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
Applicant's arguments filed April 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments to the current set of claims have minorly changed the scope of the claimed invention, but the previous prior art rejection reads upon the claims.
On pages 8-9 of the Remarks section, as indicated by the page number at the bottom of each page, Applicant discusses the previous objections, and 112(b) rejections. The Examiner has withdrawn the previous objections and almost all 112 rejections in response to these amendments.
On pages 9-12, Applicant argues against the previous 103 prior art rejection of independent Claim 1 using Fabig et al., (“Fabig”, WO 2007/147198). Specifically, Applicant asserts that Fabig and none of the other secondary references used disclose that the bleed stream has an ever-increasing concentration of retained contaminants in the bleed stream. Applicant argues that Fabig uses a conventional RO system that operates under stable concentration conditions, and does not disclose a condition where the concentration of contaminants is always increasing. Applicant argues that Fabig’s disclosure does not demonstrate this condition occurring. In response, the Examiner notes that the disclosure in Fabig relied upon demonstrate that in a RO membrane module, the concentration of contaminants is designed to increase along the length of the module such that the concentration of contaminants is at its highest at the end of the module (the tail end of the membrane) versus the beginning. Thus, the concentration increases along the length of the module, yielding an “ever-increasing” concentration. For this reason, the Examiner finds Applicant’s remark here unpersuasive.
On pages 10-11, Applicant then argues against the combination of the first and second embodiments of Fabig. Specifically, Applicant argues that they would not be obvious to combine, stating that the first embodiment is a brine squeezer which runs at a differential pressure threshold until a shut down for cleaning is necessary, and the second embodiment uses two RO units which operate in parallel and alternately switch from cleaning to service. Applicant argues that the periods of time in this second embodiment in Fabig are for a period of operation and a period of shutdown, which is not the same as claimed in which a filter membrane is producing an output permeate stream for a first period of time, then causing a flush, and operating to produce an output permeate stream for a second period of time. The Examiner disagrees with this assertion, noting that the second embodiment makes clear that the membranes are operating and producing permeate (first period of time), then are shut down for cleaning (flushing), and then are started up to operate and produce permeate again, when the other membrane is shut down for cleaning, (second period of time), demonstrating the same periods of time claimed. The Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
On pages 11-12, Applicant argues against the rejection of Claims 11 & 12, asserting that Fabig does not disclose a 100% recovery rate as claimed. Applicant also argues that Fabig only suggests that a higher recovery rate is achievable, not to attain 100% recovery. The Examiner disagrees with this assertion, because Claim 11 explicitly states “at up to 100% recovery”, not “100% recovery”, which means that there is a broader range that goes anywhere up to 100%. Fabig discloses 85% or 92.5% recovery on page 12, which falls within this range. The Examiner finds Applicant’s remarks here and with regard to the motivation unpersuasive because exactly 100% recovery is not required by the claim.
On page 12, Applicant argues that Fabig does not disclose Claim 25 because Fabig discloses using cleaning liquid or a reverse flow to clean its RO unit. The Examiner notes that these fluids meet the definition of “water from a source different from the feed stream and output permeate stream” as in Claim 25, finding Applicant’s remark unpersuasive.
On page 12, Applicant argues that the modifications to Fabig could not be made such that further modifications could be made using subsequent secondary references for dependent claims. However, Applicant has not provided any specific reasoning directed towards these references or the claims in question. The Examiner finds these remarks moot.
Claim Objections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14, 25 and their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “feed water” on line 2. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a feed water” as in Claim 1, or not. Examiner interprets to be the same.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “feed water” on line 1. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “feed water” as in Claim 15, or not. Examiner interprets to be the same.
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) 1-5, 9, 10, 11-19 & 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabig et al., (“Fabig”, WO 2007/147198).
Regarding Claims 1-5, 9, 10, 13 & 14, a first embodiment of Fabig discloses a method for operating a filtration system, (See Abstract, Fabig), fluidly coupling an inlet of at least one filter membrane, (Membrane 31, See Figure 4, See Figure 4, See page 12, lines 25-26, Fabig), to a feed stream, (Feed Water enters Inlet 29, See Figure 4, page 12, lines 22-25, Fabig), causing at least one pump to generate a pressure to displace a feed water from the feed stream into the at least one filter membrane, (Feed Pump 30 drives feed into Membrane 31, generates Product Water at Outlet 50, See Figure 4, See page 12, lines 25-30, Fabig), causing the at least one filter membrane to produce an output permeate stream, (See page 12, lines 28-31, Fabig); causing the at least one membrane to produce a bleed stream with an ever-increasing concentration of retained contaminants in the bleed stream, (Reject Water 34, See Figure 4, See page 12, lines 28-31, and See page 13, lines 10-20, Fabig, concentrate at end of membrane apparatus has higher level of contaminants); detecting an operational condition during production of the output permeate stream, (See page 14, lines 1-31, page 15, lines 1-24, Fabig).
The first embodiment of Fabig does not explicitly disclose producing during the first period of time, or causing a flush to occur to expel at least a portion of concentrate from the at least one filter membrane based on the operational condition that is detected, and causing the at least one filter membrane to produce the output permeate stream for a second period of time subsequent to causing the flush.
A second embodiment of Fabig discloses producing during a first period of time, (See page 17, lines 26-29, Fabig), causing a flush to occur to expel at least a portion of concentrate from the at least one filter membrane based on the operational condition that is detected, (See page 17, lines 9-20, Fabig); and causing the at least one filter membrane to produce the output permeate stream for a second period of time subsequent to causing the flush, (See page 17, lines 18-20 and lines 26-29, Fabig). Additional features of this embodiment are included as part of the overall combination and are claim mapped to in the Additional Disclosures section below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of the first embodiment of Fabig by incorporating producing during the first period of time, causing a flush to occur to expel at least a portion of concentrate from the at least one filter membrane based on the operational condition that is detected, and causing the at least one filter membrane to produce the output permeate stream for a second period of time subsequent to causing the flush as in the second embodiment of Fabig so that “two reverse osmosis units” can be used “where one of the apparatus can undergo chemical cleaning…while the other apparatus is in service thereby allowing continuous product water production without interruption”, (See page 16, line 31, page 17, lines 1-3, Fabig).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the operational condition is a predetermined characteristic of permeate, retentate, and/or concentrate of the at least one filter membrane, (See page 14, lines 1-31, page 15, lines 1-24, Fabig).
Claim 3: The method of claim 2, wherein detecting the operational condition further comprises: measuring at least one characteristic of the permeate, retentate, and/or concentrate of the at least one filter membrane; and comparing the characteristic that is measured to a predetermined threshold, (See page 14, lines 1-31, page 15, lines 1-24, Fabig).
Claim 4: The method of claim 2, wherein the predetermined characteristic is a target effluent and/or permeate quality, (See page 14, lines 1-31, page 15, lines 1-24, Fabig).
Claim 5: The method of claim 2, wherein the predetermined characteristic is a target retentate and/or concentrate quality, (See page 14, lines 1-31, page 15, lines 1-24, and specifically See page 15, lines 8-17, Fabig; the pressure of the reject outlet line is a characteristic of the retentate/concentrate).
Claim 9: The method of claim 2, wherein the predetermined characteristic is a predetermined feed stream pressure and/or concentrate pressure, (See page 14, lines 1-31, page 15, lines 1-24, specifically See page 15, lines 8-17; Fabig).
Claim 10: The method of claim 1, wherein the operational condition is a predetermined duration of time elapsing during production of the output permeate stream, (See page 17, lines 26-29, Fabig).
Claim 13: The method of claim 1, further comprising causing one or a plurality of antiscalant doses to be displaced into the at least one filter membrane, (See page 13, lines 19-22, Fabig).
Claim 14: The method of claim 1, wherein causing the flush to occur to expel at least a portion of concentrate from the at least one filter membrane further comprises displacing feed from the feed stream into the at least one filter membrane, displacing permeate from the permeate stream into the at least one filter membrane, and/or displacing water from a source different from the feed stream and the permeate stream, (See page 17, lines 12-20, Fabig).
Regarding Claims 11 & 12, modified Fabig discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the filtration system is configured as a reverse osmosis (RO) system and is capable of producing the output permeate stream via the at least one filter membrane, but does not disclose in the specified combination up to 100% recovery during the first period of time.
Another embodiment of Fabig discloses up to 100% recovery during the first period of time, (See page 12, lines 2-5, lines 11-17, Fabig; Examine interprets anywhere from 0 to 100 to fall within the claimed range, so the disclosed ranges anticipate the claimed range at either 85% or 92.5%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Fabig by incorporating up to 100% recovery during the first period of time as in another embodiment of Fabig because “the recovery rate of the [reverse osmosis] apparatus is much lower than is actually achievable” so it provides “a method and apparatus for processing this reject saltier water to maximise the overall recovery rate”, (See page 2, lines 16-17, lines 24-26, Fabig).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 12: The method of claim 11, wherein the filtration system is configured to produce the output permeate stream via the at least one filter membrane at less than 100% recovery during the first period of time such that at least a portion of feed of the feed stream is output by the bleed stream, (See page 12, lines 2-5, lines 11-17, Fabig; Examine interprets anywhere from 0 to 100 to fall within the claimed range, so the disclosed ranges anticipate the claimed range at either 85% or 92.5%; and inherently a portion of the feed is forced through the reject/drain).
Regarding Claims 15-19 & 23-25, Fabig discloses a filtration system, the filtration system comprising: at least one filter membrane, (Membrane 31, See Figure 4, See Figure 4, See page 12, lines 25-26, Fabig) with an inlet to fluidly couple to a feed stream (Feed Water enters Inlet 29, See Figure 4, page 12, lines 22-25, Fabig), and a bleed outlet to fluidly couple to a bleed stream, the bleed stream having an ever- increasing concentration of retained contaminants, (Reject Water 34, See Figure 4, See page 12, lines 28-31, and See page 13, lines 10-20, Fabig; concentrate at end of membrane apparatus has higher level of contaminants); at least one pump to generate a pressure to displace feed water from the feed stream into the at least one filter membrane and produce an output permeate stream, (Feed Pump 30 drives feed into Membrane 31, generates Product Water at Outlet 50, See Figure 4, See page 12, lines 25-30, Fabig); a controller, (Controller 37 and Signals 37/38, See Figure 4, See page 15, lines 12-22, Fabig), configured to: provide a first signal to the at least one pump to cause the at least one filter membrane to produce the output permeate stream, (See page 12, lines 28-31, Fabig); detect an operational condition during production of the output permeate stream during the first period of time, (See page 14, lines 1-31, page 15, lines 1-24, Fabig).
Embodiment 1 of Fabig does not disclose operating during a first period of time, or to output a flush signal to cause a flush to occur and expel at least a portion of concentrate from the at least one filter membrane based on the operational condition that is detected; and provide a second signal to the at least one pump to cause the at least one filter membrane to produce the output permeate stream for a second period of time subsequent to causing the flush.
A second embodiment of Fabig discloses operating during a first period of time, (See page 17, lines 26-29, Fabig), to output a flush signal to cause a flush to occur and expel at least a portion of concentrate from the at least one filter membrane based on the operational condition that is detected, (See page 17, lines 9-20, Fabig); and provide a second signal to the at least one pump to cause the at least one filter membrane to produce the output permeate stream for a second period of time subsequent to causing the flush, (See page 17, lines 18-20 and lines 26-29, Fabig). Additional features of this embodiment are included as part of the overall combination and are claim mapped to in the Additional Disclosures section below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the filtration system of the first embodiment of Fabig by incorporating operating during a first period of time, or to output a flush signal to cause a flush to occur and expel at least a portion of concentrate from the at least one filter membrane based on the operational condition that is detected; and provide a second signal to the at least one pump to cause the at least one filter membrane to produce the output permeate stream for a second period of time subsequent to causing the flush as in the second embodiment of Fabig so that “two reverse osmosis units” can be used “where one of the apparatus can undergo chemical cleaning…while the other apparatus is in service thereby allowing continuous product water production without interruption”, (See page 16, line 31, page 17, lines 1-3, Fabig).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 16: The filtration system of claim 15, wherein the operational condition is a predetermined characteristic of permeate, retentate, and/or concentrate of the at least one filter membrane, (See page 14, lines 1-31, page 15, lines 1-24, Fabig).
Claim 17: The filtration system of claim 16, wherein the controller is further configured to detect the operational condition based on receiving a measured characteristic of the permeate, retentate, and/or concentrate of the at least one filter membrane, (See page 14, lines 1-31, page 15, lines 1-24, Fabig).
Claim 18: The filtration system of claim 16, wherein the predetermined characteristic is a target effluent and/or permeate quality, (See page 14, lines 1-31, page 15, lines 1-24, Fabig).
Claim 19: The filtration system of claim 16, wherein the predetermined characteristic is a target retentate and/or concentrate quality, (See page 14, lines 1-31, page 15, lines 1-24, and specifically See page 15, lines 8-17, Fabig; the pressure of the reject outlet line is a characteristic of the retentate/concentrate).
Claim 23: The filtration system of claim 16, wherein the predetermined characteristic is a predetermined feed stream pressure and/or concentrate pressure, (See page 14, lines 1-31, page 15, lines 1-24, specifically See page 15, lines 8-17; Fabig).
Claim 24: The filtration system of claim 15, wherein the operational condition is a predetermined duration of time elapsing during production of the output permeate stream, (See page 17, lines 26-29, Fabig).
Claim 25: The filtration system of claim 15, wherein the flush signal is configured to cause feed water from the feed stream, permeate from the output permeate stream, and/or water from a source different from the feed stream and output permeate stream to be displaced into the at least one filter membrane, (See page 17, lines 12-20, Fabig).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 21 & 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabig et al., (“Fabig”, WO 2007/147198), in view of Alexander et al., (“Alexander”, US 2011/0163032).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Fabig discloses the method of claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the predetermined characteristic is a timed-averaged effluent characteristic and/or time-averaged permeate quality for the at least one filter membrane.
Alexander discloses wherein the predetermined characteristic is a timed-averaged effluent characteristic and/or time-averaged permeate quality for the at least one filter membrane, (See paragraphs [0079]-[0083], Alexander; samples for feed, reject, permeate were measured for conductivity, calcium, sulfate, and the average conductivity for the day to day operation “time” was measured/calculated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Fabig by incorporating wherein the predetermined characteristic is a timed-averaged effluent characteristic and/or time-averaged permeate quality for the at least one filter membrane as in Alexander in order to “improve system recovery”, (See paragraph [0077], [0079], Alexander), to obtain “a high recovery process…to remove sulfate, calcium and other ions”, (See paragraph [0014], Alexander).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Fabig discloses the method of claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the predetermined characteristic is a predetermined timed-averaged retentate characteristic and/or a time-averaged concentrate quality for the at least one filter membrane.
Alexander discloses wherein the predetermined characteristic is a predetermined timed-averaged retentate characteristic and/or a time-averaged concentrate quality for the at least one filter membrane, (See paragraphs [0079]-[0083], Alexander; samples for feed, reject, permeate were measured for conductivity, calcium, sulfate, and the average conductivity for the day to day operation “time” was measured/calculated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Fabig by incorporating wherein the predetermined characteristic is a predetermined timed-averaged retentate characteristic and/or a time-averaged concentrate quality for the at least one filter membrane as in Alexander in order to “improve system recovery”, (See paragraph [0077], [0079], Alexander), to obtain “a high recovery process…to remove sulfate, calcium and other ions”, (See paragraph [0014], Alexander).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Fabig discloses the filtration system of claim 16, but does not disclose wherein the predetermined characteristic is a timed-averaged effluent characteristic and/or time-averaged permeate quality for the at least one filter membrane.
Alexander discloses wherein the predetermined characteristic is a timed-averaged effluent characteristic and/or time-averaged permeate quality for the at least one filter membrane, (See paragraphs [0079]-[0083], Alexander; samples for feed, reject, permeate were measured for conductivity, calcium, sulfate, and the average conductivity for the day to day operation “time” was measured/calculated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the filtration system of modified Fabig by incorporating wherein the predetermined characteristic is a timed-averaged effluent characteristic and/or time-averaged permeate quality for the at least one filter membrane as in Alexander in order to “improve system recovery”, (See paragraph [0077], [0079], Alexander), to obtain “a high recovery process…to remove sulfate, calcium and other ions”, (See paragraph [0014], Alexander).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Fabig discloses the filtration system of claim 16, but does not disclose wherein the predetermined characteristic is a predetermined timed-averaged retentate characteristic and/or a time-averaged concentrate quality for the at least one filter membrane.
Alexander discloses wherein the predetermined characteristic is a predetermined timed-averaged retentate characteristic and/or a time-averaged concentrate quality for the at least one filter membrane, (See paragraphs [0079]-[0083], Alexander; samples for feed, reject, permeate were measured for conductivity, calcium, sulfate, and the average conductivity for the day to day operation “time” was measured/calculated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system of modified Fabig by incorporating wherein the predetermined characteristic is a predetermined timed-averaged retentate characteristic and/or a time-averaged concentrate quality for the at least one filter membrane as in Alexander in order to “improve system recovery”, (See paragraph [0077], [0079], Alexander), to obtain “a high recovery process…to remove sulfate, calcium and other ions”, (See paragraph [0014], Alexander).
Claim(s) 6 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabig et al., (“Fabig”, WO 2007/147198), in view of Shmidt et al., (“Shmidt”, US 2018/0008934).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Fabig disclose the method of claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the predetermined characteristic is an amount or quality of blended flush and bleed fluid, or a total blended waste from the system.
Shmidt discloses wherein the predetermined characteristic is an amount or quality of blended flush and bleed fluid, or a total blended waste from the system, (See paragraph [0045] & [0042], Shmidt).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Fabig by incorporating wherein the predetermined characteristic is an amount or quality of blended flush and bleed fluid, or a total blended waste from the system as in Shmidt in order to provide “smooth increase in the load on” the membrane apparatus “with increasing concentration of salts in the mixture; therefore the service life…can be extended”, (See paragraph [0045], Shmidt).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Fabig discloses the filtration system of claim 16, but does not disclose wherein the predetermined characteristic is an amount of blended flush fluid and a retentate quality, or an amount of or quality of blended flush and bleed fluid, or a total blended waste from the system.
Shmidt discloses wherein the predetermined characteristic is an amount or quality of blended flush and bleed fluid, or a total blended waste from the system, (See paragraph [0045] & [0042], Shmidt).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system of modified Fabig by incorporating wherein the predetermined characteristic is an amount or quality of blended flush and bleed fluid, or a total blended waste from the system as in Shmidt in order to provide “smooth increase in the load on” the membrane apparatus “with increasing concentration of salts in the mixture; therefore the service life…can be extended”, (See paragraph [0045], Shmidt).
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 JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights