DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an application filed with the US on 05/03/2023 and having an Effective Filing Date of 11/03/2020, in which claims 1-23 are pending and ready for examination.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
The Examiner called Michael Whitham on 9/9/2025 to propose a restriction, but after further consideration restriction not was deemed necessary.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03 MAY 2023 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has/have been considered. An initialed copy of Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 9, 11-18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN107455822A (hereinafter “Lin”, as included with the IDS dated 05/03/2023) in view of Abdelhameed, R.M., et al, (2019), IRMOF-3 Biological Activity Enhancement by Post-Synthetic Modification. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem., 2019: 1243-1249. (hereinafter “Abdelhameed”).
Regarding Claim 1 Lin discloses a filter, comprising
at least one layer of polymer nanofibers; and
wherein the nanofiber may include (i.e. on or within the nanofibers) a sterilization agent including quaternary ammonium salt and a VOC adsorbent including a MOF, specifically a MOF that may be loaded with a nitrogen containing compound (pgs. 4-5).
Lin does not disclose specifically antibacterial particles that comprise a quaternary ammonium compound (QAC) grafted onto a surface of a metal-organic framework.
However, Lin discloses the MOF may be loaded with nitrogen containing compound and the filter may also include the nitrogen containing compound quaternary ammonium salt, supra. While it is not taught that the MOF may be loaded with the QAC, Abdelhameed discloses modifying MOF’s by grafting antimicrobial nitrogen-containing compounds (Abstract, Post-Synthetic Modification of IRMOF-3, Bactericidal and Fungicidal Activities).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter of Lin by grafting the MOF included in the nanofibers with a nitrogen compound as discleod by Abdelhameed, including a QAC because one is called for in Lin, so that the QAC-MOF can provide both the required sterilization and MOF adsorbent properties in one additive, and because this involves a simple substitution of known MOF and/or sterilizing additives to obtain the predictable result of forming a functional filter.
Regarding Claim 2 Lin in view of Abdelhameed discloses the filter of claim 1, wherein the at least one layer of polymer nanofibers comprises polyacrylonitrile (PAN) nanofibers; Lin Example 4.
Regarding Claim 9 Lin in view of Abdelhameed discloses the filter of claim 1, where the particle size of the MOF/antibacterial particles will effect at least their specific surface area, and thus filtration abilities of the filter, and is thus a variable which achieves a recognized result, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize this variable through routine experimentation, by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
Regarding Claim 11 Lin in view of Abdelhameed discloses the filter of claim 1, wherein the antibacterial particles would be positioned on a surface of the polymer nanofibers inherently due to the fibers and MOF being formed into a fiber together via electrospinning (Lin Examples), See MPE 2112.
Regarding Claim 12 Lin in view of Abdelhameed discloses the filter of claim 1, which is a breathable mask (Lin pg. 4), and while it is not disclosed to be specifically for the face, that would be the most obvious type of “mask” given the limited disclosure of a breathable mask and it would therefore have been obvious to form the filter into a mask wearable by a subject.
Regarding Claims 13-14 Lin in view of Abdelhameed discloses the filter of claim 1, which is used to filter air (i.e. a fluid, Lin pgs. 1 and 5) passing through it, and therefore discloses a method for decontaminating a fluid, comprising bringing the fluid in contact with the filter of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15 Lin in view of Abdelhameed discloses the filter of claim 13, and while it is not disclosed to filter liquid water, water is known to be in air and thus it would have been obvious to filter a fluid comprising water, since it is found in ambient air.
Regarding Claim 16 Lin in view of Abdelhameed discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the filter is a breathable mask (Lin pg. 4), and while it is not disclosed to be specifically for the face, that would be the most obvious type of “mask” given the limited disclosure of a breathable mask and it would therefore have been obvious to form the filter into a mask wearable by a subject.
Regarding Claim 17 Lin in view of Abdelhameed discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the filter disclosed to remove contaminants from air to improve air quality (Lin pgs. 1 and 5), and thus while it is not disclosed to be used specifically for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), it would have been obvious to incorporate within HVAC systems in order to remove contaminants from indoor air to indoor improve air quality.
Regarding Claim 18 Lin in view of Abdelhameed discloses a method of manufacturing the filter of claim 1, comprising electrospinning a polymer solution comprising the antibacterial particles onto a collector (Lin Examples 4-5).
Regarding Claim 22 Lin in view of Abdelhameed discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the polymer solution contains polyacrylonitrile (PAN), (Lin Examples 4-5).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Abdelhameed further in view of Yidan Zhang, et al., Self-adaptive antibacterial surfaces with bacterium-triggered antifouling-bactericidal switching properties, Biomater. Sci., 2020,8, 997-1006 (hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding Claim 3 Lin in view of Abdelhameed discloses the filter of claim 1, but does not disclose the QAC is poly[2-(dimethyl decyl ammonium) ethyl methacrylate] (PQDMAEMA).
However Zhang discloses a antibacterial coating for surfaces, where the coating comprises poly[2-(dimethyl decyl ammonium) ethyl methacrylate] (PQDMAEMA) brushes as a bactericidal layer, and PEG as an antifouling layer (Abstract, Scheme 1, Secs. 2.1, 2.2., 2.4.)
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filer of Lin in view of Abdelhameed by substituting for the QAC sterilizing agent (i.e. which is grafted to the MOF) PQDMAEMA brushes as disclosed by Zhang because this involves the simple substitution of known sterilizing/antibacterial QACs to obtain the predictable result of forming a successful filter with antibacterial properties.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Abdelhameed further in view of US 2017/0008915 A1 (hereinafter “Yaghi”).
Regarding Claims 4-5 Lin in view of Abdelhameed discloses the filter of claim 1, and is silent to the specific MOF(s) used, and thus does not disclose (claim 4) wherein the metal-organic framework is a zirconium-based metalorganic framework, or (claim 5) wherein the metal-organic framework is a titanium-based metalorganic framework.
However Yaghi discloses the use of zirconium and titanium based MOFs as a separation medium for carbon dioxide ([0005], [0188]-[0190])
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filer of Lin in view of Abdelhameed by using for the MOF a zirconium and/or titanium based MOF as disclosed by Yaghi because carbon dioxide is a targeted contaminant for removal by the filter of Lin (pg. 2) and this would thus be an obvious choice of MOF to use for the MOF given no further direction by Lin.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Abdelhameed further in view of Hadi Basharnavaz, et al., A first-principles study on the interaction of CO molecules with VIII transition metals-embedded graphitic carbon nitride as an excellent candidate for CO sensor, Physics Letters A, Volume 383, Issue 21, 2019, Pages 2472-2480 (hereinafter “Basharnavaz”).
Regarding Claim 6 Lin in view of Abdelhameed discloses the filter of claim 1, further comprising graphitic carbon nitride (g-C3N4) arranged on a surface of the metal-organic framework.
However Chen discloses graphitic carbon nitride (g-C3N4) is a good absorbent for carbon monoxide (Abstract, Table 1, 3. Results and discussion).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filer of Lin in view of Abdelhameed by additionally including the g-C3N4 as disclosed by Yaghi because carbon dioxide is a targeted contaminant for removal by the filter of Lin (pg. 2) and thus it would have been obvious to include additional CO adsorbent additives in the filter material. By including the g-C3N4 additive in the electrospinning solution, i.e. because the other additives are disclosed to be included in the electrospinning solution, Lin Examples 4-5, at least some of the g-C3N4 would be arranged on a surface of the metal-organic framework.
Claims 7-8, 10, 19-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Abdelhameed further in view of Y. Dou, W. Zhang, A. Kaiser, Electrospinning of Metal–Organic Frameworks for Energy and Environmental Applications. Adv. Sci. 2020, 7, 1902590. (hereinafter “Dou”).
Regarding Claim 7, 19-21 and 23 Lin in view of Abdelhameed discloses the filter of claim 1 and the method of claim 18, but does not disclose (claim 7) wherein the antibacterial particles constitute 55-65 wt% of the filter, (claim 19), wherein the electrospinning step is performed at a temperature of 45-55°C., (claim 20), wherein the electrospinning step is performed at a relative humidity of 5-15%, (claim 21) wherein the electrospinning step is performed at a voltage of 15-20 kV, or (claim 23) wherein the polymer solution contains 55-65 wt% antibacterial particles.
However Dou discloses a review of Electrospinning of Metal–Organic Frameworks, wherein it is known to use electrospinning to form nanofibrous mats from polymers mixed with MOFs including for air treatment (1. Introduction, 2.1.1. Fabrication of MOF-Polymer Nanofibers, 3.1. Air Pollutant Filtration), wherein it is disclosed that the experimental conditions of the electrospinning effect the type of nanofibers produced (Dou pg. 4, sec. 2.1.1.), specifically “the concentration of the MOF, the viscosity of the slurry, the voltage, the distance between the needle and the collector” are noted as some of these conditions, however the temperature, relative humidity are also experimental conditions known to effect the morphology of the nanofibers formed; and thus all of these electrospinning experimental condition variables are variables which achieve a recognized result, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize these variables (including the amount of QAC-modified MOF) through routine experimentation, by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
Regarding Claim 8 Lin in view of Abdelhameed discloses the filter of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the antibacterial particles have a larger diameter than the polymer nanofibers.
However Dou discloses a review of Electrospinning of Metal–Organic Frameworks, wherein it is known to use electrospinning to form nanofibrous mats from polymers mixed with MOFs including for air treatment (1. Introduction, 2.1.1. Fabrication of MOF-Polymer Nanofibers, 3.1. Air Pollutant Filtration), wherein it is disclosed that MOF particles may be deposited on the formed nanofiber (Dou 2.2. Surface Decoration of Polymer Nanofibers with MOFs).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter of Lin in view of Abdelhameed by deposited the MOF particles on the formed nanofiber as taught by Dou because this is a known alternative to including the MOF particles during electrospinning and would provide the predictable result of forming a filter comprising MOF particles available for filtration.
With regard to particle size, the particle size of the MOF/antibacterial particles will effect at least their specific surface area, and thus filtration abilities of the filter, and is thus a variable which achieves a recognized result, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize this variable through routine experimentation, by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B). Where sepficially the MOF particles may be deposited on the nanofiber, supra, and thus their size independent of the nanofiber.
Regarding Claim 10 Lin in view of Abdelhameed discloses the filter of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the polymer nanofibers have an average diameter of 100- 150 nm.
However Dou discloses a review of Electrospinning of Metal–Organic Frameworks, wherein it is known to use electrospinning to form nanofibrous mats from polymers mixed with MOFs including for air treatment (1. Introduction, 2.1.1. Fabrication of MOF-Polymer Nanofibers, 3.1. Air Pollutant Filtration), where it is disclosed that that the diameter of the nanofibers may be controlled to capture different types of pollutants (Dou pg. 5, sec. 2.1.1.); the diameter of the nanofibers is thus a variable which achieves a recognized result, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize this variable through routine experimentation, by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
Claims 1-2 and 7-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Y. Dou, W. Zhang, A. Kaiser, Electrospinning of Metal–Organic Frameworks for Energy and Environmental Applications. Adv. Sci. 2020, 7, 1902590. (hereinafter “Dou”) in view of Hyungwoo Hahm, Charged functional group effects on a metal–organic framework for selective organic dye adsorptions, CrystEngComm, 2015,17, 8418-8422 (hereinafter “Hahm”).
Regarding Claim 1 Dou discloses a review of Electrospinning of Metal–Organic Frameworks, wherein it is known to use electrospinning to form nanofibrous mats from polymers mixed with MOFs including for water treatment and specifically for organic dye removal (1. Introduction, 2.1.1. Fabrication of MOF-Polymer Nanofibers, 3.2. Water Treatment), i.e. which forms a filter membrane comprising at least one layer of polymer nanofibers; and MOF particles positioned on or within the at least one layer of polymer nanofibers.
Dou does not disclose specifically antibacterial particles that comprise a quaternary ammonium compound (QAC) grafted onto a surface of a metal-organic framework.
However Hahm discloses QAC modified MOF particles for organic dye adsorption (Abstract, Scheme 1, pg. 8419).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate that QAC modified MOF particles of Hahm into an electrospun fiber mat membrane as disclosed by Dou because this involves the simple substitution of known organic dye adsorbent MOFs to obtain the predictable result of forming a successful organic dye adsorbent membrane.
While the QAC-MOF is not disclosed to be antibacterial, it is expected to be inherently antibacterial due to its inclusion of QAC; see MPEP 2112.
Regarding Claim 2 Dou in view of Hahm discloses the filter of claim 1, wherein the at least one layer of polymer nanofibers comprises polyacrylonitrile (PAN) nanofibers; (Dou 2.1.1. Fabrication of MOF-Polymer Nanofibers).
Regarding Claim 7 Dou in view of Hahm discloses the filter of claim 1, where it is disclosed that that the experimental conditions of the electrospinning effect the type of nanofibers produced (Dou pg. 4, sec. 2.1.1.), specifically “the concentration of the MOF, the viscosity of the slurry, the voltage, the distance between the needle and the collector” are noted as some of these conditions, and thus all of these electrospinning experimental condition variables are variables which achieve a recognized result, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize these variables (including the amount of QAC-modified MOF) through routine experimentation, by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
Regarding Claim 8 Dou in view of Hahm discloses the filter of claim 1, where the particle size of the MOF/antibacterial particles will effect at least their specific surface area, and thus filtration abilities of the filter, and is thus a variable which achieves a recognized result, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize this variable through routine experimentation, by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B). Where sepficially the MOF particles may be deposited on the nanofiber (Dou 2.2. Surface Decoration of Polymer Nanofibers with MOFs), and thus their size independent of the nanofiber.
Regarding Claim 9 Dou in view of Hahm discloses the filter of claim 1, where the particle size of the MOF/antibacterial particles will effect at least their specific surface area, and thus filtration abilities of the filter, and is thus a variable which achieves a recognized result, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize this variable through routine experimentation, by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
Regarding Claim 10 Dou in view of Hahm discloses the filter of claim 1, where it is disclosed that that the diameter of the nanofibers may be controlled to capture different types of pollutants (Dou pg. 5, sec. 2.1.1.); the diameter of the nanofibers is thus a variable which achieves a recognized result, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize this variable through routine experimentation, by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
Regarding Claim 11 Dou in view of Hahm discloses the filter of claim 1, wherein the antibacterial particles may be positioned on a surface of the polymer nanofibers (Dou 2.2. Surface Decoration of Polymer Nanofibers with MOFs).
Regarding Claim 12 Dou in view of Hahm discloses the filter of claim 1, which discloses that nanofiber mats used as air filtration may be coated on various substrates including masks (Dou 3.1. Air Pollutant Filtration), and while it is not disclosed to be specifically for the face, that would be the most obvious type of “mask” given the limited disclosure of a breathable mask and it would therefore have been obvious to form the filter into a mask wearable by a subject.
Regarding Claims 13-15 Dou in view of Hahm discloses the filter of claim 1, which is used to filter air and water by passing them through it (Dou 3.1. Air Pollutant Filtration, 3.2. Water Treatment), and therefore discloses a method for decontaminating a fluid, comprising bringing the fluid (air or water) in contact with the filter of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16 Dou in view of Hahm discloses the method of claim 13, which discloses that nanofiber mats used as air filtration may be coated on various substrates including masks (Dou 3.1. Air Pollutant Filtration), and while it is not disclosed to be specifically for the face, that would be the most obvious type of “mask” given the limited disclosure of a breathable mask and it would therefore have been obvious to form the filter into a mask wearable by a subject.
Regarding Claim 17 Dou in view of Hahm discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the filter disclosed to remove contaminants from air to improve air quality, including to industrial standards (Dou 3.1. Air Pollutant Filtration), and thus while it is not disclosed to be used specifically for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), it would have been obvious to incorporate within HVAC systems in order to remove contaminants from indoor air to indoor improve air quality.
Regarding Claim 18 Dou in view of Hahm discloses a method of manufacturing the filter of claim 1, comprising electrospinning a polymer solution comprising the antibacterial particles onto a collector. (Dou 1. Introduction, 2.1.1. Fabrication of MOF-Polymer Nanofibers).
Regarding Claim 19-21 and 23 Dou in view of Hahm discloses the method of claim 18, where it is disclosed that that the experimental conditions of the electrospinning effect the type of nanofibers produced (Dou pg. 4, sec. 2.1.1.), specifically “the concentration of the MOF, the viscosity of the slurry, the voltage, the distance between the needle and the collector” are noted as some of these conditions, however the temperature, relative humidity are also experimental conditions known to effect the morphology of the nanofibers formed; and thus all of these electrospinning experimental condition variables are variables which achieve a recognized result, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize these variables (including the amount of QAC-modified MOF) through routine experimentation, by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
Regarding Claim 22 Dou in view of Hahm discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the polymer solution contains polyacrylonitrile (PAN); (Dou 2.1.1. Fabrication of MOF-Polymer Nanofibers).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dou in view of Hahm further in view of US 2017/0008915 A1 (hereinafter “Yaghi”).
Regarding Claims 4-5 Dou in view of Hahm discloses the filter of claim 1, but does not disclose (claim 4) wherein the metal-organic framework is a zirconium-based metalorganic framework, or (claim 5) wherein the metal-organic framework is a titanium-based metalorganic framework.
However Yaghi discloses the use of zirconium and titanium based MOFs as a separation medium for water supply and purification ([0005], [0188]-[0190])
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filer of Dou in view of Hahm by using for the MOF a zirconium and/or titanium based MOF as disclosed by Yaghi because this involves the simple substitution of known MOFs used for water purification to obtain the predictable solution of forming a functional filter for water purification.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dou in view of Hahm further in view of Hadi Basharnavaz, et al., A first-principles study on the interaction of CO molecules with VIII transition metals-embedded graphitic carbon nitride as an excellent candidate for CO sensor, Physics Letters A, Volume 383, Issue 21, 2019, Pages 2472-2480 (hereinafter “Basharnavaz”).
Regarding Claim 6 Dou in view of Hahm discloses the filter of claim 1, further comprising graphitic carbon nitride (g-C3N4) arranged on a surface of the metal-organic framework.
However Chen discloses graphitic carbon nitride (g-C3N4) is a good absorbent for carbon monoxide (Abstract, Table 1, 3. Results and discussion).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filer of Dou in view of Hahm by additionally including the g-C3N4 as disclosed by Yaghi because the filter of Dou may be used for air filtration (3.1. Air Pollutant Filtration) and thus it would have been obvious to include additional CO adsorbent additives in the filter material to provide further air filtration of CO. By including the g-C3N4 additive in the electrospinning solution, i.e. because the other additives are disclosed to be included in the electrospinning solution, Lin Examples 4-5, at least some of the g-C3N4 would be arranged on a surface of the metal-organic framework.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric J. McCullough whose telephone number is (571)272-8885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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, Magali Slawski can be reached at 571-270-3960. 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.
/ERIC J MCCULLOUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/Magali P Slawski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773