DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 04/10/2026 is acknowledged. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejection are set forth below. Claims 1-20 are examined on the merits in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 04/03/2026 is considered and signed IDS form is attached.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyama et al. (JP 2019006463 A cited in IDS) in view of Tsuji et al. (US 6,583,254 B2 cited in IDS). It is noted that the disclosures of Toyama et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference (cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Toyama et al. disclose a packaging film 100 comprising a layer 101 (base layer) comprising a propylene polymer and a polyethylene, and a layer 103 (surface layer) comprising propylene polymer provided on the layer 101 (see Abstract, Figure 1 and paragraph 0050). The packaging film is produced by co-extrusion of the layer 101 (base layer) and the layer 103 (surface layer), followed by biaxial stretching (see paragraphs 0049, 0070). Accordingly, the packaging film reads on a biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film. The haze of the packaging film (biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film) is less than 2.5% (see paragraph 0024).
The layer 101 (base layer) comprises the propylene polymer and the polyethylene, wherein a content of the polyethylene is 0.5 to 25 wt% (see paragraphs 0015, 0032). Accordingly, the layer 101 (base layer) is formed of a polypropylene-based resin composition. The propylene polymer can be a homopolypropylene (see paragraph 0034). Given that the propylene polymer can be the homopolypropylene, amount of a-olefin monomer is 0 mol%. Accordingly, a ratio of a-olefin monomer to total of propylene monomer and a-olefin monomer is 0 mol%. The propylene polymer has melting point of 150 to 168 °C as measured by DSC (see paragraphs 0036 and 0078). The propylene polymer has a melt flow rate of 0.5 to 20 g/10 min (see paragraph 0037), which overlaps with melt flow rate of polypropylene utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0029 of present specification). The polyethylene can be HDPE, MDPE, LDPE, LLDPE, etc. (see paragraph 0038), which is identical to that utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0031 of present specification).
The layer 103 (surface layer) comprises propylene-a-olefin random copolymer, wherein a-olefin is 1-butene (see paragraphs 0050, 0051). Accordingly, the layer 103 (surface layer) comprises propylene-1-butene random copolymer.
While Toyama et al. disclose the surface layer comprises propylene-1-butene random copolymer, Toyama et al. do not disclose a ratio of a butene-1-monomer-derived component as presently claimed.
Tsuji et al. disclose polypropylene-based random copolymer obtained by copolymerization of propylene monomer and a-olefin monomer such as 1-butene (see col. 2, lines 40-45). The content of a-olefin unit is 2.6 to 10 mol% from the standpoint of balance of rigidity, heat resistance and stretchability (see col. 3, lines 6-12). That is, the amount of 1-butene is 2.6 to 10 mol%.
In light of motivation for using propylene-1-butene random copolymer comprising 2.6 to 10 mol% of 1-butene disclosed by Tsuji et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use 2.6 to 10 mol% of 1-butene monomer in propylene-1-butene random copolymer of Toyama et al. in order to provide balance of rigidity, heat resistance and stretchability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. The amount of 2.6 to 10 mol% of 1-butene reads on a ratio of butene-1 monomer-derived component as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Toyama et al. in view of Tsuji et al. disclose the biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film comprising the base layer and the surface layer as set forth above. Toyama et al. disclose that the thickness of the packaging film (biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film) is 5 to 100 microns (see paragraph 0026). The thickness of layer 103 (surface layer) is 0.1 to 10 microns (see paragraph 0047). Therefore, a ratio of thickness of the surface layer to a thickness of all layers of biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film (i.e. total thickness of biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film) is 2 to 10% (2 = 0.1/5 x 100 and 10 = 10/100 x 100).
Regarding claim 5, Toyama et al. in view of Tsuji et al. disclose the biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film comprising the base layer and the surface layer as set forth above. Given that the layer 101 (base layer) including the propylene polymer and the polyethylene is identical to that utilized in the present invention, with the amount of polyethylene, melting point of the propylene polymer and melt flow rate of the propylene polymer overlapping with that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, an entirety of the propylene-based resin composition constituting the layer 101 (base layer) necessarily inherently has a melt flow rate as presently claimed.
Regarding claims 8-11, Toyama et al. in view of Tsuji et al. disclose the biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film comprising the base layer and the surface layer as set forth above. Given that the layer 101 (base layer) including the propylene polymer and the polyethylene is identical to that utilized in the present invention, with the amount of polyethylene, melting point of the propylene polymer and melt flow rate of the propylene polymer overlapping with that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, the biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film has properties as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 12, Toyama et al. disclose the packaging film (biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film) is used as a film constituting a food package (see paragraph 0071). Accordingly, Toyama et al. disclose a packaging comprising the biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyama et al. (JP 2019006463 A cited in IDS) in view of Tsuji et al. (US 6,583,254 B2 cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kneale (WO 98/44030 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 3, Toyama et al. in view of Tsuji et al. disclose the biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film comprising the base layer and the surface layer as set forth above. Further, Toyama et al. disclose the layer 103 (surface layer) can comprise antifogging agent (see paragraph 0055).
Toyama et al. do not disclose amount of antifogging agent.
Kneale discloses a packaging film resistant to fogging upon exposure to a humid atmosphere, comprising a polyolefin material such as polypropylene polymer and an antifog agent in amount of 0.1 to 4 wt% (see page 14, claims 1, 3, 6 and 7).
In light of motivation for using antifog agent in amount of 0.1 to 4 wt% blended with propylene polymer disclosed by Kneale as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use antifog agent in amount of 0.1 to 4 wt% blended with propylene polymer of layer 103 (surface layer) in Toyama et al. in view of Tsuji et al. in order to provide resistance to fogging upon exposure to a humid atmosphere, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyama et al. (JP 2019006463 A cited in IDS) in view of Tsuji et al. (US 6,583,254 B2 cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Takebe et al. (JP 2003192851 A cited in IDS). It is noted that the disclosures of Takebe et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference (cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 6, Toyama et al. in view of Tsuji et al. disclose the biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film comprising the base layer and the surface layer as set forth above. Further, Toyama et al. disclose the layer 101 (base layer) can comprise a combination of two or more propylene polymers, wherein the polypropylene polymer is homopolypropylene (see paragraph 0034). While Toyoma et al. disclose the base layer comprises combination of two homopolypropylene polymers, Toyoma et al. do not disclose plurality of polypropylene homopolymers as presently claimed.
Takebe et al. disclose a polypropylene resin having excellent heat resistance, heat shrinkage percentage and rigidity, wherein the polypropylene is suitable for a biaxially oriented film (see Abstract). The polypropylene resin comprises a blend of highly stereospecific polypropylene (B) having a mesopentad fraction of 95% or more with a low stereospecific polypropylene (A) having a mesopentad fraction of 35 to 55% (see claim 2 and paragraph 0004). The polypropylene resin has a melting point of 160 C or higher (see claim 1 and paragraph 0004). The polypropylene (B) and the polypropylene (A) can be homopolypropylene (see paragraphs 0031 and 0033).
In light of motivation for using a blend of highly stereospecific homopolypropylene (B) having a mesopentad fraction of 95% or more with a low stereospecific homopolypropylene (A) having a mesopentad fraction of 35 to 55% disclosed by Takebe et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use a blend of highly stereospecific homopolypropylene (B) having a mesopentad fraction of 95% or more with a low stereospecific homopolypropylene (A) having a mesopentad fraction of 35 to 55% in the layer 101 (base layer) of Toyama et al. in view of Tsuji et al. in order to provide excellent heat resistance, heat shrinkage percentage and rigidity, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 2 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyama et al. (JP 2019006463 A cited in IDS) in view of Takebe et al. (JP 2003192851 A cited in IDS) and Tsuji et al. (US 6,583,254 B2 cited in IDS). It is noted that the disclosures of Toyama et al. and Takebe et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference (cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 2, 16 and 17, Toyama et al. disclose a packaging film 100 comprising a layer 101 (base layer) comprising a propylene polymer and a polyethylene, and a layer 103 (surface layer) comprising propylene polymer provided on the layer 101 (see Abstract, Figure 1 and paragraph 0050). The packaging film is produced by co-extrusion of the layer 101 (base layer) and the layer 103 (surface layer), followed by biaxial stretching (see paragraphs 0049, 0070). Accordingly, the packaging film reads on a biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film. The haze of the packaging film (biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film) is less than 2.5% (see paragraph 0024).
The layer 101 (base layer) comprises the propylene polymer and the polyethylene, wherein a content of the polyethylene is 0.5 to 25 wt% (see paragraphs 0015, 0032). Accordingly, the layer 101 (base layer) is formed of a polypropylene-based resin composition. The propylene polymer can be a homopolypropylene (see paragraph 0034). Given that the propylene polymer can be the homopolypropylene, amount of a-olefin monomer is 0 mol%. Accordingly, a ratio of a-olefin monomer to total of propylene monomer and a-olefin monomer is 0 mol%. The propylene polymer has melting point of 150 to 168 °C as measured by DSC (see paragraphs 0036 and 0078). (see paragraph 0036). The propylene polymer has a melt flow rate of 0.5 to 20 g/10 min (see paragraph 0037), which overlaps with melt flow rate of polypropylene utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0029 of present specification). The polyethylene can be HDPE, MDPE, LDPE, LLDPE, etc. (see paragraph 0038), which is identical to that utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0031 of present specification).
Further, Toyama et al. disclose the layer 101 (base layer) can comprise a combination of two or more propylene polymers, wherein the polypropylene polymer is homopolypropylene (see paragraph 0034). The layer 103 (surface layer) comprises propylene-a-olefin random copolymer, wherein a-olefin is 1-butene (see paragraphs 0050, 0051). Accordingly, the layer 103 (surface layer) comprises propylene-1-butene random copolymer.
While Toyoma et al. disclose the base layer comprises combination of two homopolypropylene polymers, Toyoma et al. do not disclose plurality of polypropylene homopolymers as presently claimed. While Toyama et al. disclose the surface layer comprises propylene-1-butene random copolymer, Toyama et al. do not disclose a ratio of a butene-1-monomer-derived component as presently claimed.
Takebe et al. disclose a polypropylene resin having excellent heat resistance, heat shrinkage percentage and rigidity, wherein the polypropylene is suitable for a biaxially oriented film (see Abstract). The polypropylene resin comprises a blend of highly stereospecific polypropylene (B) having a mesopentad fraction of 95% or more with a low stereospecific polypropylene (A) having a mesopentad fraction of 35 to 55% (see claim 2 and paragraph 0004). The polypropylene resin has a melting point of 160 C or higher (see claim 1 and paragraph 0004). The polypropylene (B) and the polypropylene (A) can be homopolypropylene (see paragraphs 0031 and 0033).
In light of motivation for using a blend of highly stereospecific homopolypropylene (B) having a mesopentad fraction of 95% or more with a low stereospecific homopolypropylene (A) having a mesopentad fraction of 35 to 55% disclosed by Takebe et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use a blend of highly stereospecific homopolypropylene (B) having a mesopentad fraction of 95% or more with a low stereospecific homopolypropylene (A) having a mesopentad fraction of 35 to 55% in the layer 101 (base layer) of Toyama et al. in order to provide excellent heat resistance, heat shrinkage percentage and rigidity, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Toyama et al. in view of Takebe et al. disclose the polypropylene resin constituting the layer 101 (base layer) comprising a blend of highly stereospecific homopolypropylene (B) having a mesopentad fraction of 95% or more with a low stereospecific homopolypropylene (A) having a mesopentad fraction of 35 to 55%. Given that the layer 101 (base layer) including homopolypropylene (B) and homopolypropylene (A) is identical to that utilized in the present invention, with mesopentad fractions overlapping with that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, the polypropylene resin constituting layer 101 (base layer) has a mesopentad fraction as presently claimed.
While Toyama et al. disclose the surface layer comprises propylene-1-butene random copolymer, Toyama et al. in view of Takebe et al. do not disclose a ratio of a butene-1-monomer-derived component as presently claimed.
Tsuji et al. disclose polypropylene-based random copolymer obtained by copolymerization of propylene monomer and a-olefin monomer such as 1-butene (see col. 2, lines 40-45). The content of a-olefin unit is 2.6 to 10 mol% from the standpoint of balance of rigidity, heat resistance and stretchability (see col. 3, lines 6-12). That is, the amount of 1-butene is 2.6 to 10 mol%.
In light of motivation for using propylene-1-butene random copolymer comprising 2.6 to 10 mol% of 1-butene disclosed by Tsuji et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use 2.6 to 10 mol% of 1-butene monomer in propylene-1-butene random copolymer of Toyama et al. in view of Takebe et al. in order to provide balance of rigidity, heat resistance and stretchability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. The amount of 2.6 to 10 mol% of 1-butene reads on a ratio of butene-1 monomer-derived component as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 14, Toyama et al. in view of Takebe et al. and Tsuji et al. disclose the biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film comprising the base layer and the surface layer as set forth above. Toyama et al. disclose that the thickness of the packaging film (biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film) is 5 to 100 microns (see paragraph 0026). The thickness of layer 103 (surface layer) is 0.1 to 10 microns (see paragraph 0047). Therefore, a ratio of thickness of the surface layer to a thickness of all layers of biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film (i.e. total thickness of biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film) is 2 to 10% (2 = 0.1/5 x 100 and 10 = 10/100 x 100).
Regarding claim 15, Toyama et al. in view of Takebe et al. and Tsuji et al. disclose the biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film comprising the base layer and the surface layer as set forth above. Given that the layer 101 (base layer) including the propylene polymer and the polyethylene is identical to that utilized in the present invention, with the amount of polyethylene, melting point of the propylene polymer, melt flow rate of the propylene polymer and mesopentad fraction of propylene polymer overlapping with that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, an entirety of the propylene-based resin composition constituting the layer 101 (base layer) necessarily inherently has a melt flow rate as presently claimed.
Regarding claims 18-20, Toyama et al. in view of Takebe et al. and Tsuji et al. disclose the biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film comprising the base layer and the surface layer as set forth above. Given that the layer 101 (base layer) including the propylene polymer and the polyethylene is identical to that utilized in the present invention, with the amount of polyethylene, melting point of the propylene polymer, melt flow rate of the propylene polymer and mesopentad fraction of the propylene polymer overlapping with that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, the biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film has properties as presently claimed.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyama et al. (JP 2019006463 A cited in IDS) in view of Takebe et al. (JP 2003192851 A) and Tsuji et al. (US 6,583,254 B2 cited in IDS) as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Kneale (WO 98/44030 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 13, Toyama et al. in view of Takebe et al. and Tsuji et al. disclose the biaxially oriented polypropylene resin film comprising the base layer and the surface layer as set forth above. Further, Toyama et al. disclose the layer 103 (surface layer) can comprise antifogging agent (see paragraph 0055).
Toyama et al. in view of Takebe et al. and Tsuji et al. do not disclose amount of antifogging agent.
Kneale discloses a packaging film resistant to fogging upon exposure to a humid atmosphere, comprising a polyolefin material such as polypropylene polymer and an antifog agent in amount of 0.1 to 4 wt% (see page 14, claims 1, 3, 6 and 7).
In light of motivation for using antifog agent in amount of 0.1 to 4 wt% blended with propylene polymer disclosed by Kneale as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use antifog agent in amount of 0.1 to 4 wt% blended with propylene polymer of layer 103 (surface layer) in Toyama et al. in view of Takebe et al. and Tsuji et al. in order to provide resistance to fogging upon exposure to a humid atmosphere, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/10/2026 have been fully considered. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejections are set forth above.
Applicant has unexpectedly discovered the advantageous effects of a surface layer (B), wherein the ratio of a butene-1 monomer-derived component to a total of a propylene monomer-derived component and an α-olefin monomer-derived component in the polypropylene-based resin composition constituting the surface layer (B) is not smaller than 5 mol% and not larger than 10 mol%.
However, while applicant points to paragraph 0039 of the present specification to support their position regarding the advantageous effects, applicant does not provide any evidence, i.e. data to support their position. Further, regarding the data in the present specification, the data is not persuasive given that the data is not commensurate in scope with the scope of present claims given that (i) the examples recite a specific base layer having a specific thickness and comprising a specific polypropylene-based resin in specific amounts and a specific polyethylene-based resin in specific amounts, while the present claim has broad recitation of the base layer having any thickness and comprising propylene-based resin in broad amounts and polyethylene-based resin in broad amounts and (ii) the examples recite a specific surface layer having a specific thickness and comprising a specific polypropylene-based resin, while the present claim has broad recitation of surface layer having any thickness and comprising propylene-based resin composition in any amounts.
Applicants argue that the disclosure of Tsuji et al. is directed to improving the rigidity, heat resistance, and stretchability of a single layer film. In contrast, the objective of the present invention is to increase the achievable heat-sealing strength of the surface layer (B) in a multi-layer film. Toyama et al. is similarly concerned with achieving desirable properties of a multi-layer film, i.e., not a single layer film. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have turned to the disclosure of Tsuji et al., which is directed to a single layer film, when considering modifications to the multi-layer film of Toyama et al.
As set forth in the office action, Toyama et al. already disclose a packaging film comprising a surface layer comprising propyene-1-butene random copolymer. Tsuji et al. disclose a specific propylene-1-butene random copolymer comprising 2.6 to 10 mol% of 1-butene in order to provide balance of rigidity, heat resistance and stretchability. These properties are useful and applicable to any layer including the surface layer of Toyoma et al. While Toyoma et al. disclose a surface layer (B) in a multi-layer film, the surface layer itself is a single layer film. Given that Toyoma et al. disclose propyene-1-butene random copolymer and given that Tsuji et al. provides a proper motivation for using a specific propyene-1-butene random copolymer, a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine Tsuji et al. with Toyama et al.
Applicants argue that Kneale and Takebe et al. do not cure the aforementioned deficiencies of Toyama et al. and Tsuji et al.
However, note that while Kneale and Takebe et al. do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Kneale and Takebe et al. are used as teaching references, and therefore, it is not necessary for these secondary references to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather each reference teaches a certain concept, namely amount of fogging agent by Kneale and plurality of propylene homopolymers by Takebe et al., and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
In light of persuasive arguments, claim objections are withdrawn.
In light of amendments, 112(b) paragraph rejections are withdrawn.
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 KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights