water [0042]), comprising:
a casing (Figure 1, casing 4) comprising:
a discharge port at a tip of the casing (Figure 1, material discharge portion 5 located at the tip of the casing 4); and
an introduction port in a rear portion to introduce the water-containing material (Figure 1, material charging port 41a for introducing materials, the material generates water [0042]), and
two screws installed in the casing (Figure 1, screw 31 and taper screw 21 installed in the casing 4),
wherein the casing has a drainage port (Figure 2, rear end wall drains hole 41c), and
PNG
media_image1.png
538
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the lowermost end of the rear end wall is a position at which an inner surface of the rear end wall intersects a rear most portion of an inner surface of the casing (see annotated Figure 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
576
1140
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Okamoto fails to teach the lowermost end of the drainage port is higher than a lowermost end of a rear end wall of the casing and a bottom wall of the casing does not include another drainage port at an intersection between the rear end wall and the bottom wall of the casing or at an area directly below the introduction port.
However, Sugawara teaches the lowermost end of the drainage port is higher than a lowermost end of a rear end wall of the casing (see annotated Figure 1) and a bottom wall of the casing does not include another drainage port at an intersection between the rear end wall and the bottom wall of the casing or at an area directly below the introduction port (Figure 1, drainage port 11b formed an opening on the lower end portion of the casing and there is no drainage port at the bottom wall of the casing).
Okamoto and Sugawara are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of extruder with rotors to discharge materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by Okamoto such that it teaches all of the limitation discussed above as taught by Sugawara because the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way to position the water drainage port. See MPEP 2143. Furthermore, the number and locations of the water drainage port as discussed above in the apparatus of Okamoto as taught by Sugawara would be obvious matter of design choice in order to efficiently remove the excess water from the extruder without removing the kneeled materials. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the drainage port such that the lowermost end of the drainage port is higher than a lowermost end of a rear end wall of the casing, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the drainage port such that the drainage port is higher than the lowermost end of the rear end wall to avoid flights of screw blocking the drainage port. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C). In other word, rearrange position of the drainage port such that the lowermost end of the drainage port is higher than a lowermost end of a rear end wall of the casing will not change the mode of operation of the apparatus of Okamoto and it would be obvious matter of design choice to rearrange the drainage port to avoid interference from the flight of the screw.
Regarding Claim 2, the modified Okamoto teaches the conical twin-screw extruder according to Claim 1, wherein the drainage port is formed in a rear end wall that is disposed at a rear end of the casing (Okamoto, Figure 2, rear end wall drains hole 41c formed at the lower end of the rear end wall 41b [0041]).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Okamoto teaches the conical twin-screw extruder according to Claim 2, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the lowermost end of the drainage port is 5 to 200 mm higher than a position at which an inner surface of the rear end wall intersects a rearmost and lowermost portion of an inner surface of the casing.
As the size of the casing is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said a position at which an inner surface of the rear end wall intersects a rearmost and lowermost portion of an inner surface of the casing, with said the size of the casing increases as the distance between the rear edge of the drainage port and the position at which an inner surface of the rear end wall intersects a rearmost and lowermost portion of the inner surface of the casing increases, the precise height of the lowermost end of the drainage port would have been considered as a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed height of the lowermost end of the drainage port cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the height of the lowermost end of the drainage port in the apparatus of the modified Okamoto to obtain the desired size of the casing in order to contain sufficient amount of materials (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Okamoto teaches the conical twin-screw extruder according to Claim 1, wherein the drainage port is formed in a lower surface part of the rear portion of the casing (Okamoto, Figure 2, the rear end wall drains hole 41c formed at the lower end of the rear end wall 41 b, which is equivalent to the lower surface part of the rear end wall [0041]).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Okamoto teaches the conical twin-screw extruder according to Claim 4, wherein a rear end wall is disposed at a rear end of the casing (Okamoto, Figure 2, rear end wall 41b is located at the rear end of the casing 4), and the rear edge of the drainage port is located further back end of the casing than a rear edge of the introduction port (see annotated Figure 2 below). Okamoto fails to explicitly teach wherein a distance between a rear edge of the drainage port on an inner surface of the casing and an inner surface of the rear end wall is 1 mm or more.
As the construction cost and durability of the extruder are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said the thickness of the rear end wall which will change the distance between a rear edge of the drainage port on an inner surface of the casing and an inner surface of the rear end wall, with said the construction cost and durability of the extruder increases as the thickness of the rear end wall increases which resulted in an increased distance between a rear edge of the drainage port on an inner surface of the casing and an inner surface of the rear end wall, the precise distance between a rear edge of the drainage port on an inner surface of the casing and an inner surface of the rear end wall would have been considered as a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed distance cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the distance between a rear edge of the drainage port on an inner surface of the casing and an inner surface of the rear end wall in the apparatus of Okamoto to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and durability of the extruder and the thickness of the rear end wall (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
PNG
media_image3.png
541
686
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Okamoto teaches the conical twin-screw extruder according to Claim 4. Okamoto further discloses that the water drain hole can be located at various locations such as located at the bottom plate ([0012]-[0013]), rear end wall ([0014]-[0015]), or dewatering section ([0016]-[0017]) for various improvement benefits, but fails to explicitly teach wherein a rear edge of the drainage port on an inner surface of the casing is 5 to 200 mm higher than a position at which an inner surface of the rear end wall intersects a rearmost and lowermost portion of the inner surface of the casing.
As the size of the casing is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said a position at which an inner surface of the rear end wall intersects a rearmost and lowermost portion of an inner surface of the casing, with said the size of the casing increases as the distance between the rear edge of the drainage port and the position at which an inner surface of the rear end wall intersects a rearmost and lowermost portion of the inner surface of the casing increases, the precise height of the lowermost end of the drainage port would have been considered as a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed height of the lowermost end of the drainage port cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the height of the lowermost end of the drainage port in the apparatus of Okamoto to obtain the desired size of the casing in order to contain sufficient amount of materials (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). Furthermore, [0038] of the instant application further supported that the preferred height of the drainage port is a as a result effective variable based on the size of the casing.
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Okamoto teaches the twin-screw extruder according to Claim 1, wherein no solid- liquid separation structure is disposed in the drainage port (Okamoto does not teach the present of a solid-liquid separation means dispose din the drainage port).
Regarding Claim 16, the modified Okamoto teaches the twin-screw extruder according to Claim 1, but fails to teach wherein a distance between an outer circumference of flight of each screw and an inner surface of the casing is 5 mm or less.
As particle size and volumetric flowrate are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said distance between an outer circumference of flight of each screw and an inner surface of the casing, with said increase particle size and volumetric flowrate will increase the distance between an outer circumference of flight of each screw and an inner surface of the casing, the precise distance would have been considered as a result effective variable by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed distance between an outer circumference of flight of each screw and an inner surface of the casing cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the distance between an outer circumference of flight of each screw and an inner surface of the casing in the apparatus disclosed by Okamoto to allow for the desired particle size to move through the extruder at a desired volumetric flowrate. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 17, the modified Okamoto teaches the twin-screw extruder according to Claim 1, but fails to teach wherein a distance between an outer circumference of flight of each screw and an inner surface of the casing is 0.5 mm or less.
As particle size and volumetric flowrate are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said distance between an outer circumference of flight of each screw and an inner surface of the casing, with said increase particle size and volumetric flowrate will increase the distance between an outer circumference of flight of each screw and an inner surface of the casing, the precise distance would have been considered as a result effective variable by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed distance between an outer circumference of flight of each screw and an inner surface of the casing cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the distance between an outer circumference of flight of each screw and an inner surface of the casing in the apparatus disclosed by Okamoto to allow for the desired particle size to move through the extruder at a desired volumetric flowrate. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 21, the modified Okamoto teaches the twin-screw extruder according to Claim 1, wherein a slit, mesh, a cloth, a punching plate, a perforated metal, or a screen is not disposed in the drainage port (Okamoto does not teach the present of any of these items in the drainage port).
Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2017/202657 (Okamoto), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 01/31/2024, and US2017/0050400 (Sugawara) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US6,525,126 (“Hattori et al” hereinafter Hattori).
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Okamoto teaches the twin-screw extruder according to Claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the screws include a seal ring nearer than a rear end of the introduction port to a rear.
However, Hattori teaches the screws include a seal ring nearer than a rear end of the introduction port to a rear (See annotated Figure 1A, a seal ring 13su which comes in contact with the downstream end of the screw flight 13u, a screw flight 13m extending from the downstream end to the midstream of the barrel, a seal ring 13sm which comes in contact with the downstream end of the screw flight 13m, and a screw flight 13d at the most downstream side of the barrel starting from the downstream end of the screw flight 13m (Col 10, lines 49-56). The seal ring is located nearer to the rear side of the casing than the material supply port 12d).
Okamoto and Hattori are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of extruder with rotors to discharge materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by the modified Okamoto to incorporated a seal ring located nearer to the rear than the introduction port as taught by Hattori to ensure the complete kneading or compression in each section by preventing the ingredients present in each section from passing through the section prior to the completion of the working of the section (Col. 8, lines 35-39).
PNG
media_image4.png
284
758
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, the modified Okamoto teaches the twin-screw extruder according to Claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the introduction port is spaced apart from the rear end wall of the casing.
However, Hattori teaches the introduction port is spaced apart from the rear end wall of the casing (see annotated Figure 1A below).
Okamoto and Hattori are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of extruder with rotors to discharge materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by the modified Okamoto such that it teaches all of the limitation discussed above as taught by Hattori because the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way to position the material introduction port. See MPEP 2143. Furthermore, rearrange position of the introduction portion as discussed above in the apparatus of the modified Okamoto as taught by Hattori would be obvious matter of design choice in order for the extruder to melt and knead all of the raw materials.
Claim(s) 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2017/202657 (Okamoto), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 01/31/2024, in view of US6,525,126 (“Hattori et al” hereinafter Hattori) and US2017/0050400 (Sugawara).
Regarding Claim 18, Okamoto teaches a conical twin-screw extruder (Figure 1) for compression of a water-containing material ([0001], the material generates water [0042]), comprising:
a casing (Figure 1, casing 4) comprising: a discharge port at a tip of the casing to discharge a kneaded mixture (Figure 1, material discharge portion 5 located at the tip of the casing 4); and an introduction port in a rear portion of a top wall of the casing to introduce the water-containing material (Figures 1 and 2, material charging port 41a for introducing materials and located at a rear portion of a top wall of the casing, the material generates water [0042]), and
two screws installed in the casing (Figure 1, screw 31 and taper screw 21 installed in the casing 4), wherein the casing has a drainage port (Figure 2, a rear end wall drain hole 41c formed at the lower end of the rear end wall 41 b and bottom plate drain hole 41 e formed in the bottom plate 41) in a rear end wall (Figure 2, a rear end wall drain hole 41c formed at the lower end of the rear end wall 41 b) disposed at a rear end of a bottom wall on the other side of the top wall of the casing (Figure 2, bottom plate drain hole 41 e formed in the bottom plate 41 [0042]) to drain a water separated from the water- containing material ([0042]),
PNG
media_image5.png
336
901
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
545
666
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and a lowermost end of the drainage port is higher than a lowermost end of the rear end wall of the casing (see annotated Figure 2 and [0041]). Okamoto fails to teach the introduction port is nearer than the rear end wall to a front of the casing and spaced apart from the rear end wall of the casing.
However, Hattori teaches the introduction port is nearer than the rear end wall to a front of the casing and spaced apart from the rear end wall of the casing (see annotated Figure 1A, second supply port 12m is located nearer than the rear end wall of the barrel 11 to a front of the barrel 11, where the nozzle is located, and spaced apart from the rear end wall of the barrel).
Okamoto and Hattori are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of extruder with rotors to discharge materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by Okamoto such that it teaches all of the limitation discussed above as taught by Hattori because the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way to position the material introduction port. See MPEP 2143. Furthermore, rearrange position of the introduction portion as discussed above in the apparatus of Okamoto as taught by Hattori would be obvious matter of design choice in order for the extruder to melt and knead all of the raw materials.
Okamoto fails to teach a bottom wall of the casing does not include another drainage port at an intersection between the rear end wall and the bottom wall of the casing or at an area directly below the introduction port.
However, Sugawara teaches a bottom wall of the casing does not include another drainage port at an intersection between the rear end wall and the bottom wall of the casing or at an area directly below the introduction port (Figure 1, drainage port 11b formed an opening on the lower end portion of the casing and there is no drainage port at the bottom wall of the casing).
Okamoto and Sugawara are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of extruder with rotors to discharge materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by the modified Okamoto such that it teaches all of the limitation discussed above as taught by Sugawara because the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way to position the water drainage port. See MPEP 2143. Furthermore, the number and locations of the water drainage port as discussed above in the apparatus of Okamoto as taught by Sugawara would be obvious matter of design choice in order to efficiently remove the excess water from the extruder without removing the kneeled materials.
Regarding Claim 20, the modified Okamoto teaches the conical twin-screw extruder according to Claim 18, Okamoto teaches the second supply port 12m is located nearer than the rear end wall of the barrel 11 to a front of the barrel 11, where the nozzle is located, and spaced apart from the rear end wall of the barrel, but fails to explicitly teach wherein a distance between the rear end of the introduction port and the rear end wall is 10 mm or more and 1,000 mm or less.
As the construction cost and durability of the extruder are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said the thickness of the rear end wall which will change the distance between the rear end of the introduction port and the rear end wall, with said the construction cost and durability of the extruder increases as the thickness of the rear end wall increases which resulted in an increased distance between the rear end of the introduction port and the rear end wall, the precise distance between the rear end of the introduction port and the rear end wall would have been considered as a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed distance cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the distance between the rear end of the introduction port and the rear end wall in the apparatus of Okamoto to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and durability of the extruder and the thickness of the rear end wall (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Applicant argues Okamoto indicates that the location of the bottom plate drain hole formed in the bottom plate and at an area directly below the material inlet (41a) is important to sufficiently dewatering the material to be processed by the conical twin-screw extruder, there is no reason to modify the location of the bottom plate drain hole (41e) or exclude the bottom plate drain hole (41e) because such a modification would render the operation of apparatus of Okamoto unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2143.01 (V).
The Examiner respectfully disagreed. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (MPEP 2144. IV). Okamoto reference is not relied upon to disclose the absence of drainage port at the bottom wall and modify the bottom wall of the Okamoto reference will not change the fundamental operation principle of the Okamoto because the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way to position the water drainage port. Furthermore, the number and locations of the water drainage port as discussed above in the modified apparatus of Okamoto would be obvious matter of design choice in order to efficiently remove the excess water from the extruder without removing the kneeled materials.
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 XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754