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 Amendment
This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 4/15/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application, claims 14-20 have been withdrawn and claims 1-13 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The objection to the claims has been withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
All rejections from the previous office action are maintained.
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of objection are necessitated by the amendments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 are necessitated by the amendments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, please change “…an end of the first channel that away from the second channel…” to “… and end of the first channel that is away from the second channel…” in lines 14-15.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “purification device…configured to purify the air in the housing,” “guiding assembly...configured to guide air from the air inlet to the purification device,” and “air driving device…configured to drive the air from the air inlet to the purification device” in claim 1.
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. Specifically, the purification device will be understood to be an ultraviolet lamp and all equivalents thereof as disclosed in paragraph [0025] of the specification, the guiding assembly will be understood to be an extended inwall and all equivalents thereof as disclosed in paragraph [0030] of the specification, and the air driving device will be understood to be a fan and all equivalents thereof as disclosed in paragraph [0028] of the specification.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. New matter, shown in bold, was added to the claims in the amendment filed on 4/15/2026. Claim 1 recites “wherein the guiding assembly forms a first channel and a second channel, the first channel is corresponding to and spaced apart from the air inlet.” The specification does not contain support for the first channel being spaced apart from the air inlet. The specification only describes that the first channel is corresponding to the inlet in paragraph [0031], and Fig. 3 of the Drawings filed on 3/29/2023 shows the first channel (41) spaced adjacently to air inlet (11). Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in reply to this Office Action.
Claims 2-13 are also rejected due to their dependence on claim 1 and failure to resolve the issues contained therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahata (CN 112770788 A) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 11/04/2025) in view of Herskovitz et al. (US 20220154953 A1) (eligible as prior art under 34 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with an effective filing date of 11/19/2020).
Regarding claim 1, Sahata teaches an air purification equipment (Fig. 5, gas processing device 1) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 5, shell 10), the housing defining an air inlet (Fig. 5, 12a) and an air outlet (Fig. 5, 12c), the air inlet configured to import air into the housing, the air outlet configured to export air out of the housing (page 7, para 1-4);
a purification device arranged in the housing (Fig. 5, lamp 11) and configured to purify the air in the housing (lamp 11 is configured to irradiate gas G1 with UV light, page 7, para 2);
a guiding assembly arranged in the housing, the guiding assembly configured to guide the air from the air inlet to the purification device (Fig. 5, main body part 12 = guiding assembly, page 9, para 7);
an air driving device arranged in the housing, the air driving device configured to drive the air from the air inlet to the purification device, and drive the air to the air outlet (Fig. 5, fan 31);
wherein the guiding assembly forms a first channel and a second channel (Fig. 5, second channel= hollow portion 12b), the first channel is corresponding to the air inlet (Fig. 5, first channel 12a corresponds to inlet), a cross-sectional area of the first channel is gradually decreasing along a direction from the air inlet towards the air outlet (Fig. 5, 12a gradually decreases from air inlet towards air outlet), a cross-sectional area of the of the second channel is same along the direction from the air inlet towards the air outlet (Fig. 5, second channel 12b has even cross sectional area), the first channel is configured to guide the air to flow into the second channel (Fig. 5, 12a fluidly connected to 12b), at least a part of the purification device is positioned in the second channel (Fig. 5, lamp 11 positioned in second channel 12b).
Sahata does not teach wherein the first channel is spaced apart from the air inlet and wherein the first channel is configured to allow the air entering the first channel from the air inlet to flow along sidewalls of the first channel to form a turbulent flow in an end of the first channel that [is] away from the second channel.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with optimizing the air flow around the light source, motivating one to turn towards Herskovitz. Herskovitz teaches an air purifier system (Fig. 172, 920) comprising a plurality of air guides (939) surrounding an ultraviolet light source (938) wherein the air guides are configured to deflect a portion of the air traveling alongside the light source, generating a turbulent flow [0307]. Herskovitz teaches the turbulent flow to increase the dwell time of air within the system, increasing the rate of purification [0307].
Herskovitz is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to the air purification arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inlet and the first channel as taught by Sahata to include the air guides as taught by Herskovitz because Herskovitz teaches the air guides to generate a turbulent flow around an ultraviolet light source and increase the rate of air purification [0307] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
PNG
media_image1.png
706
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Annotation 1: Modified Sahata (Fig. 5) :)]Accordingly, Modified Sahata teaches wherein the first channel is spaced apart from the air inlet (Herskovitz, Fig. 173, air guides 939 would create space that separates the air inlet and first channel of Sahata, see annotation 1 below) and wherein the first channel is configured to allow the air entering the first channel from the air inlet to flow along sidewalls of the first channel to form a turbulent flow in an end of the first channel that [is] away from the second channel (Herskovitz, [0307]).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Sahata teaches the air purification equipment of claim 1, wherein the guiding assembly further forms a third channel the third channel (Sahata, Fig. 5, main body part 12 = guiding assembly which forms third channel 12c), the third channel and the first channel are positioned on opposite sides of the second channel, the third channel is corresponding to the air outlet a cross-sectional area of the third channel is gradually increasing along the direction from the air inlet towards the air outlet, the third channel is configured to guide the air in the second channel to the air outlet (Sahata, Fig. 5, third channel 12c is positioned opposite of first channel 12a and corresponds with air outlet, wherein a cross sectional area of 12c gradually increases towards the air outlet and guides air G1 to air outlet).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Sahata teaches the air purification equipment of claim 1, wherein the first channel and the second channel are both symmetric structures (Sahata, Fig. 5, first channel 12a and second channel 12b are symmetrical), the first channel is a funnel shaped (Fig. 5, 12a is funnel shaped), the second channel is a rectangular shaped (Sahata, Fig. 5, channel 12b is rectangular).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Sahata teaches the air purification equipment of claim 1, wherein a width of the second channel is smaller than a width of the housing, a cross-sectional area of the second channel is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the housing (Sahata, Fig. 5, the width and cross-sectional area of second channel 12b is smaller than the width and cross-sectional area of housing 10); a width of a portion of the first channel closest to the air inlet is smaller than or equal to the width of the housing, a cross-sectional area of the portion of the first channel closest to the air inlet is smaller than or equal to the cross-sectional area of the housing (Sahata, Fig. 5, the width and cross-sectional area of first channel 12a is smaller than the width and cross-sectional area of housing 10).
Claim(s) 2-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahata (CN 112770788 A) in view of Herskovitz et al. (US 20220154953 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Cui (CN 214276058 U) (cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 03/29/2023).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Sahata teaches the air purification equipment of claim 1, including a UV lamp (Sahata, Fig. 5, 11) but does not teach wherein the equipment further comprising a light sensor, wherein the light sensor is arranged in the housing, the light sensor is configured to detect an illuminance of UV light in the housing emitted by the purification device.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with determining the UV output from said lamp to control the disinfection of the air, motivating one to turn towards Cui. Cui teaches an air purification device (Fig. 1, 1) with an ultraviolet light source positioned in a housing (abstract) and a control circuit connected to an ultraviolet radiation illumination sensor (page 2, para 9-12, Fig. 1, 11), wherein the control circuit is configured to monitor the radiation illuminated by the light source via the sensor and adjust power to the light source to prevent damage (page 5, para 8-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air purification apparatus as taught by Modified Sahata to include the control circuit and light sensor as taught by Cui since Cui teaches the two elements to sense the radiation emitted by a light source and adjust power to said source to prevent damage and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Sahata teaches the air purification equipment of claim 2, including an air driving device (Sahata, Fig. 5, fan 31) but does not teach wherein the apparatus further comprising an air flow velocity detector, wherein the air flow velocity detector is arranged in the housing, the air flow velocity detector is configured to detect an air flow velocity in the housing.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with determining the flow velocity inside the housing to determine the residence time of air being exposed to UV light, motivating one to turn towards Cui. Cui teaches an air purification device (Fig. 1, 1) with an ultraviolet light source positioned in a housing (abstract) and a control circuit connected to an air speed sensor (page 7, para 3, Fig. 1, 17), wherein the control circuit is configured to monitor the air speed in the housing and adjust power to the light source based on the amount of people in a space and the speed of the air (page 7, para 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air purification apparatus as taught by Modified Sahata to include the control circuit and air velocity sensor as taught by Cui since Cui teaches the two elements to sense the air speed within a housing and adjust the radiation emitted by a light source and adjust power to effectively sterilize air and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Sahata teaches the air purification equipment of claim 3, further comprising a processor, wherein the processor is electrically connected to the light sensor (Cui, control circuit understood to be processor connected to light sensor page 2, para 9-12), the light sensor detects the illuminance of the light in the housing emitted by the purification device and outputs light detected information to the processor, the processor is configured to determine whether the purification device is abnormal according to the light detected information (Cui, page 5, para 8-10).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Sahata teaches the air purification equipment of claim 4, wherein the processor is electrically connected to the air flow velocity detector, the air flow velocity detector detects the air flow velocity in the housing and outputs air flow velocity information to the processor (Cui, control circuit is electrically connected to air speed sensor, page 7, para 3), the processor is configured to determine whether the air inlet is blocked according to the air flow velocity information (Cui, page 7, para 1-3).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Sahata teaches the air purification equipment of claim 1, wherein the guiding assembly comprises a surface (Sahata, Fig. 5, guiding assembly 12) but does not teach wherein the surface is arranged with a reflector, and the reflector is configured to reflect the light emitted by the purification device.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with ultraviolet light leaking from the guiding assembly and leading to injury or inefficiency energy loss, motivating one tot turn towards Cui. Cui teaches an air purification device (Fig. 1, 1) with an ultraviolet light source positioned in a housing (abstract), wherein the housing comprising an air channel (Fig. 1, 4) with a reflective inner wall (such as polished aluminum) configured to reflect ultraviolet light and increase efficiency of sterilization (page 6, para 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the guiding assembly as taught by Modified Sahata with the reflective inner wall as taught by Cui to increase the density of UV radiation and the efficiency of air sterilization and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Sahata teaches the air purification equipment of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the apparatus further comprising a filter, wherein the filter is secured to the air inlet, the filter is configured to block dust from the housing.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with preventing dirt from entering the housing and increasing maintenance and cleaning costs, motivating one to turn towards Cui. Cui teaches an air purification device (Fig. 1, 1) with an ultraviolet light source positioned in a housing (abstract) and a filter unit comprising a filter screen near the air inlet to prevent dust from contaminating the ultraviolet light source (page 5, para 3-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air purification apparatus as taught by Sahata to include the filter unit at an air inlet of an air purification housing as taught by Cui to prevent the contamination of an ultraviolet air source and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Claim(s) 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahata (CN 112770788 A) in view of Herskovitz et al. (US 20220154953 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Wang (CN 2608011 Y) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 11/04/2025).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Sahata teaches the air purification equipment of claim 1, wherein the purification device comprises a lamp tube (Sahata, Fig. 5, UV lamp 11), wherein the lamp tube is configured to emit UV light (Sahata, page 7, para 4) but does not teach a fiberglass sleeve wherein the fiberglass sleeve covers the lamp tube.
Wang teaches an air cleaning device (abstract) comprising an ultraviolet lamp (Fig. 2, lamp 2) with coated with a photo-catalytically active glass fiber sleeve (Fig. 2, fiber glass sleeve 5, page 3, para 8) designed to generate free radicals that assist in the deactivation of bacteria contained in the air (page 3, para 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultraviolet lamp as taught by Modified Sahata to include the photocatalytic fiber glass sleeve as taught by Wang to generate bacteria killing free radicals and improve the purification of the air passing through a housing and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Sahata teaches the air purification equipment of claim 7, wherein the lamp tube is fully positioned in the second channel the lamp tube is partially positioned in the second channel, and the rest of the lamp tube is positioned in the first channel; or the lamp tube is partially positioned in the second channel, and the rest of the lamp tube is extended out of the second channel from a direction away from the first channel (Sahata, Fig. 5, lamp 11 is fully positioned into second channel 12b).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahata (CN 112770788 A) in view of Herskovitz et al. (US 20220154953 A1) and Cui (CN 214276058 U), as applied to claim 4 above, further in view of Hartenstein (US 20230138501 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Sahata teaches the air purification equipment of claim 4, including a processor (Cui, control circuit understood to be processor, page 2, para 9-12), but does not teach a protection cover, wherein the protection cover is arranged in the housing, the protection cover covers the processor, and the protection cover is configured to decrease an illuminance area of the light illuminates on the processor.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with protecting the processor from damaging ultraviolet radiation, motivating one to turn towards Hartenstein. Hartenstein teaches a disinfecting system for a face mask with ultraviolet light (abstract) including a UV light source, a circuit board, and a UV stable cover which encapsulates these electrical components for protection [0067].
Hartenstein is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to ultraviolet disinfection apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor as taught by Modified Sahata to include the UV stable cover as taught by Hartenstein to protect the processor from ultraviolet light and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
In the arguments presented on page 9-10 of the amendment, filed 4/15/2026, the Applicant argues that the first opening area (12a) as taught by Sahata is not spaced apart from the end of the housing (10) with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102.
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art Herskovitz et al. (US 20220154953 A1). See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on page 10 of the amendment, filed 4/15/2026, the Applicant argues that Sahata does not teach wherein the first channel is configured to allow the air to form a turbulent flow in an end of the first channel that away from the second channel with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102.
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art Herskovitz et al. (US 20220154953 A1). See rejection above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEBYATE S SEGED whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 pm (EST).
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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights