Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on August 31, 2026, has been acknowledged and entered. Currently, claims 1-12 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: Polypropylene is fundamentally different from water-absorbent resin
Response: This argument is not persuasive. CN ’524 is relied upon for its general teaching of using near-infrared spectroscopy and chemometric calibration to predict a physical property of a resin powder. Applicant’s evidence shows that water-absorbent resin differs chemically and spectrally from polypropylene, but that does not establish that the claimed method would have been nonobvious. Different materials routinely require different calibration and preprocessing choices, which is within the ordinary skill in the art.
Argument: The claimed properties are dynamic rather than intrinsic.
Response: This argument is not persuasive. The claims do not require a particular property type; they broadly recite predicting a physical property from near-infrared measurement data. CN ’524 already teaches predicting a resin property from NIR spectra using chemometric modeling. The fact that the present claims predict performance-related properties such as CRC, AAP, or SFC does not create a patentable distinction if the same prediction framework is being used. Selecting a different resin property to predict is an obvious extension of that known technique absent evidence of unexpected results.
Argument: Technical bias against using NIR for absorbent resins.
Response: This argument is not supported by the record. Applicant’s evidence shows that absorbent resin spectra can broaden or shift due to hydrogen bonding and water content, but that does not show a teaching away from using NIR spectroscopy. Rather, it indicates that preprocessing and model selection may need adjustment, which is routine in chemometrics. It does not show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed NIR/Chemometrics was unusable for absorbent resins. As presented, the evidence shows complexity, not teaching away.
Argument: CN ’524 assumes linear scattering and therefore is inapplicable.
Response: This argument is not persuasive. CN ’524 discloses more than one preprocessing and modeling approach, including second-order differential processing for powder samples and multivariate methods such as PLS and ANN. The claims are not limited to any one scatter-correction technique, and adapting preprocessing or model choice to a different resin powder would have been a routine optimization. The applicant has shown that the materials are different, but not that the claimed adaptation was non-routine. So, the differences in scattering suggest model adjustment, not nonobviousness.
Argument: Water causes strong NIR interference not disclosed by CN ’524.
Response: This argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The issue is not whether water-absorbent resin has additional spectral complications. It probably does. The issue is whether those complications make the claimed method nonobvious. The claims do not recite a specific anti-water-interference preprocessing step, a unique moisture-removal step, a novel spectral correction mechanism, or any specific anti-interference preprocessing. The evidence may show that absorbent resins have different spectral behavior, but it does not show that NIR-based prediction would have failed or been unpredictable.
Argument: Unexpected effect: rapid, low-cost, accurate prediction.
Response: This argument is not persuasive. CN ’524 already emphasizes rapid, accurate, and environmentally friendly prediction of resin properties using NIR spectroscopy and chemometrics. Applicant has not provided comparative evidence showing a surprising or unexpected improvement specific to water-absorbent resin.
Argument: The submitted evidence shows PP is fundamentally different and the method of CN ‘524 cannot be readily applied.
Response: The argument is not persuasive. The evidence mostly shows spectra vary with chemistry; hydrogen bonding affects peaks and baseline and band shape can change. That is all scientifically reasonable, but it does not prove that one of ordinary skill in the art would view the adaptation as impossible or outside routine chemometric practice. In fact, the evidence arguably supports the opposite: NIR spectra respond to composition and chemometric models are used to manage that variability. Thus the references do not establish a bar to applying NIR prediction, they show the need for calibration and preprocessing.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Although Applicant has
shown that polypropylene resin and water-absorbent resin differ in chemical composition and that the spectral behavior of absorbent resin may vary with water content and scattering, such evidence does not establish that the claimed application of near-infrared spectroscopy and chemometric prediction to resin powders or intermediate products would have been technically inapplicable, unpredictable, or outside the routine skill in the art. CN ’524 expressly teaches obtaining near-infrared diffuse reflectance spectra of resin powder, preprocessing the spectra, and using multivariate calibration techniques including PLS and ANN to predict a physical property of the resin. The present claims recite the same general workflow, applied to a different resin system and to broadly recited physical properties. The submitted evidence shows that different materials may require different preprocessing or calibration choices, which is consistent with ordinary chemometric practice, but does not demonstrate that the claimed adaptation would have required more than routine optimization or yielded unexpected results.
Accordingly, the rejection of all the claims is maintained.
Further, Applicant's arguments regarding “claim Interpretation” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims should not be interpretated as means-plus function claims since the pending claims do not use the word “means”.
In response it is respectfully pointed out o applicant that according to MPEP 2181(I), a claim should be interpretated according to 112(f) if it meets the following 3 prong analysis:
A. The claim limitation uses the phrase “means” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is generic placeholder. In this case, claim 8 clearly recites generic placeholder, “measurement data obtaining section” and “predicting section” and thus meets prong A.
B. The phrase “means” or the substitute term is modified by functional language, typically linked by the transition word “for”(e.g., “means for”) or another linking word. In claim 8, the substitute term “measurement data section” is modified by functional language “which obtains ………” and “predicting section” is modified by functional language which inputs…….and outputs ……” meeting prong B.
C. The phrase “means” or the substitute term is not modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function. In claim 8 there are no such structure recited for the measurement data section and the predicting section to perform the recited functions and thus prong C is met.
Accordingly, the interpretation is proper and maintained since it meets the 3 prong analysis. It should also be noted that 112(f) is not a rejection but rather an interpretation.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “measurement data section” and “predicting section” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN1472524A (cited in the IDS) (hereinafter 524”).
As to claims 1 and 8, 524’ discloses a method and an apparatus for predicting a physical property of a resin powder, (method for determining an isotactic index (i.e., a physical property) polypropylene resin; characterized in that a representative polypropylene resin pellet sample or a powder sample is composed of a calibration (claim 1)) the resin powder being any one of a water absorbent resin powder and an intermediate product which is produced in a process for producing the water absorbent resin powder, said method comprising:
a near-infrared measurement data obtaining step of obtaining near-infrared measurement data which indicates a near-infrared absorption spectrum of the resin powder (preprocessing the near-infrared diffuse reflectance spectrum of the powder sample by second-order differential, and then performing regression analysis with corresponding isotactic index basic data by mathematical methods to establish a calibration model (paragraph 4 on page 2)); and
a predicting step of inputting, into a prediction model, at least one selected from the group consisting of the near-infrared measurement data and one or more pieces of processed data which have been generated on the basis of the near-infrared measurement data, and outputting prediction information concerning the physical property of the resin powder. (the regression analysis adopts a multivariate correction method, which can be a BP artificial neural network (see paragraph 3 on page 4); the near-infrared diffuse reflectance spectra of unknown samples are preprocessed, and the principal component scores calculated by partial least squares method are input into the established artificial neural network model to predict the properties of the unknown samples (see paragraph 5 on page 5).
524’ doesn’t explicitly disclose the resin powder being any one of a water absorbent resin powder and an intermediate product which is produced in a process for producing the water absorbent resin powder and another type of data input into the prediction model is one or more pieces of processed data which have been generated on the basis of the near-infrared measurement data.
However, disclosing the prediction of the physical properties of polypropylene resin powder samples, applying this method to either absorbent resin powder or an intermediate product which is produced in a process for producing the water absorbent resin powder are known and actively used in the field. This involves using various techniques, including machine learning and Raman spectroscopy, to model and control the properties of the resin during production.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use resin powder being one of a water absorbent resin powder and an intermediate product which is produced in a process for producing the water absorbent resin powder since it is a routine application in the art and will yield predictable results. The rational being by predicting properties and controlling them during production, manufacturers can optimize the process for higher water absorption rates, improved damage resistance, and other desirable characteristics.
Still lacking the limitation such as, another type of data input into the prediction model is one or more pieces of processed data which have been generated on the basis of the near-infrared measurement data.
However, 524’ does disclose that chemometrics is a method of designing or selecting the best chemical measurement method by means of mathematics, statistics and computer science. Further, predicting physical properties using one or more processed data generated from near-infrared measurement data is known as chemometrics.
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 method of 524’ by using one or more pieces of processed data which have been generated on the basis of the near-infrared measurement data as input data to predict the physical property since it is common and known in the art and will achieve predictable results such as ease of operation and efficiency.
As to claim 2, 524’ further discloses forming a calibration set with representative polypropylene resin granular samples (equivalent to resin powder): preprocessing the near-infrared diffuse reflectance spectrum of the powder sample (equivalent to a near-infrared measurement data obtaining step of obtaining near-infrared measurement data which indicates a near-infrared absorption spectrum of the resin powder) by second-order differential, and then performing regression analysis with corresponding isotactic index basic data by mathematical methods to establish a calibration model (equivalent to data of a prediction model is (1) a combination of near-infrared measurement data and physical property information, the near-infrared measurement data containing near-infrared absorption spectra of a plurality of produced resin powders which have been previously produced and have each known physical property, the physical property information being on end products each of which is associated with the near-infrared measurement data) (see paragraph 4 on page 2); the regression analysis adopts a multivariate
correction method, which can be a BP artificial neural network (see paragraph 3 on page 4).
Further, it is a common approach in the art to use another set of near-infrared measurement data and the information corresponding to the intermediate product as the data combination for machine learning.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use another set of near-infrared measurement data and the information corresponding to the intermediate product as the data combination for machine learning for advantages such as, enhanced predictive accuracy, improved process understanding and optimization.
As to claims 3-5, 524’ discloses (see paragraph 3 on page 4) that the regression analysis employs a multivariate calibration method, which can be multiple linear regression (MLR), partial least squares 15 (PLS), robust partial least squares (RPLS), locally weighted regression (LWR), or BP artificial neural network (ANN), with partial least squares (PLS), locally weighted regression (LWR), or BP artificial neural network (ANN) being preferred, and BP artificial neural network (ANN) being more preferred.
As to claim 6, wherein the prediction information includes at least any one of (1) a mass average particle diameter (gel D50) of a hydrogel which is the intermediate product, (2) an absorption capacity without load (CRC) of the resin powder, (3) an absorption capacity under load (AAP) of the resin powder, (4) a saline flow conductivity (SFC) of the resin powder, (5) a mass average particle diameter (D50) of the resin powder, and (6) an amount of a solid component contained in the resin powder or a solid fraction of the resin powder would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made. Selecting to find a specific information would amount to a recitation of the intended use of the patented invention, without resulting in any structural difference between the claimed invention and the structure disclosed by 524’, and therefore fails to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain prediction information that includes at least one of (1) a mass average particle diameter (gel D50) of a hydrogel which is the intermediate product, (2) an absorption capacity without load (CRC) of the resin powder, (3) an absorption capacity under load (AAP) of the resin powder, (4) a saline flow conductivity (SFC) of the resin powder, (5) a mass average particle diameter (D50) of the resin powder, and (6) an amount of a solid component contained in the resin powder or a solid fraction of the resin powder to obtain the desired information.
As to claim 11, regarding the technical solution “a step of calculating the near-infrared absorption spectrum of the resin powder from a measurement value obtained by measuring light reflected by the resin powder”, 524’ discloses a method for determining the isotactic index of polypropylene resin (equivalent to a measuring method) and specifically discloses the following content (see paragraphs 4-5 on page 2 of the description): forming a calibration set with representative polypropylene resin granular samples (equivalent to resin powder), the near-infrared diffuse reflectance spectrum of the polypropylene resin sample is used as the determination parameter (equivalent to irradiating the resin powder with near-infrared radiation), use the integrating sphere diffuse reflectance spectrum sampling accessory to measure the near-infrared diffuse reflectance spectrum while the sample cup is rotating (equivalent to calculating the near-infrared absorption spectrum of the resin powder from a measurement value obtained by measuring light reflected by the resin powder), the average spectral data of multiple parallel measurements should be taken as the sample data.
Further, measuring a near-infrared absorption spectrum of a resin powder, the near-infrared absorption spectrum being used in the method, the resin powder being either an absorbent resin powder or an intermediate product generated in the producing process of the absorbent resin powder is common and known in the art in predicting the physical properties of the absorbent resin powder.
Moreover, considering the teachings of 524’ and common knowledge, the prediction of the physical properties of polypropylene resin powder samples, applying this method to either absorbent resin powder or an intermediate product which is produced in a process for producing the water absorbent resin powder is a routine application in the art, with predictable technical effects.
In addition, for the technical solutions of “a step of calculating the near-infrared absorption spectrum of the resin powder from a measurement value obtained by measuring light transmitted by the resin powder” and “a step of calculating the near-infrared absorption spectrum of the resin powder from a measurement value obtained by measuring light reflected by the resin powder and light transmitted by the resin powder”, it is a common approach in the art to use the transmitted light or reflected light and transmitted light for measurement.
Therefore, by combining the common knowledge in the art with the teachings of 524’, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of 524’ wherein the method comprises measuring at least one of light reflected by the resin powder and light transmitted by the resin powder, the resin powder being any one of a water absorbent resin powder and an intermediate product which is produced in a process for producing the water absorbent resin powder to obtain predictable result such as optimized performance.
As to claim 12, selecting which property to predict (e.g. D50, CRC, AAP, SFC, moisture content, residual monomers, bulk density, etc.) does not alter the underlying method steps taught by 524’. It names the intended result of the prediction model. Such recitations of an intended use or desired output, without a structural or process change, fails to patentably distinguish over 524’. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458 (CCPA 1963).
Further, under KSR and ordinary skill reasoning, once a method of collecting NIR spectra, processing, and applying multivariate models to predict a physical property is taught, it would be obvious to apply the same workflow to predict other properties of polymer/resin powders and their intermediates where a correlation can be modeled. 524’ itself teaches that spectral features reflect chemical structure and that multivariate calibration captures those correlations (pages 1-5). The selection of which property to predict is a routine design choice made to meet production or quality-control objectives and yields predictable results (a property prediction) without requiring non-obvious modifications to the method.
Claim(s) 7, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 524’ in view of Santos et al., (Santos, Alexandre & Silva, Fabricio & Lenzi, Marcelo & Pinto, Jose. (2005). Monitoring and Control of Polymerization Reactors Using NIR Spectroscopy. Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineering. 44-1-61.10.1080/pte-200046030, provided by applicant).
As to claims 7, 9 and 10, 524’ discloses (see the second-to-last paragraph on page 3) that for powder samples, preprocessing the near-infrared diffuse reflectance spectrum data by second-order differential.
524’ discloses fails to explicitly disclose wherein the process for producing the resin powder includes a polymerization step and a drying step; the near-infrared absorption spectrum is measured at least any one of the following points in time: before the polymerization step, between the polymerization step and the drying step; and after the drying step; and any one or more production apparatuses which are used in the process for producing the resin powered are controlled on the basis of the prediction information which has been outputted in the predicting step; a production condition of the resin powder being controlled in any one or more steps for producing the resin powder (claim 9)
However, other preprocessing methods are all common approaches in the art as evidenced by Santos. (abstract, pages 1-2, section “Introduction” and page 5, 2nd and 3rd paragraph; Fig. 1, In-line, pages 7-12, section “COMMERICAL NIT TECHNOLOGY”; pages 17-18; section “MONITORING AND CONTROL OF POLYMERIZATION REACTORS”).
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 method of 524’ wherein the process for producing the resin powder includes a polymerization step and a drying step; the near-infrared absorption spectrum is measured at least any one of the following points in time: before the polymerization step, between the polymerization step and the drying step; and after the drying step; and any one or more production apparatuses which are used in the process for producing the resin powered are controlled on the basis of the prediction information which has been outputted in the predicting step and a production condition of the resin powder being controlled in any one or more steps for producing the resin powder for advantages such as identifying and correcting potential early in the process, reduce waste and improve overall efficiency of the production process.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TARIFUR RASHID CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am-5 pm.
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, Allana L. Bidder can be reached at (571)2725560. 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.
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights