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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/6/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claim 15 has been newly canceled; claim 17 previously was canceled; claims 25-60 previously were withdrawn and are now canceled. No new claim is added. Claims 1-14, 16, 18-24, and 61 are pending and under current examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/6/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Withdrawn Rejections
All rejections of claim 15 are withdrawn since Applicant has canceled this claim.
The following rejections are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed 4/6/2026 specifically clarifying or eliminating unclear and/or unsupported claim language involving the term “uniform”: the rejection of claims 1-16, 18-24, and 61 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, and the rejection of claims 1-16, 18-24, and 61 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/6/2026 (hereafter, “Remarks”) have been fully considered and are addressed below. The status of the claims, amended claim language, and support for amendments are noted.
Regarding the previously issued rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), Applicant argues that the claim amendments resolve the issue. In reply, as noted above, this rejection has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s claim amendments filed 4/6/2026.
Regarding the previously issued rejections of claims 1-16, 18-20, 22-24, and 61 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson in view of Bridewell, Klingman, Beatty, and Unali, Applicant notes the amended claim language “blended nonwoven” as being defined at paragraph [0215] of the specification as filed as having two types of fibers mixed to make one nonwoven layer as the core substrate, specifically, two different types of PVOH fibers as claimed. In reply, this definition is noted and appears to be rendered obvious by the combination of cited references, however it is also noted that limitations are not imported form the specification into the claim. Nevertheless, the new claim language is addressed below in the modified rejection as necessitated by amendment; Applicant’s definitions in the specification as filed are also referenced.
Applicant contrasts Robinson’s multilayered pad with layers having distinct functions as a different structure than the blended nonwoven feature claimed and concludes on page 7 of Remarks that there is no motivation for deviating from Robinson’s layered structure. In reply, Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive in view of the definitions and structures in Robinson that do address blended nonwoven core substrate components interpreted using Applicant’s own definitions. The layered structure is not excluded from the instant claim and is not mutually exclusive with the features addressed below and particularly pertaining to the new “blended nonwoven” language.
As to the Bridewell reference, Applicant’s characterization of Bridewell on page 7 of Remarks is noted. Applicant argues that Bridewell describes blended compositions but that Bridewell’s examples do not comprise two different types of PVOH fibers as instantly claimed. In reply, this argument is not persuasive to overcome the rejection based on a combination of references since Robinson teaches the polyvinyl alcohol combination constituting “blended nonwoven” character consistent with Applicant’s definition, as detailed below in the modified grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Applicant’s position is that there is no motivation to modify the art’s compositions to be a blended nonwoven core substrate, with a reasonable expectation of success; Applicant concludes that Robinson and Bridewell do not render unpatentable the claims as amended. In reply, this argument is not persuasive in view of the preponderance of evidence in the record and the disclosures of Bridewell and Robinson considered in combination and as a whole for what they reasonably would have suggested to one of ordinary skill, as detailed below.
On page 8 of Remarks, Applicant argues that none of Klingman, Unali, and Beatty cure the alleged deficiency of Robinson and Bridewell and that the claims are therefore not obvious. In reply, this argument has been considered but is not persuasive in view of the teachings of Bridewell and Robinson, outlined below.
Regarding the previously issued rejection of claim 21 further in view of Lee, Applicant argues that Lee does not cure the aforementioned deficiency of the aforementioned references. In reply, this argument has been considered but is not persuasive in view of the teachings of Bridewell and Robinson, outlined below.
Modified Rejections Necessitated by Amendments filed 4/6/2026, No New Reference Cited
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-14, 16, 18-20, 22-24, and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0038485 A1 (Robinson et al., hereafter “Robinson”) in view of WO 2020/219930 A1 (Bridewell et al., hereafter “Bridewell”), US 2016/0151257A1 (“Klingman”), US 2009/0241242A1 (“Beatty”), and WO2020/035377A1 (“Unali”).
The instant claims are drawn to an article comprising a core substrate comprising a resin, the core substrate having a first region containing a first active cleansing formulation and a second region containing a second active cleansing formulation; the second region is distinct from the first region; the first region is positionable at a first location on a face of the user at the same time the second region is positionable at a second location of the face of the user, and wherein the skin cleansing article is stored dry in a package, which is a recited intended use and/or method step of use of the claimed product. The intended use of the claimed article product is for cleansing the skin. The article is configured to deliver cosmetics or dermal therapies. The skin cleansing article is configured to be at least water-dispersible or water-soluble as further specified in the claims according to Testing Method so to release at least one of the aforementioned cleansing formulations. It is noted that the language “wherein the skin cleansing article is stored dry in a package” recites an intended use.
Robinson teaches a non-woven water-soluble wipe product for use in the cosmetic field for cleansing the skin (see abstract, in particular). The pad or wipe products may be used for deposition of active ingredients and cleansing for instance (see [0034]) and comprises water-soluble fibers which are soluble in running or standing water having a temperature of 30 degrees or less (see [0007]), a range of water solubility overlapping with the range recited in the last five lines of claim 1. Robinson’s pad products comprise at least one non-woven sheet which may be made of fibers; the fibers may comprise two types of materials and may comprise at least two grades of polyvinyl alcohol of different melting or softening points wherein the fibers may be co-extruded such that the fiber has PVA of at least one first grade located in the core of the fiber and a second grade of PVA in the periphery forming a sheath around said core (see [0031])(limitations of claims 1, 7, 8, 22, 23). Robinson’s water-soluble fibers may in certain embodiments expressly be polyvinyl alcohol fibers (see [0008]) which may be used in combination (see [0028] and [0029]). Robinson further specifies that polyvinyl alcohol fibers may be used in combination where at least two grades of polyvinyl alcohol having different melting or softening points are used in combination such as being co-extruded (see [0031]); this constitutes a “blended nonwoven” fiber which all together constitutes a core substrate when made into a sheet form (see [0032]). Accordingly, Robinson’s structure appears consistent with Applicant’s description of blended fibers for instance at paragraphs [0047], [0069] and particularly [0215] of the specification as filed Moreover, like Robinson teaches extrusion to form fibers, the instant specification at paragraph [0161] and [0165] includes polymer extrusion processes for fiber formation.
While Robinson describes qualitatively a resin, it is not apparent that Robin’s products necessarily comprise a core substrate comprising a resin in the regions and configurations as claimed, including the core substrate parameter of fiber tenacity characteristic newly claimed.
Bridewell cures this deficiency. Bridewell teaches nonwoven water dispersible articles including a plurality of fibers including a first polyvinyl alcohol polymer and a second polyvinyl alcohol polymer. The nonwoven web may be water-dispersible, optionally water-soluble and/or flushable (see abstract, in particular)(limitations of claims 1, 7, and 8). The web products are comprised of water-soluble and water-insoluble fibers wherein the water-soluble resins are included in the fiber to allow sufficient breakdown of the web (see [0268])(limitation of claims 1 and 6). Further regarding claim 9, Bridewell teaches polyvinyl alcohol as a product which may be fully hydrolyzed (polyvinyl alcohol) or partially hydrolyzed and therefore comprising polyvinyl acetate as a vinyl alcohol-vinyl acetate copolymer (see [0045]-[0047])(limitation of claims 8 and 9). As to claims 10 and 11, the polyvinyl alcohol copolymer may comprise an anionically modified copolymer (see sentence bridging pages 10 and 11, [0047], [0257]) including sulfonic acid and carboxylic acid functionalized polyvinyl alcohol copolymers (see page 11, lines 4-8). Bridewell specifies that the layers can be located on different zones of a substrate for instance intended to provide a different homecare or personal care benefit such as a cleaning zone and a conditioning zone (see page 3, lines 16-19); this explicit configuration addresses the “positionable” and “region” elements instantly claimed and allows for different formulations to be included as newly recited also (“different from the first active cleansing formulation”). As to the tenacity characteristic, Bridewell teaches fibers used to prepare the water-dispersible nonwoven webs may have a range including a range of about 6 to 8 cN/dtex, including additional overlapping ranges (see [0141]); Bridewell provides rationale for selecting the dtex characteristic for fibers so to achieve the desired stiffness and hand-feel, torsional rigidity, reflection and interaction with light, absorption of dye, and other characteristics (see [0145]).
Where Bridewell describes a multilayer nonwoven web being water dispersible or water-soluble, Bridewell appears to teach a core substrate on to which functional formulations may be loaded and wherein said core substrate is uniform and functions having uniform dissolution time or dispersion time (see Bridewell [0007] for instance). Bridewell teaches that the nonwoven product may be layered as a laminate film for instance wherein the film has the same solubility and/or chemical compatibility characteristics as the nonwoven web (see[0159] and [0160]). Paragraph [0226] further describes these properties where dissolution features are determined for the product as a whole.
Specifically regarding the new claim language which is “blended nonwoven”, as noted above, Robinson teaches nonwoven materials, and Bridewell teaches nonwoven materials as well as embodiments including those having different arrangements in different areas of the nonwoven web (see [0065] last three sentences) thereby reasonably suggesting at least a blended nonwoven core substrate as claimed. Bridewell further teaches blends of fibers at [0061].
Both Robinson and Bridewell are directed to topically applicable wipe type products comprised of fibers of polyvinyl alcohol. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ the particular combination of first and second polyvinyl alcohol polymers as taught by Robinson into a nonwoven web product, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve desired solubility properties for instance in a polymer blend product as specified by Bridewell and detailed below, for instance to convey the desirable property of good degradability for disposal by flushability after use. Moreover, it would have been prima facie obvious to perform routine optimization procedures as to the tenacity including values within and overlapping the instantly claimed ranges based on Bridewell’s suggested tenacity characteristics; one would have been motivated to do so based on Bridewell’s teaching that selection of tenacity desirably influences stiffness, and other characteristics specified in Bridewell [0145]).
Further, Klingman teaches the administration of skin benefit cosmetic and functional agents (see [0126]) including wipe format (see [0137] and [0142]) particularly wherein a wipe may have multiple discrete zones comprising an active ingredient for reducing malodor when topically used; the wipe may be a nonwoven web or other flexible porous substrate for instance (see [0075]). The discrete zones may be any shape, size, or arrangement and may comprise a cream, ointment, lotion or similar for topical application (see [0075]) and comprise a composition for reducing malodor and may comprise an additional active or functional agent such as an acidifying agent and for instance further caffeine or mandelic acid in a carrier (see[0075]). For instance, further, Klingman specifies a mandelic acid active may be combined for instance with lactic acid (see [0048]). See also combination components demonstrated in [0053]). Klingman’s products include a dry wipe product packaged separately from a cream product for instance (see [0041])(“wherein the skin cleansing article is stored dry in a package”), thereby indicating that the product may be used as recited in the last line of instant claim 1. As to claim 61, Klingman further teaches a total product wipe length from 2 to 80 centimeters and a width from about 2 to 80 centimeters (see [0070]), a range including the instantly recited ratio at least of 1.0 wherein Klingman’s FIG 1A further illustrates these dimensions and ratio to be roughly proportional to core material dimensions and ratio.
Robinson, Bridewell, and Klingman are all directed to wipe and/or nonwoven type products. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine active agents into a single wipe type product as suggested by Klingman, with a reasonable expectation of success. Moreover, one would have been motivated to use absorbent articles that release active ingredients upon use specifically wherein the active ingredients are adapted to release active ingredients to the exterior skin of a user for instance via wipe format (see [0117]). One would have been motivated to do so to deliver the benefit agents from the products of Robinson and Bridewell, in order to achieve the cleansing and/or active agent properties upon release as taught by Klingman. Moreover, regarding the claim language in claim 1 in which the second region is distinct from the first region, Klingman teaches this feature as noted above.
As to the new claim language, “different from the first active cleansing formulation”, the aforementioned references teach zones but do not teach this feature with sufficient specificity. Unali cures this deficiency.
Unali teaches homecare and personal care articles wherein incompatible ingredients are included; see FIG. 1A. Unali teaches the avoidance of contact between first and second active ingredients specifically due to their spatial separation such that one can apply the first active ingredient and then sequentially a second active agent where the two ingredients may be used for different personal care effects or benefits (i.e., cleaning, fragrance, disinfecting, conditioning, etc.)(see page 4, lines 9-21). Unali further teaches an embodiment in which the layers are laterally separated such that the functional layers are provided on different areas of the same substrate, in which scenario the core substrate equivalent of Unali would have been considered “uniform” and thereby necessarily having “uniform dissolution time or dispersion time” as instantly claimed. See Unali page 4, lines 23-28 in particular.
Robinson, Bridewell, Klingman, and Unali are directed to wipe type products. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use Robinson, Bridewell, and Klingman’s products in an arrangement suggested by Unali, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so to facilitate separation and optionally sequential use if desired based on different functional agents in different functional zones for personal care effects, such as cleaning and disinfecting (see Unali page 5, lines 17-20).
As to claims 12 and 13, Bridewell teaches the degree of hydrolysis of the vinyl alcohol homopolymers and copolymers (as defined by Bridewell, which encompass the copolymer instantly claimed) may be in the range of about 75% to about 99.9% and that as the degree of hydrolysis is reduced, the fiber made from that polymer will have reduced mechanical strength but faster solubility at temperatures below about 20 degrees Celsius and that as the degree of hydrolysis increase, the fiber will be mechanically stronger with relatively decreased thermoformability; Bridewell continues that the degree of hydrolysis may be chosen such that the water-solubility of the polymer is temperature dependent (see [0053]). Bridewell further teaches that the fibers may include a blend of fiber forming materials such as a polyvinyl alcohol homopolymer (Bridewell’s definition, which coincides with the “copolymer” term instantly claimed) in combination with a polyvinyl alcohol copolymer or second polyvinyl alcohol homopolymer wherein optionally the polyvinyl alcohol copolymer may be anionically-modified (see [0255]-[0257]). For instance, optionally, Bridewell suggests the fibers including a blend of polyvinyl alcohol homopolymers including a first polyvinyl alcohol homopolymer in an amount of about 25 to about 75% by weight and a second polyvinyl alcohol homopolymer in an amount of about 75 to about 25% by weight. Further regarding claims 14 and 15, the multilayer nonwoven web may include a first nonwoven web including a sole fiber type and a second nonwoven web including a sole fiber type or the multilayer nonwoven web may include a first nonwoven web including a blend of fiber types and a second nonwoven web including a sole fiber type. This teaching in combination with Bridewell’s teaching pertaining to the degree of hydrolysis reasonably suggests a combination of polyvinyl alcohol polymers including polyvinyl acetate in a copolymer form as instantly claimed and with the relative amounts of the relatively higher hydrolyzed and relatively lower hydrolyzed components being adjustable in order to achieved an optimized balance of mechanical strength and solubility characteristics. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine polyvinyl alcohol homopolymers as defined by Bridewell according to relatively high degree of hydrolysis and less hydrolyzed ones in order to achieve a balanced product including a product overlapping with the instantly claimed combination of degrees of hydrolyzation and ratio of fiber types, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so to achieve optimized mechanical strength and solubility characteristics in accordance with Bridewell’s explicit teachings as detailed above. Further still, regarding claim 16, Bridewell teachings overlapping ranges and embodiments wherein an insoluble fiber is included with the aforementioned fibers having water solubility (see [0268] and [0285]) wherein it would have been further obvious to adjust these ratios, including the percentage instantly claimed, in order to achieve the desired water solubility as taught by Bridewell.
Further regarding claim 2, Bridewell teaches web samples having a percent moisture in the lower end of the instantly claimed range (see [0373] for instance, Example 5). See also Bridewell [0004] and [0170].
Further regarding claims 3 and 4 and 24, the combination of Robinson and Bridewell is considered to teach the functional properties or effects instantly claimed since a product and its properties are inseparable. It is noted that MSTM-205 is defined in the specification as filed and considered a term of art. Moreover, “When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.” See MPEP 2112.01 or In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1997).
Further regarding claim 5, Robinson teaches that nonwoven web may be shaped (see [0187]) and describes wipes and sheets or cloths in the category of personal care products, products understood to function to form to a contour of a surface of the user’s skin as in claim 5 (see also [0176]).
As to claims 19 and 20, Robinson teaches a sheet product such as a nonwoven sheet comprising fibers that have a texture and incorporating an anhydrous surfactant and requiring no additional liquid components (see [0023]), and similarly Bridewell teaches the active agent may take any form including a solid or a liquid (see [0093]).
The teachings of Robinson and Bridewell and Klingman have been delineated above, however positionable and separable regions as recited in claim 1 as amended and claim 18 are not apparent therein. Klingman generally allows this type of configuration by teaching any shape, size, or arrangement including an arrangement such as parallel bands, irregular patches, rectangles, lines and dashes, triangular regions, and combinations thereof (see [0075]), however Beatty cures this deficiency.
Beatty teaches a facial mask product designed to lie against the face of a human user (see abstract, in particular). The mask product is adaptable in size and shape for a variety of faces and includes one or more separation features adapted to allow the substrate to overlap and/or adhere as desired. The separation features enable the creation of hinges, for instance (see [0005], [0017]). The face mask also comprise regions including a forehead region, a mid region, and a chin region, for instance (see [0018]). Beatty further teaches that the entire facial mask is essentially uniform thoughout its area (see [0098]). Accordingly, functional components may be loaded onto Beatty’s sheet product, and it may be shaped as desired (see [0098], [0101]).
Robinson, Bridewell, and Beatty are directed to sheet type products including those which may be applied topically and including those which are considered face masks. It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate regions and separability features as taught by Beatty in the sheet or nonwoven products of Robinson and Bridewell, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so to maximize topical surface area contact in order to achieve the desired functional effect such as cleansing the skin, with a reasonable expectation of success based on Beatty’s teaching of the shape and adaptation benefits thereof. Utilizing a face-shaped mask as illustrated on the front page of Beatty indicates a first region positionable at a first location on a face of the user at the same time a second region is positionable at a second location on the face of a user (see also [0019]). Beatty further describes that the facial mask may include a liquid impregnate present in each first and second portions of said substrate thereby necessarily having each a first active cleansing formulation and a second active cleansing formulation as in claim 1 (see [0075] for instance).
Moreover and further regarding first and second regions and formulations, it is the examiner’s position that making integral, separable, adjustable, or continuous sections of an article such as a wipe or a topical face mask material would have constituted an obvious variation which one would have been motivated to do in order to achieve the desired shape and functionality based on the teachings detailed above for what they reasonably would have suggested to the ordinary artisan. One reasonably would have expected a known active agent to delivery its known topical benefits when applied to a particular topical application site to be cleansed or treated with an active agent. Moreover, Robinson and Beatty teaches a uniform face product shaped as desired, and Unali provides motivation for combining two distinct active formulations for cleansing purposes in separate zones (“regions”) on a same substrate, as detailed above.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0038485 A1 (Robinson et al., hereafter “Robinson”) in view of WO 2020/219930 A1 (Bridewell et al., hereafter “Bridewell”), US 2016/0151257A1 (“Klingman”), US 2009/0241242A1 (“Beatty”), and WO2020/035377A1 (“Unali”) as applied to claims 1-14, 16, 18-20, 22-24, and 61 above, and further in view of KR1981965 translation (published May 2019, translation previously enclosed; hereafter “Lee”).
The teachings of Robinson and Bridewell and Klingman and Beatty and Unali have been delineated above. While these teach a surfactant component, these do not necessarily teach hyaluronic acid as instantly elected in claim 21.
Lee cures this deficiency. Lee teaches a dry cleansing pad made of a nonwoven fabric. The pad encompasses a surfactant and a functional agent which may be selected from a short list including hyaluronic acid to provide topical benefit.
Robinson, Bridewell, Klingman, Beatty, and Lee are directed to topically applicable sheet shaped products made of nonwoven webs and to be applied as a wipe or a mask. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the instantly elected hyaluronic acid as taught by Lee in combination with a surfactant in a nonwoven cleansing pad type product, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so to provide functional cosmetic benefit of this agent as suggested by Lee and doing so would have at least constituted an “obvious to try” combination of surfactant and benefit agent based on Lee’s disclosure.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREA B CONIGLIO whose telephone number is (571)270-1336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m..
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, Michael Hartley can be reached at 5712720616. 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.
/AUDREA B CONIGLIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights