DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendments and remarks filed 04/22/2026 in which claims 72-74 have been newly added and claims 1-3, 9-11, 15-16, 19, 24, 34-40, 52 and 70-74 are pending and ready for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/22/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 22 APRIL 2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has/have been considered. An initialed copy of Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Govinna, N., Sadeghi, I., Asatekin, A. and Cebe, P. (2019), Thermal properties and structure of electrospun blends of PVDF with a fluorinated copolymer. J. Polym. Sci. Part B: Polym. Phys., 57: 312-322. (hereinafter “Govinna”)
Regarding Claims 2-3 Govinna discloses a filter media, comprising:
a fine fiber layer comprising a plurality of fine fibers; wherein the fine fibers comprise an impact modifier (i.e. P(MMA-r-PFDMA)) dispersed in a matrix polymer (PVDF),
wherein the impact modifier, P(MMA-r-PFDMA), comprises a copolymer comprising at least two different monomers;
wherein the fine fibers comprise electrospun fibers; (see Abstract, Introduction, Materials, Electrospinning);
wherein the weight percent of the impact modifier in the fine fibers is, in specific examples, 5, 10 and 15 wt% of the combination of the impact modifier and the matrix polymer and wherein the matrix polymer comprises, in the same examples, 85, 90 and 95 wt.% of PVDF, a thermoplastic polymer (in the Examples, the matrix polymer comprises 100, 95, 90, 85, 80, 75, 50, 25, and 0 wt% of PVDF (Materials, Fig. 1), and thus the copolymer (impact modifier) comprises 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 50 and 100 wt).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
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 CFR 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.
Claims 1-3, 9-11, 15-16, 19, 24 and 34-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0203306 A1 (hereinafter “Grafe”) in view of US 2020/0254371 A1 (hereinafter “Yung”) and alternatively further in view of Yalcinkaya, F., Yalcinkaya, B. & Hruza, J. Electrospun Polyamide-6 Nanofiber Hybrid Membranes for Wastewater Treatment. Fibers Polym 20, 93–99 (2019). (hereinafter “Yalcinkaya”).
Regarding Claims 1-3 Grafe discloses a nonwoven wipe material (i.e. which is porous, [0021] and claims 5-6, and thus may function as filter media), comprising:
a fine fiber layer comprising a plurality of fine fibers; wherein the fine fibers comprise electrospun fibers [0007]-[0009], [0041];
wherein the fine fibers may comprise a blend of polymers including nylon-6 “blended with a nylon copolymer such as a Nylon-6, 6,6; 6,10 copolymer” [0032]-[0034], and thus the fine fibers are seen to comprise an impact modifier (nylon copolymer comprising at least two different monomers) dispersed in a matrix polymer (nylon 6); and
wherein the molecular weight of the nylon 6 is not specifically disclosed, it is noted that the polymer blend should use a first and a second polymer differing in “polymer type, molecular weight or physical property”, and therefore as the nylon copolymer is already of a different polymer type then nylon 6, it would have been obvious to use a nylon 6 polymer having the same or similar molecular weight as the copolymer, wherein the nylon copolymer is disclosed to have a molecular weight of 21,500-24,800 [0034], i.e. 21.5-24.8 kDa, and therefore the matrix polymer comprises only polymers with a molecular weight of greater than 3 kDa.
With regard to the amount of impact modifier, Grafe is silent to the relative amounts of nylon-6 and nylon copolymer, however it is disclosed that the blend of polymers is done specifically to improve physical properties [0032]. Therefore the amount of nylon copolymer/impact modifier (i.e. relative to the combination of the impact modifier and the matrix polymer) is thus a variable which achieves a recognized result, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize this variable through routine experimentation, by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
With more specific regard to what percent of the copolymer to include, Yung discloses forming polyamide nanofiber nonwovens for filters, wherein the fibers may be formed from nylon-6 blended with a nylon copolymer such as Nylon-6:66:6,10 copolymer [0051], wherein the nylon 6 may be included in an amount from 0.1-99.9 wt%, 15-85 wt% of the fiber [0054]; and thus the remainder; i.e. 0.1-99.9 wt% and 15-85 wt%, may be the copolymer; and that “[t]here is a substantial advantage to forming polymeric compositions comprising two or more polymeric materials in polymer admixture, alloy format or in a crosslinked chemically bonded structure. We believe such polymer compositions improve physical properties by changing polymer attributes such as improving polymer chain flexibility or chain mobility, increasing overall molecular weight and providing reinforcement through the formation of networks of polymeric materials” [0060].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the nonwoven PA-6 nanofibers of Grafe by using 0.1-99.9 wt% and 15-85 wt% of the copolymer mixed with remainder PA-6 as disclosed by Yung because this involves the simple substitution of known concentrations of copolymer additives added to PA-6 to improve its mechanical properties to obtain the predictable result of forming a functional PA-6/copolymer composite material, and because such mixed polymer systems provide improved physical properties by changing polymer attributes such as improving polymer chain flexibility or chain mobility, increasing overall molecular weight and providing reinforcement through the formation of networks of polymeric materials.
With more specific regard to the wipe being filter media, as Grafe makes a distinction between filter media and wipes via discussion of stiffness [0061]-[00065], it is noted that this distinction is with regard to filter media needing to withstand certain filtration process conditions which do not apply to all “filter media” as broadly claimed, which can comprise media which are used as adsorbents or column packing and need no structural support.
Further, alternately, with regard to functioning specifically as industrially applicable filter membranes, Yalcinkaya discloses it is known to provide PA-6 based nanofiber filtration layers with a supporting porous woven and nonwoven fabric materials to improve the mechanical properties of the membrane for use as filters (Abstract, Introduction, Conclusion).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the nonwoven PA-6 nanofiber layer of Grafe by providing an additional supporting woven or nonwoven fabric material in order to use it as a filter because Yalcinkaya discloses such materials are highly promising for microfiltration applications.
Regarding Claim 9 Grafe in view of Yung and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein the impact modifier (PA-6-66-610) is a copolymer comprising at least two different monomers, wherein at least one monomer has an affinity to the matrix polymer (i.e. because it is the same monomer as the matrix polymer) and wherein at least one monomer does not have affinity to the matrix polymer (because it is not the same monomer as the matrix polymer).
Regarding Claim 10 Grafe in view of Yung and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein the matrix polymer (nylon copolymer) comprises 100 wt.% of a linear polymer [0034].
Regarding Claim 11 Grafe in view of Yung and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein the matrix polymer comprises greater than or equal to 50 wt.% and less than or equal to 100 wt.% of a thermoplastic polymer (PA-6), supra.
Regarding Claims 15-16 Grafe in view of Yung and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein the fine fibers have an average fiber diameter of 0.01-5 microns [0034, including specifically 0.05 micron [0036].
Regarding Claim 19 Grafe in view of Yung and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein the matrix polymer comprises a polyamide, supra.
Regarding Claim 24 Grafe in view of Yung and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein the impact modifier comprises a polyamide, supra.
Regarding Claim 34 Grafe in view of Yung and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein the impact modifier comprises a terpolymer (nylon 6-66-610), supra.
Regarding Claim 35 Grafe in view of Yung and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein because the matrix polymer is polyamide 6 and the impact modifier is a copolymer of multiple types of polyamides, just as Applicants Example 2, it is expected to possesses the same properties as claimed, see MPEP 2112.02, including that the impact modifier exhibits independent thermal transitions from the matrix polymer, does not substantially chemically react with the matrix polymer, and/or does not substantially affect thermal transitions of the matrix polymer, wherein the impact modifier does not substantially chemically react with the matrix polymer when there is no observable heat flow when observed using calorimetry.
Regarding Claim 36 Grafe in view of Yung and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein because the matrix polymer is polyamide 6 and the impact modifier is a copolymer of multiple types of polyamides, just as Applicants Example 2, it is expected to possesses the same properties as claimed, see MPEP 2112.02, including that wherein the impact modifier comprises discrete microdomains having an average largest cross-sectional diameter less than or equal to 3/4 the average diameter of the fine fibers.
Regarding Claim 37 Grafe in view of Yung and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein because the matrix polymer is polyamide 6 and the impact modifier is a copolymer of multiple types of polyamides, just as Applicants Example 2, it is expected to possesses the same properties as claimed, see MPEP 2112.02, including that wherein the impact modifier comprises discrete microdomains having an average largest cross-sectional diameter of greater than or equal to 10 nm and less than or equal to 500 nm.
Regarding Claim 38 Grafe in view of Yung and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein Grafe discloses a wide range of polymers/blends [0024]-[0034] and thus a wide range of polymers which may be the matrix polymer many of which have glass transition temperatures in the range claimed, including polyamide 6 which is known to have a glass transition of around 60°C.
Regarding Claim 39 Grafe in view of Yung and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein Grafe discloses a wide range of polymers/blends [0024]-[0034] and thus a wide range of polymers which may be the impact modifier, many of which have glass transition temperatures in the range claimed, particularly the fluorocarbons show to be useful down to -15, -22, -40 and -50°F [0028], [0030].
Regarding Claim 40 Grafe in view of Yung and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein the fine fiber layer comprises a void volume of greater than or equal to 60% and less than or equal to 95%, or 75-85%; [0014]-[0017].
Regarding Claim 72 Grafe in view of Yung and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein the fine fibers consist essentially of the impact modifier and the matrix polymer (no additional additives are required; “[t]he fine fibers can be made of a polymer material or a polymer plus additive” ([0034], emphasis added).
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grafe in view of Yung and Yalcinkaya further in view of US 2018/0272258 A1 (hereinafter “Healey”).
Regarding Claim 52 Grafe in view of Yung and Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the filter media has a gamma of greater than or equal to 3 and less than or equal to 400.
However Healey discloses a fibrous filter media, wherein it is disclosed that values of gamma including “greater than or equal to about 90” are desirable for similar fibrous filtration media; [0165]-[0166].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter media of Grafe in view of Yung and Yalcinkaya by using gamma values of greater than or equal to about 90 as disclosed by Healey because these are known desirable gamma values for similar fibrous filtration media.
Claims 70-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grafe in view of Yung and Yalcinkaya further in view of US 2012/0137885 A1 (hereinafter “Dullaert”).
Regarding Claims 70-71 Grafe in view of Yung and Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, but does not disclose additional filter layers, however Dullaert discloses a similar fine fiber filter layer, wherein the fiber filter layer filter medium can be used in multilayer filtration media, including support(s) of PP or PET nonwovens [0081] specifically including melt blown material [0083]-[0084], but where such nonwovens are well known to includes those made by wet-laid/dry-laid processes, and any layer could be considered a “spacer”; and where there may be two or more layers, including other nanoweb layers; [0027]-[0028], [0033].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter of Grafe in view of Yung and Yalcinkaya by using the fine fiber layer in a multilayer filter including at least two layers, and thus any number of more layers, as disclosed by Dullaert because this provides further support and protection to the fine fiber layer and overall filter. With specific regard to the layers and their order, it is seen as obvious to use at least 2 layers, and thus any number of further layers including 4 and 6, the order of the layers is not seen as critical, and as above the disclosed additional layers in Dullaert would include nonwovens which are obvious to form via various process including melt-blown, wet-laid, and dry-laid, and any of which could be called a spacer layer, including further fine filter layers is similarly seen as obvious in constructing a multilayer filter. Without further details to the layers and criticality to their order, the claimed layers are seen as obvious.
Claim 73 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grafe in view of Yung and Yalcinkaya further in view of Ojha, S.S., Afshari, M., Kotek, R. and Gorga, R.E. (2008), Morphology of electrospun nylon-6 nanofibers as a function of molecular weight and processing parameters. J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 108: 308-319. (hereinafter “Ohja”).
Regarding Claim 73 Grafe in view of Yung and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the matrix polymer and/or the impact modifier has a mass average molecular weight of greater than or equal to 30 kDa.
However Ohja discloses that the molecular weight of electrospun nylon 6, having molecular weights from 30-63 kDa, effects fiber diameter and mechanical properties of the fibers formed (Abstract, Electrospinning, Conclusion). Thus molecular weight of electrospun nylon-6 is a variable which achieves a recognized result, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize this variable through routine experimentation, by using values of at least 30-63 KDa as used by Ohja, including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
Claim 74 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grafe in view of Yung and Yalcinkaya further in view of US 2010/0288692 A1 (hereinafter “Kakzau”).
Regarding Claim 74 Grafe in view of Yung and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the impact modifier has a polydispersity index (PDI) of less than or equal to 3.
However Kakzau discloses forming a nanofiber from aromatic copolyamide (i.e. a polyamide copolymer, Abstract, [0012]), wherein the polydispersity (i.e. polydispersity index (PDI)) of the copolyamide is 1.0-2.0, because a larger polydispersity “results in a large variation in the diameter of the thus-fabricated nanofibers” [0024].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter of Grafe in view of Yung and Yalcinkaya by using a PDI for the polyamide copolymer impact modifier of 1.0-2.0 as disclosed by Kakzau in order to produce nanofibers having less variation in diameter.
Claims 1, 9-11, 15-16, 40 and 72-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by and/or under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govinna, N., Sadeghi, I., Asatekin, A. and Cebe, P. (2019), Thermal properties and structure of electrospun blends of PVDF with a fluorinated copolymer. J. Polym. Sci. Part B: Polym. Phys., 57: 312-322. (hereinafter “Govinna”) in view of US 2016/0202639 Al (hereinafter “Matsushita”).
Regarding Claim 1 Govinna discloses a filter media, comprising:
a fine fiber layer comprising a plurality of fine fibers; wherein the fine fibers comprise an impact modifier (i.e. P(MMA-r-PFDMA)) dispersed in a matrix polymer (PVDF),
wherein the impact modifier, P(MMA-r-PFDMA), comprises a copolymer comprising at least two different monomers;
wherein the fine fibers comprise electrospun fibers; (see Abstract, Introduction, Materials, Electrospinning);
wherein the weight percent of the impact modifier in the fine fibers is, in specific examples, 5, 10 and 15 wt% of the combination of the impact modifier and the matrix polymer (in the Examples, the matrix polymer comprises 100, 95, 90, 85, 80, 75, 50, 25, and 0 wt% of PVDF (Materials, Fig. 1), and thus the copolymer (impact modifier) comprises 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 50 and 100 wt).
Govinna is silent to the molecular weight of the PVDF used, and thus does not disclose wherein the matrix polymer comprises only polymers with a molecular weight of greater than 3 kDa.
However, Govinna discloses the PVDF used is KYNAR grade 740 (Materials). As disclosed by Matsushita, the molecular weight of KYNAR 740 is 250,000; [0179]-[0182].
Therefore, the KYNAR grade 740 is seen to inherently have a molecular weight of 250 kDa.
Alternatively, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter of Govinna by using KYNAR grade 740 with a molecular weight of 250 kDa, as disclosed by Matsushita because this is a known molecular weight for KYNAR 740.
Regarding Claim 9 Govinna as evidenced by or in view of Matsushita discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein at least one monomer of the at least two different monomers has an affinity to the matrix polymer (i.e. the PMMA of the P(MMA-r-PFDMA), which is miscible with PVDF; Govinna Introduction) and wherein at least one monomer does not have affinity to the matrix polymer (i.e. the PFDMA of the P(MMA-r-PFDMA), which may segregate to the fiber surface and is thus immiscible with PVDF; Govinna Introduction).
Regarding Claim 10 Govinna as evidenced by or in view of Matsushita discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein the matrix polymer comprises, in specific examples, 100, 95, 90, 85, 80, 75, and 50 wt% of PVDF (Govinna Materials, Fig. 1), a homopolymer polymer and a linear polymer.
Regarding Claim 11 Govinna as evidenced by or in view of Matsushita discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein the matrix polymer comprises, in specific examples, 100, 95, 90, 85, 80, 75, and 50 wt% of PVDF (Govinna Materials, Fig. 1), a thermoplastic polymer.
Regarding Claim 15-16 Govinna as evidenced by or in view of Matsushita discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein the fine fibers have an average fiber diameter of 0.4-1.9 µm (Fiber Properties, Fig. 1j). Since the range disclosed overlaps the range claimed, the range recited in the claim is considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the disclosed range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 40 Govinna as evidenced by or in view of Matsushita discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein it is disclosed that “[t]he effectiveness of these membranes depends on properties such as high porosity” (Govinna Introduction, pg. 312). Thus the porosity (i.e. the percent void volume) is a variable which achieves a recognized result, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize this variable through routine experimentation, by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
Regarding Claim 72 Govinna as evidenced by or in view of Matsushita discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein the fine fibers consist essentially of the impact modifier and the matrix polymer (Govinna Materials, Electrospinning, pg. 313)
Regarding Claim 73 Govinna as evidenced by or in view of Matsushita discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein the matrix polymer has a mass average molecular weight of 250 kDa; supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments are largely moot because they are directed in their entirety to grounds of rejection which are no longer cited in the current action and the new limitations of the amended claims which had not been previously addressed. See the updated rejection above citing a new combination of references to address the amended claims.
In response to Applicants’ argument that, with regard to new claim 72, Grafe does not disclose “wherein the fine fibers consist essentially of the impact modifier, the matrix polymer, and, optionally, a salt; wherein the fine fibers comprise less than or equal to 5 wt% of the salt, when present”; the Examiner disagrees. Applicants argue that Grafe requires an additive because the disclosure in [0034], however that same paragraph is clear that the additives are optional, “[t]he fine fibers can be made of a polymer material or a polymer plus additive” ([0034], emphasis added).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric J. McCullough whose telephone number is (571)272-8885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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, Benjamin L Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/ERIC J MCCULLOUGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights