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 . 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.
Priority
The instant application is a 371 of PCT/EP2021/025211 filed on 06/16/2021 and claims foreign priority to European application no. EP20305659.3 filed on 06/16/2020. The certified copy of the foreign priority application filed in the instant application is acknowledged.
Status of the Claims
The claim amendments and remarks filed on 02/02/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 5, 8-11, and 13-14 are amended. Claim 12 is cancelled.
Accordingly, claims 1-11 and 13-14 are pending and being examined on the merits herein.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
The objection to claim 11 is withdrawn in view of the amended claim 11 now reciting “dextrin-based”.
The cancellation of claim 12 renders the objection and rejections over this claim moot.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection over claims 2-3 and 6-7 is withdrawn because there is now proper antecedence for the limitation “at least one dextrin”.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection over claims 8 and 14 as well as the 35 USC 101 rejection over claims 8-10 and 14 are withdrawn because these claims now recite a method with steps involve in the method.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection over claims 9-10 is withdrawn because the phrase “in particular” is now removed.
The 35 USC 102 rejection over CN’919 for claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, and 14 is withdrawn because amended claim 1 now recites the new limitations “wherein step b) the ratio alkaline agent / STMP is higher than 1 and lower than 5”, which has changed the scope of the claims and requires new search and consideration. Furthermore, amended claims 1 and 5 now recites the new limitation “wherein the crosslinked dextrin-based matrix contains no more than 30% dry weight of crosslinked ingredients other than dextrins and cyclodextrins.”, which has also changed the scope of the claims and requires new search and consideration.
The 35 USC 103 rejection over CN’919 in view of Subpuch for claims 1-12 and 14 and over D’Souza in view of CN’919 and Trotta for claims 1 and 8-13 are withdrawn because amended claim 1 now recites the new limitations “wherein step b) the ratio alkaline agent / STMP is higher than 1 and lower than 5”, which has changed the scope of the claims and requires new search and consideration. Furthermore, amended claims 1 and 5 now recites the new limitation “wherein the crosslinked dextrin-based matrix contains no more than 30% dry weight of crosslinked ingredients other than dextrins and cyclodextrins.”, which has also changed the scope of the claims and requires new search and consideration.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection over US’838 is withdrawn because amended claim 1 now recites the new limitations “wherein step b) the ratio alkaline agent / STMP is higher than 1 and lower than 5”, which has changed the scope of the claims and requires new search and consideration. Furthermore, amended claims 1 and 5 now recites the new limitation “wherein the crosslinked dextrin-based matrix contains no more than 30% dry weight of crosslinked ingredients other than dextrins and cyclodextrins.”, which has also changed the scope of the claims and requires new search and consideration.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection over co-pending application ‘183 is withdrawn because this application is abandoned.
The following grounds of rejection are new as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN102206288A (in PTO-892, an English translation is also included in PTO-892 and used as the basis for this rejection) in view of Rubens (US4219646A in PTO-892).
CN’288 discloses methods for preparing acetate-modified dextrin and cross-linked acetate-modified composite dextrin (page 1 and paragraph 0002).
CN’288 discloses that industrially produced dextrin fall into three main categories: maltodextrin, cyclodextrin, and thermally pyrolyzed dextrin (pyrodextrin) (paragraph 0004), and further discloses that these dextrin have been widely used in various aspects of industrial production and is well-suited for achieving ideal sensory properties (texture, fat-like taste, etc.) and easily meets the physical properties required by various foods (water-holding capacity, thickening properties, gelling effect, improving the freezing point of the system, inhibiting ice crystal growth, etc.) (paragraph 0005). CN’288 discloses that dextrins are used a food ingredient and has a very broad market prospect due to its wide range of excellent functional properties. CN’288 further discloses dextrin can be used as a disintegrant in pharmaceuticals, a cement retarder, and a chemical additive (paragraph 0005).
CN’288 discloses several drawbacks that limit the application of dextrin such as the dextrin being prone to aggregation and again after standing in solution for a period of time due to its linear long-chain macromolecules as well as reduced solubility (paragraph 0006).
Therefore, CN’288 addressed these limitations by preparing a crosslinked acetate-modified composite dextrin (paragraph 0008). CN’288 discloses that the cross-linking enhances structural stability and reducing the hygroscopicity of dextrin and that acetic acid esterification can improve the product's transparency, anti-settling properties, freeze-thaw stability, and emulsifying properties (paragraph 0047). CN’288 disclose that their novel dextrin products have high stability, low hygroscopicity, high transparency, strong anti-settling properties, good freeze-thaw stability, and good emulsification properties (paragraph 0047).
CN’288 discloses their method involves two main approaches: one is the direct method, which uses dextrin as raw material to react directly with etherification and crosslinking agents to obtain the final product; the other is the indirect method, which uses starch raw material to react with etherification and crosslinking agents, and then enzymatically or pyrolyzing the material into dextrin. CN’288 discloses that the crosslinked acetate-modified dextrin requires two chemical modifications, and the reaction sequence also includes two main approaches, namely, two different sequences: esterification followed by crosslinking and crosslinking followed by esterification (paragraph 0009).
CN’288 discloses that the method to prepare cross-linked acetate-modified dextrin includes the steps of: (1) preparing a dextrin solution with a concentration of 1-70% wt by adding water to the dextrin; (2) adding crosslinking agent to the dextrin solution, the pH is maintained at 9-11, the amount of crosslinking agent is 0.1%-15% of the mass of dextrin, and after reacting for 1-24 hours, the pH is adjusted to 5-7 to obtain crosslinked modified dextrin solution; (3) adding acetic anhydride to the cross-linked modified dextrin solution, the pH value is maintained at 7-11, the amount of acetic anhydride is 0.1%-20% of the dextrin mass, and after reacting for 1-24h, the pH value is adjusted to 5-7 to obtain the crude cross linked acetate dextrin; (4) Refining the crude cross-linked acetate dextrin, and a cross-linked acetate composite modified dextrin product is obtained (paragraphs 0026-0029).
CN’288 discloses that to maintain the pH value between 7 and 11, sodium hydroxide (alkaline agent) solution can be added (paragraph 0016). CN’288 discloses that the dextrin is one or a mixture of two of maltodextrin or pyrodextrin (paragraph 0030). CN’288 discloses that the crosslinking agent is sodium trimetaphosphate (paragraph 0032).
Here, CN’288 discloses a method of preparing a crosslinked dextrin-based matrix by reacting a dextrin (maltodextrin and/or pyrodextrin) with a crosslinking agent (sodium trimetaphosphate - STMP) at a pH value of 9-11 and further refining the mixture to obtain the crosslinked dextrin product. Furthermore, CN’288 discloses that sodium hydroxide is added to get a pH of 7-11 for the crosslinking reaction. Additionally, the method of CN’288 meets the limitation “wherein the crosslinked dextrin-based matrix contains no more than 30% dry weight of crosslinked ingredients other than dextrins and cyclodextrins” recited in instant claims 1 and 5 as well as the limitation “wherein the crosslinking is carried out in the absence of any organic solvent” recited in instant claim 4 because the CN’288 method does not contain any other ingredients except the dextrin, and the crosslinking agent is 0.1-15% of mass of the dextrin. Furthermore, the crosslinking reaction in CN’288 does not include any organic solvents and only the crosslinking agent in an alkaline solution using sodium hydroxide.
CN’288, however, does not disclose that the ratio of sodium hydroxide to STMP is higher than 1 and lower than 5.
Rubens discloses a method of preparing cross-linked starches using STMP (Abstract).
Rubens discloses several starches that can be used in their method including corn, waxy maize, and others as well as the use of conversion products derived from any of these starch bases including dextrin prepared by hydrolytic action and/or heat and others (column 2 lines 40-55).
Rubens discloses that the crosslinking reaction is carried out a pH of 10-12 using any common alkali such as sodium hydroxide to raise the pH (column 2 lines 56-68). Rubens discloses that the amount of STMP added can be 0.01-0.6% based on the dry weight of the starch (column 3 lines 59-61).
Rubens demonstrates in Example 1 (column 4) the production of cross-linked amioca starch. Here, 3% by weight sodium hydroxide was added to the amioca starch water solution until the total amount of sodium hydroxide was 0.6% of the weight of the starch and the pH of the solution was 11.1-11.4 (column 4 lines 47-53). Then STMP was added at 0.18% to the solution and reacted for about 3 hours (column 4 lines 53-55).
Here, the weight ratio of sodium hydroxide to STMP in the crosslinking solution is 3.33 (0.6 NaOH / 0.18 STMP).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the amount of NaOH and STMP added in the method of CN’288 by adding 3% by weight sodium hydroxide until 0.6% by weight is present in the solution as well as adding 0.18% STMP to the solution as disclosed in Rubens to arrive at the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because both CN’288 and Rubens disclose methods of producing the same cross-linked starches and/or dextrin products using a crosslinking reaction with STMP and adjusting the pH to around 11 using sodium hydroxide.
Furthermore, the cross-linked dextrin as disclosed by the combined teachings of CN’288 and Rubens described above would be capable of performing the intended use of “selectively preventing the release of an active ingredient at gastric pH and releasing it only at intestinal pH” recited in instant claim 5 because all of the structural limitations of the recited cross-linked dextrin matrix is met by the combined teachings described above. See MPEP 2111.02 II.
Claim(s) 8-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN102206288A (in PTO-892, an English translation is also included in PTO-892 and used as the basis for this rejection) in view of Rubens (US4219646A in PTO-892), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of EP3427725A1 (in PTO-892).
The combined teachings of CN’288 and Rubens are as described above and teach the cross-linked dextrin matrix recited in instant claim 5 as discussed above.
The combined references, however, do not disclose an oral delivery system comprising insulin and the recited matrix as well as a method of carrying organic compounds such as insulin by means of the recited matrix.
EP’725 discloses oral administration of biological actives, in particular of insulin, comprising the use of a cross-linked maltodextrins as a delivery system (Abstract).
EP’725 discloses that delivering of insulin (and more generally of biological actives) through the oral route would have several advantages over systemic administration routes and could notably help in improving patient's comfort and compliance to the therapy (paragraph 0010).
EP’725 discloses that their oral delivery system using crosslinked maltodextrin markedly increase the pharmacokinetic profile of active proteins after oral administration and that their oral delivery system advantageously provokes slower release of insulin, which means that for the same amount of insulin administered, the system delivery of the invention allows insulin release during a longer period of time, and can thus be active longer (paragraph 0018).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have prepared the cross-linked dextrin product as disclosed by the combined teachings of CN’288 and Rubens described above as an oral delivery system to improve the delivery of insulin as disclosed by EP’725 to arrive at the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated make this modification because EP’725 discloses that the crosslinked maltodextrin markedly increases the pharmacokinetic profile of active proteins after oral administration and advantageously provokes slower release of insulin, allowing for longer release of insulin and thus longer activity.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both the combined teachings of CN’288 and Rubens described above and EP’725 disclose cross-linked maltodextrin products that can be used with pharmaceutically active ingredients.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN102206288A (in PTO-892, an English translation is also included in PTO-892 and used as the basis for this rejection) in view of Rubens (US4219646A in PTO-892), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lim et al. (J. Mater. Chem. A, 2019 in PTO-892).
The combined teachings of CN’288 and Rubens are as described above and teach the cross-linked dextrin matrix recited in instant claim 5 as discussed above.
The combined references, however, do not disclose a method for capturing pollutants in water or air by means of the recited crosslinked dextrin matrix.
Lim discloses molecular gel sorbent materials for environmental remediation and wastewater treatment (Abstract). Lim discloses that molecular gels are promising new classes of materials for the treatment of polluted water owing to their large surface area for pollutant sorption and ease of chemical modification (Abstract).
Lim discloses several types of molecule gel sorbent materials that can be used with an emphasis of hydrogels comprising small molecule supramolecular gelators, polymers and composites comprising graphene/graphene oxide, microorganisms and iron nanoparticles (Abstract).
Lim discloses that hydrogels based on natural polysaccharides such as alginate, chitosan, maltodextrin, cellulose and gum Arabic (Fig. 19 page 18775) are effective adsorbents to remove metal ions from waste water due to the presence of numerous functionalities capable of coordinating metal cations (last paragraph left column page 18775). Lim discloses that these polymers offer advantages such as low cost, abundance, renewability and biodegradability and further discloses that in order to improve the mechanical strength of the gels, the polysaccharides are often subjected to chemical modification such as cross-linking (last paragraph left column page 18775).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the cross-linked dextrin as disclosed by the combined teachings of CN’288 and Rubens described above as an adsorbent to remove metal ions from waste water as disclosed in Lim to arrive at the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Lim discloses that hydrogels based on natural polysaccharides such as maltodextrin are effective adsorbents to remove metal ions from waste water due to the presence of numerous functionalities capable of coordinating metal cations with additional advantages of being low cost, abundant, renewable and biodegradable.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both the combined teachings of CN’288 and Rubens described above and Lim disclose cross-linked maltodextrin products.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/02/2026 have been fully considered in so far as they apply to the rejections of the instant office action, but were not persuasive.
Applicant presents several arguments regarding the previous rejections over CN’919, CN’919 in view of Subpuch, and over D’Souza in view of CN’919 and Trotta. However, the new rejections do not cite these references, rendering Applicant’s arguments moot.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,844,838 (‘838) in view of CN102206288A (in PTO-892, an English translation is also included in PTO-892 and used as the basis for this rejection) and Rubens (US4219646A in PTO-892).
Claim 1 of ‘838 recites a composition comprising a cross-linked maltodextrin and an efficient quantity of insulin, wherein the composition is suitable for oral administration and provides long-lasting release of the insulin in the intestine, and wherein said cross-linked maltodextrin is obtainable by reacting a maltodextrin with a cross-linking compound selected from dianhydrides. Claim 7 of ‘838 recites that the composition is selected from the group consisting of a cosmetic product, a food, and a nutraceutical product.
The claims of ‘838, however, do not recite that the ratio of sodium hydroxide to STMP is higher than 1 and lower than 5.
The independent teachings of CN’288 and Rubens are as described above.
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have prepared the cross-linked maltodextrin recited in the claims of ‘838 by using the method disclosed in CN’288 and further modifying the amount of NaOH and STMP added in the method of CN’288 by adding 3% by weight sodium hydroxide until 0.6% by weight is present in the solution as well as adding 0.18% STMP to the solution as disclosed in Rubens to arrive at the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because both the claims of ‘838 and the teachings of CN’288 and Rubens disclose methods of producing the same cross-linked dextrin-based products using crosslinking agents.
Furthermore, the cross-linked maltodextrin as disclosed by the combination of the claims of ‘838 and the teachings of CN’288 and Rubens described above would be capable of performing the intended use of “selectively preventing the release of an active ingredient at gastric Ph and releasing it only at intestinal pH” recited in instant claim 5 because all of the structural limitations of the recited cross-linked dextrin matrix is met by the combined teachings described above. See MPEP 2111.02 II.
In regards to instant claims 3 and 7, it would have also been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the maltodextrin as disclosed by the combination of the claims of ‘838 and the teachings of CN’288 and Rubens described above with the pyrodextrin as disclosed in CN’288 to arrive at the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted one known element (maltodextrin) for another (pyrodextrin) to obtain predictable results and would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because CN’288 provides guidance that both maltodextrin and pyrodextrin are suitable dextrins that can be crosslinked using a crosslinking agent.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,844,838 (‘838) in view of CN102206288A (in PTO-892, an English translation is also included in PTO-892 and used as the basis for this rejection), Rubens (US4219646A in PTO-892), and Lim et al. (J. Mater. Chem. A, 2019 in PTO-892).
The combination of the claims of ‘838 and the teachings of CN’288 and Rubens are as described above and teach the dextrin-based matrix recited in instant claim 5 as discussed above.
The combination, however, does not recite a method for capturing pollutants in water or air by means of the recited crosslinked dextrin matrix.
The teachings of Lim are as described above.
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the cross-linked maltodextrin product as disclosed by the combination of the claims of ‘838 and the teachings of CN’288 and Rubens described above as an adsorbent to remove metal ions from waste water as disclosed in Lim to arrive at the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated make this modification because Lim discloses that hydrogels based on natural polysaccharides such as maltodextrin are effective adsorbents to remove metal ions from waste water due to the presence of numerous functionalities capable of coordinating metal cations with additional advantages of being low cost, abundant, renewable and biodegradable.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both the combination of the claims of ‘838 and the teachings of CN’288 and Rubens described above and Lim disclose cross-linked maltodextrin products.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/02/2026 have been fully considered in so far as they apply to the rejections of the instant office action, but were not persuasive.
Applicant states to hold the nonstatutory double patenting rejections in abeyance until allowance subject matter is indicated. Since allowable subject matter has not been indicated, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection over US’838 is maintained.
Conclusion
No claim is found allowable.
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 DAVID H CHO whose telephone number is (571)270-0691. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/D.H.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1693
/SCARLETT Y GOON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1693
Prosecution Insights