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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/14/2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejection and Claim Objection previously set forth in the office action mailed 07/14/2025. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not introduced new matter and are supported in the specification in at least [0018] and [0050] of the instant specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant summarizes instant claim 1 and the prior art Fritz on Pg. 8-10 of the remarks. Applicant then argues on Pg. 9-10 that the prior art Fritz teaches the rheological additive is removable (citing par. [0028]) and that there would be no motivation for a skilled artisan to incorporate polyethylene glycol or ethylene-vinyl alcohol into a base polymer to provide the channeling agent from 2 to 15 wt.% by weight to the total weight of the entrained polymer compositions. Applicant argues on Pg. 10 the entrained polymer of the instant invention can include the channeling agent and be incorporated into the composition.
However, as stated in previous actions and outlined in the rejection below, Fritz teaches rheological additives that are substantially identical to the claimed channeling agent and that the rheological additives are present from 0.5 to 25 wt.% of the composition ([0045]-[0048]). Examiner acknowledges Fritz describes the rheological additive as removable in, for example, in par. [0048]. However, Fritz teaches that a heating step is used to remove the rheological additive, where the heating is from about 140 to 300 °C ([0042]). In this way, Fritz teaches a composition comprising the required rheological additive (i.e. channeling agent) prior to heating and meets the method required by the claim. The claims do not exclude heating the composition and accordingly the precalcined composition taught by Fritz, containing a pore-forming reagent overlapping the range required by the claim, meets the limitations required by the claim. Examiner further notes the instant specification does not appear to heat the composition above 100 °C and that the instant specification describes that when calcination is performed at 300 °C, decomposition of the organic matter occurs ([00124]).
Applicant argues on Pg. 10-11 the secondary prior art cited fails to overcome or cure the shortcomings in the combination of Fritz and Janchen.
However, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The secondary references Franklin and Hekal are not relied on to teach the rheological additive (i.e. channeling agent), but rather Fritz is. Examiner notes Hekal was not applied in the in the Office Action dated 07/14/2025 and that claim 42 is rejected in part with secondary reference Chandrasekhar. Regardless, arguments pertaining to Hekal are considered moot.
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, 5, 7-8, 12, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz et al. (US20060105158A1) in view of Janchen et al. (Solar Energy 2004, 76, 339–344), with evidentiary support provided by Drobek et al. (Encyclopedia of Membranes, 31 August 2016) and applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, Fritz teaches a method to prepare an adsorbing material comprised of porous functional solids incorporated into a polymeric matrix (Title; Abstract) which includes forming a compound comprising a functional solid and at least one organic polymer and at least one rheological additive, where the functional porous solid includes zeolites, preferably type-A, X, and Y zeolites, which have been at least partly substituted with an alkaline or alkaline earth metal ([0018]). Alkali and alkaline earth metals are groups I and II of the periodic table, respectively, and include sodium, lithium, magnesium, and calcium. Fritz teaches the adsorbing material or the shaped article exhibit excellent water adsorption kinetics ([0031]-[0032]). Fritz teaches the aluminum silicate zeolites are preferably type-A, X, and Y zeolites, which can be used in the pure state or the doped stated ([0018]). Fritz further teaches the zeolite used in an example is provided by commercial suppliers ([0073]). Accordingly, providing a pure type-A, X, or Y zeolite obtained from a commercial supplier is equivalent to providing a “raw or unaltered state of the aluminosilicate zeolite” prior to performing the cation exchange step (b), and meets this limitation.
Further, type-A zeolites are synonymous with Linde Type A (LTA) zeolites, as evidenced by Drobek (Pg. 2055), which meets the limitation “LTA-type.” Further, X-type and Y-type zeolites are both synonymous with FAU-type zeolites, where the difference between the two is the amount of silica in the aluminosilicate, as evidenced by Drobek (Pg. 2059). Thus, Fritz teaches the zeolite is a LTA or FAU topology zeolite.
Fritz teaches at least one polymer matrix is present, where the porous functional solid is incorporated into a polymer matrix ([0021]). Fritz teaches the function of the organic polymer is that of a host material (i.e. polymer matrix) which encapsulates the porous functional solid and provides a processible blend which can be further shaped into a broad variety of articles ([0040]). A porous functional solid incorporated into a polymer matrix meets the limitation “wherein the zeolite is entrained in the polymer compositions,” as outlined by the definition of moisture adsorbing desiccant entrained polymers in at least [0015] of the instant specification.
Fritz further teaches a rheological additive is present which serves as a pore forming agent ([0041]). Fritz teaches the rheological additive is selected from natural waxes (e.g. beeswax, paraffin waxes), semi synthetic waxes (e.g. montan waxes), synthetic waxes (e.g. polyolefin waxes, ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, ethylene-vinyl alcohol, polyolefin glycols, amide wax), modified, oxidized or microcrystalline forms of the aforementioned waxes and any combination of these, where among the polar waxy components, polyethylene glycols, oxidized polyolefin waxes, ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, ethylene-vinyl alcohol and any combination of these are preferred ([0041]). Fritz further teaches the rheological additive is present from 0.5 to 25 wt.% of the composition ([0045]-[0048]). Taken together, the presence of pore forming agents comprising at least one porous functional solid incorporated in a polymer matrix, where the polymer matrix is incorporated into the pores of the porous material ([0016]-[0018]). The presence of pores in Fritz is synonymous with the term “channels” in the instant specification, see at least ([0010]-[0014]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Fritz (is present from 0.5 to 25 wt.% of the composition) overlaps with the claimed range (range from 2% to 15% by weight with respect to the total weight of the polymer composition). Therefore, the range in Fritz renders obvious the claimed range.
The term “channeling agent” as defined in the instant specification is a material immiscible with the base polymer and has an affinity to transport a gas phase substance, while also being capable of forming channels through the entrained polymer ([0038). In this regard, the rheological material of Fritz serves the same purpose as the channeling agent of the instant invention and have overlapping chemical identities. The courts have held that “a compound and all its properties are mutually inseparable”, In re Papesch, 315F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 42, 51 (CCPA 1963). Further, attention is drawn to MPEP 2112.01, which states that “products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.”, In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, Fritz teaches an overlapping amount of the rheological additive being present as the channeling agent of the instant claims, as well as teaching identical chemicals to the channeling agent of the instant claims (i.e. polyethylene glycols, ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, ethylene-vinyl alcohol). Taken together, the rheological additive of Fritz meets the limitation “channeling agent” as required by claim 1. Further, Fritz teaching overlapping rheological additives as the instant claims would also require the additives of Fritz to have “an affinity” to transport a gas phase substances at a faster rate than a base polymer as well as have “a water vapor transmission rate of at least two times that of the base polymer.”
The claims require the crude zeolite is a LTA or FAU “sodium zeolite,” to which Fritz is silent regarding the crude zeolite being a sodium zeolite.
Janchen teaches a systematic study where zeolites NaA, NaX, and NaY, comprising sodium ions, are modified with hydroscopic salts such as MgCl2 and CaCl2 (Pg. 340, Experimental Section; Title; Abstract).
Advantageously, exchanging monovalent sodium ions by one equivalent of bivalent magnesium ions compensates charge in the zeolite while enlarging the pore volume of the zeolite, allowing more space for the adsorption of water into the pores (Pg. 341).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform ion-exchange on Na-containing zeolites with Mg and Li in the process of Fritz in order to provide the zeolite with increased pore volume and increased space for adsorption of water into the pores as taught by Janchen.
The claims further require “drying the treated cation exchanged zeolite to provide a dried cation exchanged zeolite.” Fritz teaches the zeolite/polymer composite is used for drying applications ([0002]), acting by removing water ([0063]). Accordingly drying the zeolite would be obvious to a skilled artisan in order to allow the zeolite material to adsorb water.
Further, Janchen explicitly teaches this aspect, where NaA, NaX, and NaY zeolites are exchanged with Li, Ca, Mg, Zn, Co, Al, and Fe and are calcined (i.e. high temperature heating) in high vacuum prior to being used in water adsorption experiments (Pg. 340, 2. Experimental section and materials; Pg. 341, Fig. 2). Drying zeolites is extremely common in the art. Advantageously, calcined ion-exchanged zeolites display increased water adsorption capacities and integral heat of sorption values compared with the non-exchanged counterparts (Pg. 343-344, Conclusions; Table 1).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to calcine ion-exchanged zeolites prior to performing water adsorption in the process of Fritz in order to increase the water adsorption capacity and integral heat of sorption values as taught by Janchen.
The claims further require “wherein the dried cation exchanged zeolite has a water adsorption capacity that is greater than the water adsorption capacity of the crude zeolite before cation exchange treatment,” and “a water adsorption capacity per gram of zeolite that is greater than the crude zeolite,” to which Fritz is silent.
However, Janchen teaches a systematic study where zeolites NaA, NaX, and NaY, comprising sodium ions, are modified with hydroscopic salts such as MgCl2 and CaCl2 (Pg. 340, Experimental Section; Title; Abstract). Janchen teaches that a linear increase in water absorption occurs with the degree of Mg ion exchanged into the zeolite, with similar findings for Li ions (Pg. 341, 3.1; Fig. 2; Table 1). Janchen therefore teaches that Mg and Li exchange is a result-effective variable for water adsorption, where greater ion exchange into type-A, X, and Y zeolites leads to increased water adsorption of the zeolite after exchange. This meets the instant limitation as the crude zeolite (i.e. lacking cation exchange) would have lower water adsorption than an ion-exchanged zeolite, where the ions being exchanged are sodium ions for magnesium or lithium ions.
Advantageously, exchanging monovalent sodium ions by one equivalent of bivalent magnesium ions compensates charge in the zeolite while enlarging the pore volume of the zeolite, allowing more space for the adsorption of water into the pores (Pg. 341).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform ion-exchange with Mg and Li in the process of Fritz in order to provide the zeolite with increased pore volume and increased space for adsorption of water into the pores as taught by Janchen.
Regarding claim 5, Fritz in view of Janchen teach the method of claim 1.
Fritz further teaches the aluminum silicate zeolites are preferably type-A, X, and Y zeolites, which have been at least partly substituted with an alkaline or alkaline earth metal ([0018]). Alkali and alkaline earth metals are groups I and II of the periodic table, respectively, and include sodium, lithium, magnesium, and calcium.
Fritz is silent regarding the “zeolite solution comprises MgCl2 or LiCl.”
However, Janchen teaches a systematic study where zeolites NaA, NaX, and NaY, comprising sodium ions, are modified with hydroscopic salts such as MgCl2 and CaCl2 (Pg. 340, Experimental Section; Title; Abstract).
Advantageously, exchanging monovalent sodium ions by one equivalent of bivalent magnesium ions compensates charge in the zeolite while enlarging the pore volume of the zeolite, allowing more space for the adsorption of water into the pores (Pg. 341).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform ion-exchange with MgCl2 and LiCl in the process of Fritz in order to provide the zeolite with increased pore volume and increased space for adsorption of water into the pores as taught by Janchen.
Regarding claim 7, Fritz in view of Janchen teach the method of claim 1 and 5. Fritz further teaches the porous functional solid may be added to the polymer component in powder form ([0053]).
Regarding claim 8, Fritz in view of Janchen teach the method of claim 1. Fritz further teaches the aluminum silicate zeolites are preferably type-A, X, and Y zeolites, which have been at least partly substituted with an alkali or alkaline earth metal ([0018]). Alkali and alkaline earth metals are groups I and II of the periodic table, respectively, and include sodium, lithium, magnesium, and calcium.
The claim further requires “the water adsorption capacity of the polymer composition is from at least 1 % to 33 % greater than the water adsorption capacity of the crude sodium zeolite,” to which Fritz is silent.
Janchen teaches a systematic study where zeolites NaA, NaX, and NaY, comprising sodium ions, are modified with hydroscopic salts such as MgCl2 and CaCl2 (Pg. 340, Experimental Section; Title; Abstract). Janchen teaches that a linear increase in water absorption occurs with the degree of Mg ion exchanged into the zeolite, with similar findings for Li ions (Pg. 341, 3.1; Fig. 2; Table 1). Janchen therefore teaches that Mg and Li exchange is a result effective variable for water adsorption, where greater ion exchange into type-A, X, and Y zeolites leads to increased water adsorption of the zeolite after exchange. Janchen teaches examples, where for Mg ion-exchanged NaA zeolite, the adsorbed water (g/g) is about 0.29 prior to ion-exchange and 0.38 after about 70% ion-exchange (Pg. 340; Fig. 2), which is about 31% greater following ion-exchange. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Janchen (increase of water adsorption by 31% after ion exchange) overlaps with the claimed range (from at least 1 % to 33 %). Therefore, the range in Janchen renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, exchanging monovalent sodium ions by one equivalent of bivalent magnesium ions compensates charge in the zeolite while enlarging the pore volume of the zeolite, allowing more space for the adsorption of water into the pores (Pg. 341).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to performing ion-exchange with Mg and Li which increases the water adsorption of the zeolite by 31% in the process of Fritz in order to provide the zeolite with increased pore volume and increased space for adsorption of water into the pores as taught by Janchen.
Regarding claim 12, Fritz in view of Janchen teach the method of claim 1. Fritz teaches the organic polymer is preferably selected from at least one of polyolefin (e.g. polyethylene or polypropylene), polystyrene, polyamide, polyamide imide, polyester, polyester amide, polycarbonate, ethylene-methacrylate copolymer, polyacrylic ester, poly acrylic acid, polyacetal, polyether sulphone, polyether ketone, polysulphone, polyethylene terephthalate, polybutylene, terephthalate, liquid crystal polymer (LCP) and any combination thereof ([0021]).
Regarding claim 15, Fritz in view of Janchen teach the method of claim 1. Fritz further teaches a rheological additive is present which serves as a pore forming agent ([0041]). As outlined in claim 1, the rheological additive is equivalent to the channeling agent in the claims. Fritz further teaches the rheological additive is selected from natural waxes (e.g. beeswax, paraffin waxes), semi synthetic waxes (e.g. montan waxes), synthetic waxes (e.g. polyolefin waxes, ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, ethylene-vinyl alcohol, polyolefin glycols, amide wax), modified, oxidized or microcrystalline forms of the aforementioned waxes and any combination of these, where among the polar waxy components, polyethylene glycols, oxidized polyolefin waxes, ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, ethylene-vinyl alcohol and any combination of these are preferred ([0041]).
Regarding claim 19, Fritz in view of Janchen teach the method of claim 1 and Fritz further teaches the shaped article composition can be included in packaging and that the material includes resins and plastics ([0002]; [0003]; [0023]; [0065]).
Claims 6, 41, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz et al. (US20060105158A1) in view of Janchen et al. (Solar Energy 2004, 76, 339–344) and further in view of Franklin et al. (J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. I, 1988, 84, 8, 2755-2770), with evidentiary support provided by Drobek et al. (Encyclopedia of Membranes, 31 August 2016) and applied to claim 1..
Regarding claim 6, Fritz in view of Janchen teach the method of claim 1 and 5 and Fritz further teaches the zeolite is ion exchanged with an alkaline or alkaline earth metals ([0018]). The claim further requires “the crude zeolite and the MgCl2 or LiCl solution are in a ratio from 0.5 g/20 mL to 2 g/20 mL,” to which Fritz and Janchen are silent.
Franklin teaches a process for exchanging magnesium into sodium zeolites of X and Y-type where 0.2 g aliquots of zeolite were contacted with magnesium chloride solutions have a total normality of 0.1 equiv. dm-3, where the normality of the solution is the valency of the ion (i.e. two for Mg) multiplied by the molarity (mol dm-3) in solution (Pg. 2756-2757). Franklin teaches one or two continual treatments of the zeolite with magnesium chloride provides 70% magnesium ion exchange, where further soaking allows the maximally exchanged forms (Pg. 2756). Franklin further teaches Mg/Na isotherms which are highly sigmodal and show a strong preferences for magnesium within the zeolite at low magnesium loadings (Pg. 2757-2761; Fig. 1-4). Franklin teaches a skilled artisan that magnesium chloride solutions exchange with sodium in NaX and NaY zeolites provide magnesium incorporation ranging from 0 to at least 70% in the Mg-NaX and Mg-NaY exchanged zeolites. A skilled artisan could readily optimize and adjust the zeolite to ion-exchange solution ratio to arrive at an ion-exchanged zeolite with the desired concentration ratio of crude zeolite to MgCl2. See MPEP 2144.05.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to soak NaX and NaY type zeolites with magnesium chloride solutions in the process of Fritz in order to provide maximally exchanged Mg-zeolites, of from 0 to at least 70% as taught by Franklin.
Regarding claims 41 and 43, Fritz in view of Janchen teach the method of claim 1. Fritz further teaches the aluminum silicate zeolites are preferably type-A, X, and Y zeolites, which have been at least partly substituted with an alkaline or alkaline earth metal ([0018]). Fritz is silent regarding performing the ion-exchange process, which comprises contacting and drying multiple times. However, repetition of a batchwise process, when the batchwise process is taught, is not patentable in the absence of showings of criticality. See MPEP 2144.05.
Additionally, Franklin teaches that one or two continual treatments of the zeolite with magnesium chloride provides 70% magnesium ion exchange, where further soaking allows the maximally exchanged forms (Pg. 2756). Advantageously, performing additional ion-exchange steps allows for greater amount of ions to be exchanged into the zeolite, as taught by Fig. 1-4 and Pg. 2756-2757.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to soak NaX and NaY type zeolites with magnesium chloride solutions one or two continual times in the process of Fritz in order to allow for greater amount of magnesium ions to be exchanged into the zeolite as taught by Franklin.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz et al. (US20060105158A1) in view of Janchen et al. (Solar Energy 2004, 76, 339–344) and further in view of Chandrasekhar et al. (Ceramics International 2002, 28, 177-186), with evidentiary support provided by Drobek et al. (Encyclopedia of Membranes, 31 August 2016) and applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 42, Fritz in view of Janchen teach the method of claim 1 and the claim further requires “step (c) is repeated one or more times.” Fritz is silent regarding performing the ion-exchange process, which comprises contacting and drying, multiple times. However, repetition of a batchwise process, when the batchwise process is taught, is not patentable in the absence of showings of criticality. See MPEP 2144.05.
Additionally, Chandrasekhar teaches a process for cation-exchanging NaX and NaA type zeolite with magnesium where the solids following exchange are centrifuged prior to treating with fresh exchange solutions (Pg. 178, 2.2).
Advantageously, repetition of the ion exchange ensures maximum ion exchange has taken place (Pg. 178, 2.2).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform repetitive soaking and drying steps during ion-exchange in the process of Fritz in order to ensure maximum ion exchange has taken place as taught by Chandrasekhar.
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 Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/J.W.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/DANIELLE M. CARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
4/2/2026