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 Arguments
With respect to the rejection of Claims(s) 1, 32-34, 36, 38-40, 47-48 and 51 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iskandar (“Preparation of microencapsulated powders by an aerosol spray method and their optical properties,” 2002), the Remarks appear to traverse the rejection based on the amendment to Claim 1. The Remarks rely on the amendment adding language present in independent Claim 33. Claim 33 was rejected. The Remarks traverse the rationale showing inherency. (Remarks of 1/18/2026 at 7: “Furthermore, the Office Action’s conclusion that the processes are ‘substantially identical’ is unsupported.”). The rejection stated: “In this case, Iskandar teaches a substantially identical process with steps such as liquid dispersion of Al2O3 /SiO2 and ZrO2 /SiO2 droplets (Iskandar 351: Experimental; Iskandar 356: ZrO2 /SiO2 powders); then the droplets are introduced into a furnace for evaporation; afterwards, another drying process after evaporation is performed to obtain a sub-micrometer microencapsulated particle (hybrid metal oxide particle) (Iskandar 351: Powder preparation). Iskandar further teaches SiO2 particles (first oxide particle) being encapsulated (embedded) by Al2O3 particles (second oxide particle). Therefore, this sub-micrometer microencapsulated particle would necessarily possess the same “substantially non-porous” properties as claimed.” (Non-Final Office Action dated 8/22/2025 at 4).
The Specification teaches forming a dispersion of two metal oxides, just like Iskander. (S. [0005]). The specification teaches alumina, silica, and zirconia, just like Iskander. (S. [0010]). The Specification teaches forming droplets, just like Iskander. (S. [0020]). The droplets are introduced into a furnace, just like Iskander. (S. [0075]). The droplets are then heated again, just like Iskander. Id. Clearly, and contrary to that alleged in the Remarks, there is support for the rationale for inherency. This is the basis in fact and/or technical reasoning. Finally, note that all of this this must be considered within the context of the broad “substantially” non-porous language used in the claims. This language clearly permits pores. The quasi-definition in the Specification (S. [0062]) does not actually state what pores are permitted, but merely provides “example[s]” of the amount of pores allowed. Id. It is illegal to import these “example[s]” of amounts of pores into the claims. MPEP 2111.01. If Applicants believe a specific amount of pores to be required or excluded, this language should be in the claim. The Figures of Iskander amply teach what is reasonably construed as ““substantially”” non-porous. The Remarks were not persuasive. The rejection is MAINTAINED, as updated below…
With respect to the rejection of Claims(s) 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iskandar (“Preparation of microencapsulated powders by an aerosol spray method and their optical properties,” 2002) as applied to claims 1, 32-34, 36, 38-40, 47-49, and 51 above, and further in view of Watanabe (US 20070249736 A1), the rejection is WITHDRAWN in view of the new embodiment created by the amendments to Claim 1.
With respect to the rejection of Claims(s) Claim(s) 42-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iskandar (“Preparation of microencapsulated powders by an aerosol spray method and their optical properties,” 2002) as applied to claims 1, 32-34, 36, 38-40, 47-49, and 51 above, and further in view of Karpov (US 20110245392 A1), the rejection is WITHDRAWN in view of the new embodiment created by the amendments to Claim 1.
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iskandar (“Preparation of microencapsulated powders by an aerosol spray method and their optical properties,” 2002) as applied to claims 1, 32-34, 36, 38-40, 42-43, 47-48, and 51 above, and further in view of Gupta (US 5972835 A), the rejection is WITHDRAWN in view of the new embodiment created by all of the amendments to Claim 1.
Claim(s) 45-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iskandar (“Preparation of microencapsulated powders by an aerosol spray method and their optical properties,” 2002) as applied to claims 1, 32-36, 38-40, 42-44, 47-48, and 51 above, and further in view of Seo (US 20130295484 A1). The rejection is WITHDRAWN in view of the new embodiment created by the amendments to Claim 1.
Claim(s) 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iskandar (“Preparation of microencapsulated powders by an aerosol spray method and their optical properties,” 2002) as applied to claims 1, 32-36, 38-40, 42-47, and 51 above, and further in view of Chang (US 20140165878 A1), the rejection is WITHDRAWN in view of the new embodiment created by the amendments to Claim 1.
Claim(s) 52-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iskandar (“Preparation of microencapsulated powders by an aerosol spray method and their optical properties,” 2002) as applied to claims 1, 32-34, 36, 38-40, 42-49, and 51 above, and further in view of Darji (US 20190076809 A1). the rejection is WITHDRAWN in view of the new embodiment created by the amendments to Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 32-34, 36, 38-40, and 47-48 and 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iskandar (“Preparation of microencapsulated powders by an aerosol spray method and their optical properties,” 2002).
With respect to claim 1, the claim requires “method of preparing hybrid metal oxide particles.” Iskandar teaches a method for preparing hybrid particles (Iskandar 351: Experimental).
Claim 1 further requires “generating liquid droplets from a particle dispersion comprising first metal oxide particles and second metal oxide particles.” Iskandar teaches liquid dispersion of Al2O3 /SiO2 and ZrO2 /SiO2 droplets (Iskandar 351: Experimental; Iskandar 356: ZrO2 /SiO2 powders).
Claim 1 further requires “drying the liquid droplets to provide dried particles comprising a discrete matrix of the first metal oxide particles embedded with the second metal oxide particles,” Iskandar teaches droplets are introduced into a furnace for evaporation (Iskandar 351: Powder preparation).
Claim 1 further requires “heating the dried particles to obtain the hybrid metal oxide particle.” Iskandar teaches a drying process after evaporation to obtain a sub-micrometer microencapsulated particle, which is also considered to be a hybrid metal oxide particle (Iskandar: Fig. 1) .
Claim 1 further requires “the hybrid metal oxide particles comprising a continuous matrix formed from the first metal oxide particles embedded with an array of the second metal oxide particles,” Iskandar teaches SiO2 particles (first oxide particle) being encapsulated by Al2O3 particles (second oxide particle) and that the surface of SiO2 particles are occupied primarily Al2O3 particles. Iskandar strongly suggest that these Al2O3 particles are embedded in the surface of SiO2 particles.
Claim 1 further requires “wherein the hybrid metal oxide particles are substantially non-porous.” However, this claim deemed inherent according to MPEP 2112.01, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
In this case, Iskandar teaches a substantially identical process with steps such as liquid dispersion of Al2O3 /SiO2 and ZrO2 /SiO2 droplets (Iskandar 351: Experimental; Iskandar 356: ZrO2 /SiO2 powders); then the droplets are introduced into a furnace for evaporation; afterwards, another drying process after evaporation is performed to obtain a sub-micrometer microencapsulated particle (hybrid metal oxide particle) (Iskandar 351: Powder preparation). Iskandar further teaches SiO2 particles (first oxide particle) being encapsulated (embedded) by Al2O3 particles (second oxide particle). Therefore, this sub-micrometer microencapsulated particle would necessarily possess the same “substantially non-porous” properties as claimed.
Regarding claim 32, this claim recites “Hybrid metal oxide particles prepared by the method of claim 1.” This is product-by-process language, making this a product-by-process claim. Product-by-process claims are not limited by the process steps, except to the extent they suggest structure or composition. See generally MPEP 2113. Here, the claim suggests hybrid oxide particles are prepared by the method of claim 1 as claimed in claim 32. Iskandar teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Therefore, the claimed hybrid metal oxide would be expected.
Regarding claim 33, the claim requires “a first metal oxide embedded in an array of a second metal oxide, wherein the hybrid metal oxide particles are substantially non-porous.” However, this claim deemed inherent according to MPEP 2112.01, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical
or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially
identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been
established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).” In this case, Iskandar teaches a substantially identical process with steps such as liquid dispersion of Al2O3 /SiO2 and ZrO2 /SiO2 droplets (Iskandar 351: Experimental; Iskandar 356: ZrO2 /SiO2 powders); then the droplets are introduced into a furnace for evaporation; afterwards, another drying process after evaporation is performed to obtain a sub-micrometer microencapsulated particle (hybrid metal oxide particle) (Iskandar 351: Powder preparation). Iskandar further teaches SiO2 particles (first oxide particle) being encapsulated (embedded) by Al2O3 particles (second oxide particle). Therefore, this sub-micrometer microencapsulated particle would necessarily possess the same “substantially non-porous” properties as claimed.
Regarding claim 34, Iskandar teaches preparation of a dispersion of inorganic oxide particles featuring silica (SiO2), alumina (Al2O3), and zirconia (ZrO2) (Iskandar 351: 2.1. Starting materials).
Regarding claims 36 and 38, Iskandar teaches preparation of an Al2O3 /SiO2 powder prepared from a mixture of Al2O3 and a SiO2 with particles diameters of 18 nm and 109 nm respectively (Iskandar 351: 2.1. Starting materials).
Regarding claim 39, the claim requires “wherein the metal oxide particles comprise a core-shell structure.” This claim deemed inherent according to MPEP 2112.01, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).” In this case, Iskandar teaches a substantially identical process with steps such as liquid dispersion of Al2O3 /SiO2 and ZrO2 /SiO2 droplets (Iskandar 351: Experimental; Iskandar 356: ZrO2 /SiO2 powders); then the droplets are introduced into a furnace for evaporation; afterwards, another drying process after evaporation is performed to obtain a sub-micrometer microencapsulated particle (hybrid metal oxide particle) (Iskandar 351: Powder preparation). Iskandar further teaches SiO2 particles (first oxide particle) being encapsulated (embedded) by Al2O3 particles (second oxide particle). Therefore, this sub-micrometer microencapsulated particle would necessarily possess the same “core-shell” structure as claimed.
Regarding claim 40, Iskandar teaches SEM and TEM images of microencapsulated spherical powders (Iskandar 355-356 : Fig 4-6).
Regarding claims 47 and 48, claim 47 require “wherein the array of the metal oxide particles is an ordered array.” Claim 48 further requires “wherein the array of the metal oxide particles is a disordered array.” These claims are deemed inherent according to MPEP 2112.01, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).” In this case, Iskandar teaches a substantially identical process with steps such as liquid dispersion of Al2O3 /SiO2 and ZrO2 /SiO2 droplets (Iskandar 351: Experimental; Iskandar 356: ZrO2 /SiO2 powders); then the droplets are introduced into a furnace for evaporation; afterwards, another drying process after evaporation is performed to obtain a sub-micrometer microencapsulated particle (hybrid metal oxide particle) (Iskandar 351: Powder preparation). Iskandar further teaches SiO2 particles (first oxide particle) being encapsulated (embedded) by Al2O3 particles (second oxide particle). Therefore, this sub-micrometer microencapsulated particle would necessarily possess the same “ordered” or “disordered” array as claimed.
Regarding claim 51, claim 51 requires “A bulk composition exhibiting whiteness, a non-white color, or effect in the ultraviolet spectrum.” This claim is deemed inherent according to MPEP 2112.01, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).” In this case, Iskandar teaches a substantially identical process with steps such as liquid dispersion of Al2O3 /SiO2 and ZrO2 /SiO2 droplets (Iskandar 351: Experimental; Iskandar 356: ZrO2 /SiO2 powders); then the droplets are introduced into a furnace for evaporation; afterwards, another drying process after evaporation is performed to obtain a sub-micrometer microencapsulated particle (hybrid metal oxide particle) (Iskandar 351: Powder preparation). Iskandar further teaches SiO2 particles (first oxide particle) being encapsulated (embedded) by Al2O3 particles (second oxide particle). Therefore, this sub-micrometer microencapsulated particle would necessarily possess the same “whiteness, a non-white color, or effect in the ultraviolet spectrum” composition as claimed.
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) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iskandar (“Preparation of microencapsulated powders by an aerosol spray method and their optical properties,” 2002) as applied to claims 1, 32-34, 36, 38-40, 47-49, and 51 above, and further in view of Watanabe (US 20070249736 A1).
With respect to claim 35, Iskandar teaches silica within the hybrid metal oxide particles of claim 33 as discussed above.
Claim 35 further requires “the first metal oxide comprises titania and/or wherein the second metal oxide comprises silica.” Iskandar does not explicitly teach the first metal oxide comprises titania. However, Watanabe teaches dispersion of titania fine particles and silica (Watanabe 3: [0031]-[0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Iskandar, titania as a first metal oxide and silica as a second metal oxide as Watanabe teaches excellent decoloring properties can be formed by using these two particles (Watanabe 2: [0030]).
Claim(s) 42-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iskandar (“Preparation of microencapsulated powders by an aerosol spray method and their optical properties,” 2002) as applied to claims 1, 32-34, 36, 38-40, 47-49, and 51 above, and further in view of Karpov (US 20110245392 A1).
With respect to claim 42, Iskander teaches the hybrid metal oxide particles of claim 33 as discussed above.
Claim 42 further requires “the particles comprising surface functionalization on outer surfaces of the hybrid metal oxide particles.” Iskander does not explicitly teach surface functionalization on outer surfaces of the hybrid metal oxide particles. However, Karpov teaches producing functionalized metal oxide particles (Karpov 2: [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Iskander, as Karpov teaches particles obtained this way are suitable for improved UV protection (Karpov: Abstract).
Regarding claim 43, modified Iskander teaches the hybrid metal oxide particles of claim 42 as discussed above.
Claim 43 further requires “wherein the surface functionalization comprises a silane.” Iskander does not explicitly teach silane. However, Karpov teaches zinc oxide particles modified with silanes (Karpov: Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Iskander, surface functionalization comprising a silane as Karpov teaches that these functionalized metal oxide particles are suitable for UV protection of polymers (Karpov 4: [0058]).
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iskandar (“Preparation of microencapsulated powders by an aerosol spray method and their optical properties,” 2002) as applied to claims 1, 32-34, 36, 38-40, 42-43, 47-48, and 51 above, and further in view of Gupta (US 5972835 A).
With respect to claim 44, Iskandar teaches the hybrid metal oxide particle of claim 33.
Claim 44 further requires “wherein the hybrid metal oxide particles have an average diameter from about 0.5 microns to about 100 microns.” Iskandar does not explicitly teach average diameter of hybrid metal oxide particles, only electrical mobility equivalent diameter, which is 300 nm. However, Gupta teaches fluidizable, substantially spherical particulate material with an average particle size of 100-400 microns. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In this case, the claimed range of .5-100 microns overlaps with the prior art’s range of 100-400 microns. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Iskander, the hybrid metal oxide particles with an average diameter of about 0.5-100 microns as Gupta teaches this particles size range works advantageously well for fluidized-bed reactor applications (Gupta 18; line 8: particle size).
Claim(s) 45-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iskandar (“Preparation of microencapsulated powders by an aerosol spray method and their optical properties,” 2002) as applied to claims 1, 32-36, 38-40, 42-44, 47-48, and 51 above, and further in view of Seo (US 20130295484 A1).
Regarding claims 45 and 46, Iskandar teaches the hybrid metal oxide particles of claim 33 as discussed above.
Claims 45 further requires “wherein the weight to weight ratio of the first metal oxide to the second metal oxide is from about 1/50 to about 10/1.” Iskandar does not explicitly teach weight ratio of the first metal oxide to the second metal oxide.
Claims 46 further requires “wherein a weight to weight ratio of the first metal oxide to the second metal oxide is from about 2/3.” Iskandar does not explicitly teach weight ratio of the first metal oxide to the second metal oxide. However, Seo teaches a weight ratio between the first metal oxide and the second metal oxide may be about 90:10 to about 30:70 (Seo 2: [0050]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In this case, the claimed ranges of about “1/50 to about 10/1” in claims 45 and “about 2/3” in claim 46 overlaps with the prior art’s range of 90:10 to about 30:70. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the ratio of metal oxides taught by Seo in the particles/composition of Iskander because Seo teaches the amounts of first metal and second metal oxides used is determined by ionic conductivity, electronic conductivity, and cathode resistance, etc. (Seo 5: [0128]).
Claim(s) 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iskandar (“Preparation of microencapsulated powders by an aerosol spray method and their optical properties,” 2002) as applied to claims 1, 32-36, 38-40, 42-47, and 51 above, and further in view of Chang (US 20140165878 A1).
With respect to claim 49, Iskandar teaches the hybrid metal oxide particles of claim 33 as discussed above.
Claim 49 further requires a “substrate” and “wherein the composition is an aqueous formulation, an oil-based formulation, an ink, a coating formulation, a food, a plastic, a cosmetic formulation or a material for a medical application or a security application.”
Iskandar does not explicitly teach a substrate and composition for a medical application or a security application. However, Chang teaches an interference pigment comprising of a substrate; a second metal oxide; and a first metal oxide layer in water and stirring the suspension (Chang 1: [0008]-[0009]). Chang further teaches the interference pigment being used in plastics, leathers, accessories, cosmetics, ceramic, artificial marble, and other industrial fields (Chang, [0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Iskandar, the substrate and the composition of Chang as Chang teaches advantageous uses in the coloring of various paints, print inks, flooring papers, wallpapers, special papers, plastics, leathers, accessories, cosmetics, ceramic, artificial marble, and other industrial fields, and may generate high chroma colors. (Chang, [0024]).
Claim(s) 52-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iskandar (“Preparation of microencapsulated powders by an aerosol spray method and their optical properties,” 2002) as applied to claims 1, 32-34, 36, 38-40, 42-49, and 51 above, and further in view of Darji (US 20190076809 A1).
Regarding claim 52, Iskandar teaches the hybrid metal oxide particles of claim 33 as discussed above.
Claim 52 further requires “a light absorber.” Iskandar does not explicitly teach a light absorber. However, Darji teaches presence of a light absorber (Darji 3: [0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Iskandar, the hybrid metal oxide particles comprising a light absorber, as Darji the light absorber provides a more saturated observable color (Darji 3: [0041]).
Regarding claim 53, Iskandar teaches the hybrid metal oxide particles of claim 33 as discussed above.
Claim 53 further requires “ wherein the light absorber is present from 0.1 wt% to about 40.0 wt%, and wherein the light absorber comprises carbon black or one or more ionic species.” Iskandar does not explicitly teach a light absorber, what type of light absorber, or amount. However, Darji teaches selection of carbon black as a light absorber and that the light absorber consists of about 0.1 wt % to about 40.0 wt % of the microsphere (hybrid oxide particle) (Darji 6: [0083]).
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.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
/STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights