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
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 27 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. The amendment filed 02 September 2025 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1-10 and 13-19 are presently pending, with claims 15-19 withdrawn from consideration and claims 1-10 and 13-14 being examined herein.
3. The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112 is withdrawn in view of the amendment. The objections to the Specification and to claim 1 are also withdrawn in view of the amendment.
4. The rejections of claims 5 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112 and of claims 1-10 and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained, as detailed below.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the period at the end of the tenth line should likely be changed to a semicolon. Applicant is reminded that claims must be in one sentence form only. See MPEP 608.01(m).
6. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the second line of the claim, “the longitudinally extending the plurality of electrodes” should read --the plurality of longitudinally extending electrodes--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claims 5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
8. Regarding claim 5, it is unclear whether the limitation “having a diameter between 1-20 microns, or between 20-50 microns, or between 50-100 microns” refers to the opening size of the filtration mat or to a particle size of aerosols. The specification employs the same phrasing (see Statement 5, page 21) so fails to provide an interpretation, thus either the pore size or particle size is interpreted to read upon the claim. Examiner recommends moving the quoted limitation to directly follow “an opening size” to resolve the indefiniteness issue though cautions against the incorporation of new matter.
9. Regarding claim 8, it is unclear whether the limitation “a programmed controller” refers to the same controller or a different controller than the one introduced in the second-to-last line of claim 1, rendering the claim indefinite and rendering all references in dependent claims to “the controller” indefinite. The controller is interpreted herein as the same controller as introduced in claim 1, and Examiner suggests revising “further comprising a programmed controller configured” to --wherein the programmed controller is configured-- to resolve this issue.
10. Claims 9 and 10 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on and failure to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mole (US 20100221153 A1) in view of Li (US 20160030622 A1) and Bender et al (US 20200009503 A1).
13. Regarding claim 1, Mole teaches a plasma filter (FIG. 1, plasma filter 22). The limitation for treating a gas flow therethrough describes an intended use of the apparatus and therefore is not given patentable weight. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020). See MPEP 2111.02(II). Examiner notes that the plasma filter of Mole can be used for treating a gas flow therethrough (with sufficient through-flow capacity, it can also decontaminate air in an open outside environment, par 0024).
Mole teaches the plasma filter comprising:
a dielectric barrier plasma electrode assembly including a plurality of longitudinally extending electrodes (plasma filter 22 comprises a cathode 34 and an anode 36, par 0015; FIG. 1, electrodes 34/36 longitudinally extend from power supply 40) having a dielectric barrier layer (between which is sandwiched a dielectric 38, par 0015), the dielectric barrier plasma electrode assembly configured to produce an atmospheric pressure plasma (filter utilises the characteristics of a non-thermal plasma to plasmalise the constituent parts of the air within the dielectric core, par 0025), the plurality of longitudinally extending electrodes forming a supporting grid (cathode 34 and anode 36 between which is sandwiched i.e. supported a dielectric 38, par 0015);
a filtration mat disposed on or between the plurality of electrodes of the supporting grid (dielectric 38 sandwiched between the electrodes is activated alumina pellets, nominally 3 to 4 millimetres in diameter, pars 0015 and 0017);
and a catalytic material formed on surfaces of the filtration mat (a molecular thick catalytic coating on some or all of the dielectric material, par 0026).
Mole does not specifically teach that the electrodes would also have a dielectric layer coated thereon.
Li teaches an analogous plasma reactor for an air purification system (Li Abstract, pars 0008-0009) wherein in an embodiment, the two electrodes are coated with a photocatalytic coating in addition to the dielectric layer therebetween (Li par 0050). The photocatalytic coating comprises TiO2 (Li pars 0038 and 0048) that is deposited at least on the dielectric layer using the sol-gel method (Li par 0039). Li teaches that coating the dielectric on the inside of the electrodes substantially increases the size of the total plasma zone thus is more effective for removing pollutants (Li par 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include on the electrode surfaces in the plasma filter of Mole a TiO2 photocatalyst coating as taught by Li. Doing so would predictably provide the same advantage of increasing the plasma generation zone such that it encompasses the space between the electrodes (Li par 0050).
The limitation wherein, upon operation of the plasma filter, the plasma infiltrates voids in the filtration medium, and the gas flow through the filtration medium a) is exposed to reactive species of the plasma, b) interacts with the catalytic material, and c) is exposed to light generated from the plasma describes an intended use of the apparatus. The limitations are not given patentable weight because the courts have established that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2114(II).
Examiner notes that similar to the claimed plasma filter, upon operation of the plasma filter of Mole, the plasma infiltrates voids in the filtration medium (plasmalise the constituent parts of the air indicates plasma is present in the air voids within the dielectric core, par 0025), and the gas flow through the filtration medium a) is exposed to reactive species of the plasma (released energy is sufficient to generate free radicals within the air stream, par 0025) and b) interacts with the catalytic material (catalytic coating on some or all of the dielectric material can target oxidation of particular molecules or compounds, par 0026).
Li teaches, in an analogous air purification device having a photocatalyst coating on a dielectric medium for generating a plasma (Li pars 0008-0009), that light is generated from the plasma in the description that “photocatalyst layers can be effectively activated by the plasma in the plasma reactor without additional UV light irradiation” (Li par 0033) and that “activation mechanisms include…UV” (Li par 0030), thus the gas flow through the filtration medium c) is exposed to light generated from the plasma.
Thus, the combination of Mole and Li teaches wherein power is supplied to the plasma such that the plasma infiltrates voids in the filtration mat. The combination does not teach a programmed controller configured to control the power in this manner.
Bender teaches a related ion generator and ozone removal system (Abstract, pars 0004-0007) wherein a programmed controller (par 0067) controls the air ionization filter by pulsing power converters (par 0065), in turn providing control of ion production (par 0067).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in concert with the power supply for the plasma filter unit of modified Mole a programmed controller to control the power to the electrodes as taught by Bender. Doing so would predictably provide similar control of plasma generation, as Bender demonstrates that the controller can dictate plasma ion generation in an analogous apparatus (Bender par 0067). See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
14. Regarding claim 2, Mole as modified by Li and Bender teaches the filter of claim 1, comprising an air supply configured to provide ambient air to the plasma (an air stream can be generated and directed to pass through or across the non-thermal plasma filter, Mole par 0010), wherein at least one component of the air in the plasma (plasmalise the constituent parts of the air, Mole par 0025) generates ultraviolet light (catalyst in the plasma zone is activated by the plasma and the activation mechanisms include…UV, Li par 0030). Further, since the structure and composition of the plasma filter of Mole as modified by Li and Bender is the same as the claimed structure, the non-thermal plasma generation properties, including the generation of UV light, must be the same. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
15. Regarding claim 4, Mole as modified by Li and Bender teaches the filter of claim 1, wherein the gas flow is sterilized (free radicals…will oxidise hydrocarbons, organic gases, and particles such as bacteria, viruses, spores, yeast moulds and odours, Mole par 0025) by flow through the plasma discharge and through the filtration mat (air stream passes initially through the non-thermal plasma filter 22 which plasmalises air in the dielectric core, Mole par 0025).
16. Regarding claim 5, Mole as modified by Li and Bender teaches the filter of claim 1, wherein the filtration mat has an opening size (cathode 34 and anode 36 comprise reticulated three dimensionally porous conductive elements, Mole par 0016; dielectric is activated alumina pellets with diameter i.e. have void space, ). Li teaches that the coated layer preferably has a plurality of mesoporous structures with a pore size of 2-20 nm to increase the total effective surface area (Li par 0038) coated on an air permeable substrate of a thickness ranging from 10 to 500 microns (Li pars 0036 and 0038. The combination does not teach specifically that the opening size would be having a diameter between 1-20 microns, or between 20-50 microns, or between 50-100 microns.
However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP 2144.05(II). As Li discloses coating and substrate thicknesses in the same nano- to micro-scale size range that are effective at entraining then decomposing airborne contaminants, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect a photocatalytic filter with the similar claimed opening dimensions to also have the same effect. Further, the present Specification teaches that a wider range from 10 nm to 100 microns can effectively capture materials in the gas flow (see Statement 5, page 21), indicating that the range of opening size is not critical to the gainful operation of the filter.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the filtration mat of modified Mole to have an opening size to capture aerosols in the gas flow having a diameter between 1-20 microns, or between 20-50 microns, or between 50-100 microns, as such a diameter range would be expected to result in effective capture of aerosols as a result of routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05. Examiner notes that the limitation to capture aerosols in the gas flow is a statement of intended use, see MPEP 2114(II) for discussion of patentable weight thereof, but that the porous structure in modified Mole would necessarily capture aerosols in the gas flow by virtue of the pore size and catalytic oxidation function of the plasma filter (Mole pars 0025-0026).
17. Regarding claim 6, Mole as modified by Li and Bender teaches the filter of claim 1, and Mole teaches that the filtration medium is sandwiched i.e., disposed between a cathode and an anode (Mole par 0015). The combination does not specifically teach that one electrode would be powered while the other is grounded.
Li teaches in an exemplary embodiment that plasma is generated between the grounding electrode and the high voltage electrode (Li par 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to operate the plasma filter of modified Mole with one electrode as a grounding electrode and the other as a powered electrode as taught by Li. Doing so would predictably provide similar excitation of the catalyst-coated filtration medium therebetween with a reasonable expectation of success, as such an applied voltage is demonstrated to excite plasma (Li par 0029). See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
18. Regarding claim 8, Mole as modified by Li and Bender teaches the filter of claim 1, comprising a programmed controller configured to at least control power to the electrodes (Bender pars 0065-0067), which are in the combination defined as the plurality of longitudinally extending electrodes (Mole par 0015).
19. Regarding claim 9, Mole as modified by Li and Bender teaches the filter of claim 8, wherein the controller is programmed to operate the plasma by controlling ion production from the electrodes (Bender pars 0065-0067). As the systems of Mole and Bender are operated when the gas flow contains contaminants to be removed from the gas flow (Mole Abstract, par 0006; Bender par 0063), the controller of modified Mole would inherently be programmed to operate the plasma under this condition.
20. Regarding claim 10, Mole as modified by Li and Bender teaches the filter of claim 9, but the combination does not teach wherein the controller is programmed to control a pumping rate for supplying the gas flow to the plasma.
Bender further teaches that the electronic controls monitor fan speed and current draw (Bender par 0073), turn the fan on and off (Bender par 0077), and adjust a duty cycle associated with the device operation (Bender par 0073), that is, the controls are programmed (Bender par 0067) to control both the instantaneous pumping rate with on/off control and the cumulative pumping rate by the adjustment of duty cycles (Bender par 0068).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure and program the controller of modified Mole to control a pumping rate by controlling the on/off duty cycles of the fan as taught by Bender. Doing so would predictably provide improved control of the airflow through the plasma filter, thereby allowing for the adjustment of ions being released into the airflow (Bender pars 0006 and 0066).
21. Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mole, Li, and Bender as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20090041617 A1).
22. Regarding claim 3, Mole as modified by Li and Bender teaches the filter of claim 1. Mole teaches that the dielectric filter media of activated alumina pellets may be substituted for any suitable material to suit varying applications (Mole par 0017) and may be coated with a catalytic material (Mole par 0017), providing the example of a mixed titanium oxide photocatalyst coating (Mole par 0019). Li teaches wherein the catalytic material comprises a TiO2 layer coated on the dielectric medium (Li pars 0038-0039), this medium selected from a non-exhaustive list of substrate materials (Li par 0038). The combination does not specifically teach wherein the filtration medium comprises strands of fiberglass coated with titanium dioxide or anatase.
Lee teaches a catalytic hydrogen peroxide generator used for air purification (Lee pars 0025-0026) that employs a photocatalyst filter having similar free radical generating properties as the photocatalytic coating of Mole (Mole pars 0028-0029). This photocatalyst filter is formed by coating titanium dioxide in five coats to ensure complete coverage of all fibers i.e. strands of fiberglass, then sintered in an oven to cause the photocatalyst crystals to bond both to each other and to the fiberglass (Lee par 0058). The coating should be applied so as to prevent clogging of the pores (Lee par 0047) thus the photocatalytic reactor is used as an air-permeable filter material (Lee par 0049). Lee further teaches that titanium dioxide is synthesized in two forms, anatase and rutile (Lee par 0038), explaining that anatase is generally considered a more active photocatalyst than rutile (Lee par 0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the coated alumina filter medium of modified Mole with an anatase TiO2 coated fiberglass filter as taught by Lee. Doing so would predictably provide a similar photocatalytic effect on a known filtration substrate, as Lee teaches that anatase TiO2 is an active photocatalyst at wavelengths less than 380 nm (Lee par 0038) as a coating on fiberglass strands.
23. Regarding claim 14, Mole as modified by Li and Bender teaches the filter of claim 1, and Li teaches wherein the catalytic material comprises a sol-gel deposited TiO2 layer subsequently annealed on the dielectric medium (Li pars 0038-0039), this medium selected from a non-exhaustive list of substrate materials (Li par 0038). The combination does not teach that the TiO2 layer would be formed on strands of the filtration material, the TiO2 layer annealed or otherwise converted to comprise an anatase crystalline phase of TiO2.
Lee teaches a catalytic hydrogen peroxide generator used for air purification (Lee pars 0025-0026) that employs a photocatalyst filter having similar free radical generating properties as the photocatalytic coating of Mole (Mole pars 0028-0029). This photocatalytic filter is formed by coating titanium dioxide in five coats to ensure complete coverage of all fibers i.e. strands of fiberglass, then sintered in an oven to cause the photocatalyst crystals to bond both to each other and to the fiberglass (Lee par 0058). The coating can be applied as a photocatalyst paint in a way that prevents clogging of the pores (Lee par 0047) and the resulting photocatalytic reactor is used as an air-permeable filter material (Lee par 0049). Lee further teaches that titanium dioxide is synthesized in two forms, anatase and rutile (Lee par 0038), explaining that anatase is generally considered a more active photocatalyst than rutile (Lee par 0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the coated alumina filter medium of modified Mole with a fiberglass filter comprising strands of fiberglass coated with anatase TiO2 as taught by Lee. Doing so would predictably provide a similar photocatalytic effect on a known filtration substrate, as Lee teaches that anatase TiO2 is an active photocatalyst at wavelengths less than 380 nm (Lee par 0038) as a coating that can be painted then annealed on fiberglass strands, analogously to the sol-gel method taught by Li (Li pars 0038-0039).
24. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mole, Li, and Bender as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsumoto et al (WO 2018155432 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Mole as modified by Li and Bender teaches the filter of claim 1, wherein Mole teaches a filtration medium comprising a planar arrangement of catalyst coated alumina pellets or any suitable alternative material (Mole par 0017). Li further teaches that the photocatalyst can be coated on the dielectric barriers or other substrates, such as air permeable substrate, metal, glass, ceramic, plastic, and fabric (Li par 0038) to comprise the dielectric filtering material (Li par 0037). The combination does not fully teach multiple sheets of a filter material coated with a photocatalytic material, disposed on or between the electrodes.
Matsumoto teaches a mesoporous catalyst body for gas treatment (Title, pars 0051-0055) wherein gas to be treated can pass through a catalyst film 100 via mesopores (par 0053), the catalyst film formed i.e. coated on a dielectric 13 (par 0063) to fabricate such a porous filtration medium. In embodiments, Matsumoto teaches that two opposing catalyst films can be arranged at a predetermined interval (par 0063) and that the catalyst film 100 may be either a single layer or multiple layers (par 0064), reading upon multiple sheets of a filter material coated with a catalytic material disposed on or between the electrodes (FIG. 1, catalyst layer 100 disposed between electrodes 11 and 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the titania-coated alumina dielectric filter medium of modified Mole to be multiple sheets of this porous titania-coated filter medium as taught by Matsumoto. This layered filter medium would predictably function as a high-surface area flow-through catalyst filter to generate plasma for decontaminating the gas flow, as Matsumoto demonstrates the use of multiple catalytic films in an analogous device (Matsumoto pars 0051-0055). See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Further, Examiner notes that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
25. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mole, Li, and Bender as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Woodbridge (US 20200129652 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Mole as modified by Li and Bender teaches the filter of claim 1, wherein the controller can be programmed to communicate with various sensors which monitor ionization levels, particulate densities, humidity, temperature, and/or the like (Bender par 0066). However, the combination does not teach specifically wherein the controller is programmed to monitor plasma emissions for UV or other light emissions.
Woodbridge teaches an analogous plasma generator used to generate reactive oxygen species and purify air (Abstract, par 0028) incorporating a performance monitor that includes one or more sensors e.g., light sensors that monitor the optical characteristics of a plasma field that is generated (par 0017). This system enables the comparison of plasma conditions to programmed optimal conditions to ensure that the system is functioning optimally (par 0017-0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further program the controller of modified Mole to monitor plasma emissions for UV or other light emissions using a light sensor as taught by Woodbridge. Doing so would predictably provide similar feedback control of the plasma generation so that the system can maintain the optimal operating conditions (Woodbridge pars 0017-0018), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Response to Arguments
26. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 27 January 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5 and 7-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, see page 10 of Remarks, 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). Applicant argues that as Mole and Li do not teach a programmed controller, the combination with Bender would not read upon the limitation “a programmed controller configured to control a power supplied to the plasma such that the plasma infiltrates voids in the filtration mat” because Bender does not teach the voids. Examiner respectfully disagrees, pointing out that Mole teaches that a power supplied to the non-thermal plasma filter (Mole par 0015) serves to “plasmalise the constituent parts of the air within the dielectric core” (Mole par 0025), clearly indicating that the plasma infiltrates voids in the filtration mat when the power is controlled. Adding the controller of Bender would merely serve to control the power to the electrodes, thus controlling the generation of plasma infiltrating these voids.
27. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 5 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), see page 9 of Remarks, are not persuasive, as no specific argument was made regarding definiteness or patentability of the claims. No argument was offered with respect to the objection of claim 8, which is maintained. All other objections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Conclusion
28. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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 TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758