DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 6, 2026 and May 5, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 10 and 15 are amended and claims 1 – 15 are pending. The amendment to the Specification providing a clearer version of Table 4 has been reviewed and entered. After consideration of Applicant’s arguments and 37 CFR 1.132 declaration, the previously set forth rejection under 35 USC 103 over Imamura et al. (US 2017/0260344).
The invention as currently claimed is not found to be patentable for reasons herein below.
Response to 37 CFR 1.132 declaration and Arguments
Applicant’s 37 CFR 1.132 declaration and arguments filed on May 5, 2026 have been fully considered but not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant indicates that the Examples disclosed in the present specification and the claimed invention has unexpected technical effects compared to the disclosure of Imamura.
Overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires the combination of three different elements: (i) the results must fairly compare with the closest prior art in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, (ii) the claims must be commensurate in scope, and (iii) the results must truly be unexpected. MPEP 716.02. Additionally, the burden rests with Applicant to establish the results are unexpected and significant. MPEP 716.02(b).
Regarding the results being commensurate in scope with the claims: The Examiner has provided Table 3 from the Specification below to best
demonstrate the concerns regarding the provided data. Applicant’s data provided in Table 3 of the Specification provide examples within and outside the claimed ranges. The data points outside the claimed range have been highlighted with a black background/white font.
PPVE content
MFR
Number of functional groups
Melting Point
Tg
(mass %)
(g/10 min)
Number/C10^6
(deg C)
(deg C)
Example 1
2.5
4.8
<6
311
100.0
Example 2
2.7
3.0
45
310
99.5
Example 3
2.3
1.8
<6
312
100.5
Example 4
2.0
0.8
<6
315
101.0
Comparative Example 1
2.5
4.8
140
311
100.0
Comparative Example 2
1.7
2.4
<6
314
102.0
Comparative Example 3
2.2
0.5
<6
312
101.0
Comparative Example 4
2.9
2.2
<6
310
99.0
In regards to the number of functional groups, Applicant provides data for several points labeled as “<6”. The Applicant has clarified that <6 specifies an upper limit for the range because it is difficult to identify the number in more detail. The Examiner appreciates the explanation.
In regards to the melt flow rate, claim 1 has been narrowed to 0.8 to 5.5 g/10 min from the previous 0.8 - 7.0 g/10 min melt flow rate. For Applicant’s examples in Table 3, the melt flow rate at best ranges from 0.8 to 4.8 g/10 min. However, the comparative examples do not appear to establish criticality for Applicant’s upper end of the range as Example 1 demonstrates 4.8 g/10 min and there are no examples (or comparative) that demonstrate the affects above 4.8 g/10 min.
Additionally, in claim 1, Applicant claims 50 functional groups or less and the data provided does not establish criticality for the claimed range. As shown in the above table, Applicant demonstrates “<6 number of functional groups” and at 45, while the only comparative above 45 is at 140. The comparative examples do not appear to establish criticality for Applicant’s upper end of the range.
Applicant focuses on Comparative Example 4 (which falls within the scope of the present application except for the PPVE amount) and the working Examples to establish that unexpectedly superior results are achieved by the present application. In order to support the Examiner’s concerns about the results not showing unexpectedly superior results, the Examiner has provided a copy of Table 4 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
341
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
376
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding the data provided in Table 4, Applicant indicates the present invention provides molded articles that exhibit excellent low water vapor permeability at high temperatures, effectively prevent electrolytic solution leakage, and maintain superior sealing properties under high-temperature conditions. Additionally, Applicant indicates that the corrosion resistance is unpredictable as well.
As a whole, previously applied Imamura et al. (US2017/0260344) recognizes the claimed features to be optimizable within Applicant’s range depending on the desired level of permeability to nitrogen and hydrochloric acid (see Mass% PAVE below), moldablity (see Melt Flow rate below) and desired level of specific gravity also depending on desire of level of crosslinking and moldability (see Number of functional groups below). Below are excerpts from Imamura et al. regarding each of those features.
Mass% PAVE –
[0059] The TFE/PAVE copolymer preferably contains 1.0 to 10 mass % of a polymerized unit based on PAVE relative to all the polymerized units.
[0060] The amount of the polymerized unit based on PAVE is more preferably 2.0 mass % or more, still more preferably 3.5 mass % or more, particularly preferably 4.0 mass % or more, most preferably 5.0 mass % or more, while more preferably 8.0 mass % or less, still more preferably 7.0 mass % or less, particularly preferably 6.5 mass % or less, most preferably 6.0 mass % or less, relative to all the polymerized units.
[0057] A copolymer containing a PAVE unit can further lower the permeability to nitrogen gas and hydrochloric acid. This is presumably because a large number of large side chains, which are alkoxy groups, show a large molecular motion even at low temperature, so that the effect of irradiation can be sufficiently achieved even at low temperature.
Melt Flow rate –
[0093] The fluororesin preferably has a melt flow rate (MFR) of 0.1 to 100 g/10 min at 372° C. If the MFR is within the above range, the irradiation may significantly exhibit the effects thereof.
[0094] In general, the presence of a fluororesin containing many TFE units and having a low MFR leads to production of a molded article having excellently low permeability to nitrogen gas and hydrochloric acid. However, such a fluororesin has low melt flowability and thus is difficult to mold. In contrast, the production method of the present invention can provide a molded article having excellently low permeability to nitrogen gas and hydrochloric acid even if a fluororesin to be used has a high MFR and thus has excellent moldability.
Number of functional groups –
[0114] The fluororesin preferably contains 500 or less functional groups per 10.sup.6 carbon atoms in the main chain. The number of the functional groups is more preferably 400 or less, still more preferably 350 or less. The lower limit thereof is not particularly limited, and may be 0. Too many functional groups may facilitate progress of a crosslinking reaction by the irradiation, possibly causing a failure in producing a modified molded article having excellently low permeability.
[0115] In order to give a high specific gravity to the modified molded article, the number of functional groups which promote the crosslinking is preferably small. In contrast, in order to give excellent abrasion resistance to the modified molded article, the number of functional groups which promote the crosslinking is preferably large. The number of functional groups can be selected in consideration of the irradiation temperature and irradiation dose of the radiation.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion regarding corrosion resistance, it should be noted that all examples besides comparative example 1 demonstrate good corrosion resistance. While comparative example 1 may demonstrate poor corrosion resistance, it is unclear that is what is being demonstrated in the poor resolution black and white photos in the 37 CFR 1.132 declaration. Even if it was clear in the photos, Applicant had previously indicated that the number of functional groups of 50 or less contributes to this result in the arguments from 8/19/25. However, as discussed above the number of functional groups in comparative example 1 is well beyond the range of the examples and Applicant has not established criticality for the upper end of their claimed range of 50 per 106 main-chain carbon atoms. Additionally, the test relies on a subjective judgement where good is no corrosion observed, fair is corrosion slightly observed and poor is corrosion observed (see [0167] of Specification). One data point of “poor” among only 3 other comparative and 4 exemplary data points which all indicate Good is not statically significant and cannot be determined to objectively demonstrate an unexpected result. Optionally, as discussed above in the 35 USC 103 rejection, Imbalzano teaches it is known that that the number of unstable units, such as -COOH, -CONH2, -COF etc., in copolymers comprising tetrafluoroethylene (TPE) and perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) (PPVE) units must be lowered by a fluorination treatment to prevent corrosive products (Abstract). Imbalzano teach, a result of the discovery of the source of corrosivity, an improved TFE/PAVE resin was developed that does not contain the unstable end groups that have the corrosion potential described above. The improved resins have extremely low levels of corrosive extractable fluoride, in the form of dissolved HF or COF.sub.2, and have nearly a quantitative absence of end groups that can oxidize, hydrolyze and/or thermally decompose to generate additional HF (column 2, lines 1 – 25).
Thus, the concept of lowering corrosion is known by modifying the number of functional groups and not an unexpected result.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion low water vapor permeability at high temperatures, as shown in Table 4, Applicant’s examples range in water permeability from 9.0 – 10.0 while the comparative examples range from 7.9 to 11.1. Imamura et al. as discussed above recognizes that the number of PAVE units, melt flow rate, number of functional groups all directly influence the permeability. It is unclear what the threshold would be for good permeability vs. undesirable permeability. The values in the comparative are only slightly different than the values in the Examples. The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Mere conclusions in appellants’ brief that the claimed polymer had an unexpectedly increased impact strength "are not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence, either in the specification or in a declaration."); Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). Additionally, "[A]ppellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness." Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). It is submitted that the water vapor permeability is predictable and not unexpected in light of the disclosure of Imamura et al.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion effectively preventing electrolytic solution leakage, as shown in Table 4, the electrolytic leak amount ranges from 0.0023 – 0.0025 for the Examples and 0.0022 – 0.0031 for the comparative Examples. The Examiner submits that the leak amount directly relates to the moldability of the copolymer which Imamura et al. discusses above is related to the melt flow rate and number of functional groups. It is unclear what the threshold would be for a desired electrolytic solution leak amount vs. undesirable. The values in the comparative are only slightly different than the values in the Examples. The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Mere conclusions in appellants’ brief that the claimed polymer had an unexpectedly increased impact strength "are not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence, either in the specification or in a declaration."); Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). Additionally, "[A]ppellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness." Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). It is submitted that the electrolytic solution leak amount is predictable and not unexpected in light of the disclosure of Imamura et al.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion maintaining superior sealing properties under high-temperature conditions, as shown in Table 4, the sealing properties which is related to surface pressure ranges from 1.86 – 2.19 MPA for the Examples and 1.56 – 1.90 for the comparative Examples.The Examiner submits that sealing properties/surface pressure directly relates to the moldability of the copolymer which Imamura et al. discusses above is related to the melt flow rate and number of functional groups. It is unclear what the threshold would be for a desired sealing properties/surface pressure vs. undesirable. The values in the comparative are only slightly different than the values in the Examples. In summary, to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Mere conclusions in appellants’ brief that the claimed polymer had an unexpectedly increased impact strength "are not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence, either in the specification or in a declaration."); Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). Additionally, "[A]ppellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness." Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). It is submitted that the sealing properties/surface pressure is predictable and not unexpected in light of the disclosure of Imamura et al.
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
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.
Claims 1 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamura et al. (US 2017/0260344) and optionally further in view of in view of US Imbalzano (US 4,743,658).
Imamura et al. is directed to a method for produced a molded article comprising a fluororesin (Abstract).
As to claim 1, Imamura et al. teach a melt-fabricable fluororesin comprising most preferably a copolymer having a TFE unit and a PAVE unit (page 3, [0055]). The TFE unit is tetrafluoroethylene and the PAVE unit is preferably perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) (PPVE) (page 3, [0055] and [0058]). The TFE/PAVE preferably contains 1.0 to 10mass% of a polymerized unit based on PAVE relative to all of the polymerized units (page 3, [0059]). The amount of the polymerized unit is more preferably 2.0 mass% or more and most preferably 6.0 mass % or less relative to all the polymerized units (page 3, [0060]). Imamura et al. teach that the fluororesin preferably has a melt flow rate (MFR) of 0.1 to 100 g/10 min at 372° C. If the MFR is within the above range, the irradiation may significantly exhibit the effects thereof. [0093]
Imamura et al. teaches a melt flow rate, number of TFE/PAVE units and number of functional groups that overlap with the claimed ranges in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Mass% PAVE, Imamura et al. teaches:
[0059] The TFE/PAVE copolymer preferably contains 1.0 to 10 mass % of a polymerized unit based on PAVE relative to all the polymerized units.
[0060] The amount of the polymerized unit based on PAVE is more preferably 2.0 mass % or more, still more preferably 3.5 mass % or more, particularly preferably 4.0 mass % or more, most preferably 5.0 mass % or more, while more preferably 8.0 mass % or less, still more preferably 7.0 mass % or less, particularly preferably 6.5 mass % or less, most preferably 6.0 mass % or less, relative to all the polymerized units.
[0057] A copolymer containing a PAVE unit can further lower the permeability to nitrogen gas and hydrochloric acid. This is presumably because a large number of large side chains, which are alkoxy groups, show a large molecular motion even at low temperature, so that the effect of irradiation can be sufficiently achieved even at low temperature.
Regarding melt flow rate, Imamura et al. teaches:
[0093] The fluororesin preferably has a melt flow rate (MFR) of 0.1 to 100 g/10 min at 372° C. If the MFR is within the above range, the irradiation may significantly exhibit the effects thereof. [0094] In general, the presence of a fluororesin containing many TFE units and having a low MFR leads to production of a molded article having excellently low permeability to nitrogen gas and hydrochloric acid. However, such a fluororesin has low melt flowability and thus is difficult to mold. In contrast, the production method of the present invention can provide a molded article having excellently low permeability to nitrogen gas and hydrochloric acid even if a fluororesin to be used has a high MFR and thus has excellent moldability.
Regarding number of functional groups, Imamura et al. teaches:
[0114] The fluororesin preferably contains 500 or less functional groups per 10.sup.6 carbon atoms in the main chain. The number of the functional groups is more preferably 400 or less, still more preferably 350 or less. The lower limit thereof is not particularly limited, and may be 0. Too many functional groups may facilitate progress of a crosslinking reaction by the irradiation, possibly causing a failure in producing a modified molded article having excellently low permeability.
[0115] In order to give a high specific gravity to the modified molded article, the number of functional groups which promote the crosslinking is preferably small. In contrast, in order to give excellent abrasion resistance to the modified molded article, the number of functional groups which promote the crosslinking is preferably large. The number of functional groups can be selected in consideration of the irradiation temperature and irradiation dose of the radiation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected 2 – 2.7 mass% PAVE unit, 0.8 – 5.5 g/10 min melt flow rate, and 50 or less functional groups because ranges within the disclosed prior art range have been held to establish prima facie obviousness absent any showing of unexpected results.
Optionally, further in view of Imbalzano, it is known that that the number of unstable units, such as -COOH, -CONH2, -COF etc., in copolymers comprising tetrafluoroethylene (TPE) and perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) (PPVE) units must be lowered by a fluorination treatment to prevent corrosive products (Abstract). Imbalzano teach, a result of the discovery of the source of corrosivity, an improved TFE/PAVE resin was developed that does not contain the unstable end groups that have the corrosion potential described above. The improved resins have extremely low levels of corrosive extractable fluoride, in the form of dissolved HF or COF.sub.2, and have nearly a quantitative absence of end groups that can oxidize, hydrolyze and/or thermally decompose to generate additional HF (column 2, lines 1 – 25).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to reduce the number of any unstable functional group in Imamura et al. TPE/PPVE copolymer to nearly zero to avoid the production of corrosive products.
As to claims 2 – 8, Imamura et al. teach that the copolymer may be made into a
molded article in any shape or form such as pellets, a film, a sheet, a plate, a rod, a block, a cylinder, a container, an electric wire, or a tube. The molded article may be a fluor resin coating film for forming, for example, a coating layer for cookware, such as an inner pot of a rice cooker, an electric griddle, or a frying pan, or a top coat layer of a fixing roller for an image forming device such as an electrophotographic type or electrostatic recording type copier or a laser printer. The fluororesin coating film may be formed by applying a fluororesin coating to a substrate (page 3, [0050]). The molded article is preferably a tube, a film, or a bottle (page 3, [0051]). The molded article can be extrusion molded, compression molded or injection molded (page 3, [0052]) or transfer molded (page 2, [0047]).
As to claim 9, Imamura et al. teach that the fluororesin preferably has
a melting point of 190° C. to 347° C. The melting point is more preferably 200° C. or higher, still more preferably 220° C. or higher, particularly preferably 280° C. or higher, while more preferably 322° C. or lower (page 3, [0053]).
As to claims 10 – 12, the fluororesin preferably has a melt flow rate (MFR) of 0.1 to 100 g/10 min at 372° C. If the MFR is within the above range, the irradiation may significantly exhibit the effects thereof. The MFR is more preferably 0.5 g/10 min or more, while more preferably 80 g/10 min or less, still more preferably 40 g/10 min or less. The MFR is a value determined as the mass (g/10 min) of the polymer flowed out of a nozzle (inner diameter: 2 mm, length: 8 mm) per 10 minutes at 372° C. and 5 kg load using a melt indexer (Yasuda Seiki Seisakusho Ltd.) in conformity with ASTM D1238. [0093]. In general, the presence of a fluororesin containing many TFE units and having a low MFR leads to production of a molded article having excellently low permeability to nitrogen gas and hydrochloric acid. However, such a fluororesin has low melt flowability and thus is difficult to mold. In contrast, the production method of the present invention can provide a molded article having excellently low permeability to nitrogen gas and hydrochloric acid even if a fluororesin to be used has a high MFR and thus has excellent moldability. [0094] It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected 0.8 – 5.5 g/10 min, 08. – 4.8 g/10 min or 0.8 g/10 min melt flow rate, because ranges within the disclosed prior art range have been held to establish prima facie obviousness absent any showing of unexpected results.
As to claims 13 – 14, Imamura et al. teach a melt-fabricable fluororesin comprising most preferably a copolymer having a TFE unit and a PAVE unit (page 3, [0055]). The TFE unit is tetrafluoroethylene and the PAVE unit is preferably perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) (PPVE) (page 3, [0055] and [0058]). The TFE/PAVE preferably contains 1.0 to 10 mass% of a polymerized unit based on PAVE relative to all of the polymerized units (page 3, [0059]). The amount of the polymerized unit is more preferably 2.0 mass% or more and most preferably 6.0 mass % or less relative to all the polymerized units (page 3, [0060]). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected 2.3 – 2.7 mass% and 97.3 to 98.0%, because ranges within the disclosed prior art range have been held to establish prima facie obviousness absent any showing of unexpected results.
As to claim 15, Imamura et al. teach that the lower limit of the functional groups is not particularly limited and may be 0 which is an example within Applicant’s claimed range. Imamura et al. note that too many functional groups may facilitate process of a crosslinking reaction by the irradiation, possibly causing a failure in produced a modified molded article having excellently low permeability. The number of functional groups can be selected in consideration of the irradiation temperature and irradiation dose of the radiation (page 6, [0114]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected less than 45 functional groups because ranges within the disclosed prior art range have been held to establish prima facie obviousness absent any showing of unexpected results.
Optionally, further in view of Imbalzano it is known that that the number of unstable units, such as -COOH, -CONH2, -COF etc., in copolymers comprising tetrafluoroethylene (TPE) and perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) (PPVE) units must be lowered by a fluorination treatment to prevent corrosive products (Abstract). Imbalzano teach, a result of the discovery of the source of corrosivity, an improved TFE/PAVE resin was developed that does not contain the unstable end groups that have the corrosion potential described above. The improved resins have extremely low levels of corrosive extractable fluoride, in the form of dissolved HF or COF.sub.2, and have nearly a quantitative absence of end groups that can oxidize, hydrolyze and/or thermally decompose to generate additional HF (column 2, lines 1 – 25).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to reduce the number of any unstable functional group in Imamura et al. TPE/PPVE copolymer to nearly zero to avoid the production of corrosive products.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)272-7783. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm with alternating Fridays off.
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, Sri Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights