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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 11, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 1, 6 and 9 are currently amended.
The objection to claim 9 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fossum et al. (US 2011/0028374) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments therein.
The rejection of claims 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fossum as applied to claims 1-8 above, and further in view of Tan et al. (US 2021/0121373) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glenn, Jr. et al. (US 2014/0105946), hereinafter “Glenn, Jr.”
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Glenn, Jr. teaches a personal care article in the form of a flexible, porous dissolvable solid structure, comprising: (a) from about 0% to about 75% by weight surfactant; (b) from about 15% to about 70% by weight polymeric structurant (i.e., polymer), which are water-soluble; and (c) from about 1% to about 30% by weight plasticizer; wherein the article is an open celled foam with a % open cell of from about 80% to about 100% and, wherein the article has a top and a bottom, and wherein the top comprises an Acquisition Region wherein the pores have an average diameter of from about 0.125 to about 0.850 mm (i.e., about 125 - about 850 µm) and wherein the bottom has pores having an average diameter of from about 0.020 to about 0.125 mm (i.e., about 20 - about 125 µm) (see claim 1; [0002], [0012], [0071]-[0072] and [00190]), wherein the overall average pore size, by calculation, is about 72.5 - 244 µm {(125 + 20)/2 = 72.5 for the lower limit and (850 + 125)/2 = 244 for the upper limit)}. The plasticizer includes polyols like glycerin (see [0075]-[0076], [0081] and Example in [0117]). In one embodiment, the article has a % open cell from about 85% to about 97.5%, and in another embodiment from about 90% to about 95% (see [0115]). In one embodiment the article is a sheet (see [0102]). Glenn, Jr., however, fails to specifically disclose the sheet comprising, by total weight of the sheet: from 55% to about 85% by weight of the water-soluble polymer, from about 1% to about 40% by weight of surfactant and from 20% to about 40% by weight of glycerin and the sheet having an overall average pore size of from 100 µm to about 2000 µm as recited in claim 1, and from 20% to about 30% by weight of glycerin as recited in claim 6.
Considering that Glenn, Jr. teaches the sheet comprising from about 15% to about 70% by weight polymeric structurant (i.e., water-soluble polymer), from about 0% to about 75% by weight surfactant, from about 1% to about 30% by weight plasticizer, preferably glycerin, and having an overall average pore size from about 72.5 - 244 µm, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (i.e., 55-70wt% water soluble polymer; 1-40wt% surfactant; 20-30wt% glycerin; overall average pore size of from 100 µm to about 244 µm ) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, Glenn, Jr. further teaches that the preferred water-soluble polymers include polyvinyl alcohols, polyvinylpyrrolidones, polyalkylene oxides, starch and starch derivatives, pullulan, gelatin, hydroxypropylmethylcelluloses, methycelluloses, and carboxymethycelluloses (see [0071]).
Regarding claim 3, Glenn, Jr. further teaches that in one embodiment, one or more polymers suitable for the article or sheet are selected such that their weighted average molecular weight is from about 50,000 to about 400,000 (see [0067]), and example of the polymer is polyvinyl alcohol (see [0072]), like Celvol 523 (see [0117], which is known to have a degree of hydrolysis between 87-89%.
Regarding claim 4, Glenn, Jr. further teaches that in one embodiment, one or more polymers suitable for the article or sheet are selected such that their weighted average molecular weight is from about 40,000 to about 500,00; and the weighted average molecular weight is computed by summing the average molecular weights of each polymer raw material multiplied by their respective relative weight percentages by weight of the total weight of polymers present within the porous solid (see [0067]). Examples include polyvinyl alcohol under the CELVOL trade name including CELVOL 523, CELVOL 530, CELVOL 540, CELVOL 518, CELVOL 513, CELVOL 508, CELVOL 504, and combinations thereof (see [0072]), wherein the above CELVOLs are known to have a degree of hydrolysis from 80-90%. Glenn, Jr., however, fails to specifically disclose an additional polyvinyl alcohol that has a weight average molecular weight of from about 5,000 to about 100,000 Daltons; and wherein the weight ratio of the additional polyvinyl alcohol to said polyvinyl alcohol ranges from about 0.1 to about 0.9.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an additional polyvinyl alcohol having a molecular weight within those recited because Glenn, Jr. specifically desires a combination of CELVOL or polyvinyl alcohol polymers such that their weighted average molecular weight is from about 40,000 to about 500,000, hence, an additional polyvinyl alcohol having MW of 50,000 is envisaged.
With respect to the weight ratio of the additional polyvinyl alcohol to said polyvinyl alcohol, while Glenn, Jr. is silent as to their respective specific proportions, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the proportions of each of the additional polyvinyl alcohol to said polyvinyl alcohol, to be non-critical, which means that each proportion can vary in a wide range, hence, would overlap those recited. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the proportions of the two polyvinyl alcohols through routine experimentation for best results.
Regarding claim 5, Glenn, Jr. further teaches that in one embodiment, the article or sheet comprises from about 8% to about 30% by weight of surfactant (see [0052]), and some examples include sodium laureth sulfate and sodium dodecyl benzene sulphonate (see [0054]).
Regarding claims 7-8, Glenn, Jr. further teaches that the article or sheet has a cell wall thickness of from about 15 microns to about 55 microns (see [0094]),
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glenn, Jr. as applied to claims 1-8 above, and further in view of Tan et al. (US 2021/0121373, already of record), hereinafter “Tan.”
Regarding claims 9-12, Glenn, Jr. teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Glenn, Jr. teaches that in another embodiment, two or more sheets are combined to form an article (see [0102]). Glenn, Jr., however, fails to disclose a unitary article comprising two or more sheets and one or more solid dissolvable components located between the two sheets, wherein each of said one or more solid dissolvable components comprises a cleaning active as recited in claim 9, wherein the one or more solid dissolvable components comprises paste as recited in claims 10-11, and wherein the active is a fabric care active as recited in claim 12.
Tan, an analogous art, teaches a dissolvable solid article which comprises two or more flexible, porous, dissolvable sheets, and a coating composition comprising a surfactant which is present on at least one internal surface of at least one sheet in said solid article (see paragraph [0009], abstract; see also Figs. 8A and 8B). In addition, Tan teaches a coating composition comprising 58 wt% C12-C14 ethoxylated alcohol, 30.50 wt% perfume and 11.50 wt% silicon dioxide rheology modifier (see Table 14), hence the coating composition is a paste. The resulting multilayer dissolvable article containing a coating composition provides a significantly improved dissolution profile (see [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the two or more sheets of Glenn, Jr. by incorporating into the at least one internal surface of at least one sheet, a coating composition in paste form which comprises a surfactant, because such incorporation of a paste between two sheets provides a significantly improved dissolution profile of the article as taught by Tan.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Xu et al. (US 2021/0261892), hereinafter “Xu.”
The applied reference has two (2) common inventors (H. Tan and C. Mac Namara) with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Xu teaches a flexible, porous, dissolvable solid sheet article comprising a water-soluble polymer, a plasticizer and a cationic surfactant, wherein the solid sheet article is characterized by: (i) a Percent Open Cell Content of from about 80% to about 100%; and (ii) an Overall Average Pore Size of from about 100 μm to about 2000 μm (see [0007]). The solid sheet article may preferably comprise from about 1% to about 65% of the plasticizer by total weight of the solid sheet article, and the plasticizer may be glycerin (see [0008]). The solid sheet article may preferably comprise from about 10% to about 40%, most preferably from about 15% to about 35%, of the cationic surfactant by total weight of the solid sheet article (see [0009]). The solid sheet article may preferably comprise from about 1% to about 60% of the water-soluble polymer by total weight of the solid sheet article (see [0010]). Xu, however, fails to specifically disclose the sheet comprising, by total weight of the sheet: from 55% to about 85% by weight of the water-soluble polymer, from 20% to about 40% by weight of glycerin and the sheet having a Percent Open Cell from about 80% to about 99% as recited in claim 1, and from 20% to about 30% by weight of glycerin as recited in claim 6.
Considering that Xu teaches the sheet comprising from about 1% to about 60% of the water-soluble polymer by total weight of the solid sheet article, from about 1% to about 65% of the plasticizer, like glycerin, by total weight of the solid sheet article, and the solid sheet article having a Percent Open Cell Content of from about 80% to about 100%, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (i.e., 55-60wt% water soluble polymer, 20-40wt% or 20-30 wt% glycerin; Percent Open Cell Content of from about 80% to about 99%) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, Xu further teaches that the water-soluble polymers include polyvinyl alcohols, polyvinylpyrrolidones, polyalkylene oxides, starch and starch derivatives, pullulan, gelatin, hydroxypropylmethylcelluloses, methycelluloses, and carboxymethycelluloses (see [0053]).
Regarding claim 3, Xu further teaches that the polyvinyl alcohol has a weight average molecular weight from about 80,000 to about 150,000 Daltons and a degree of hydrolysis ranging from about 80% to about 90% (see [0055]).
Regarding claim 4, Xu teaches the features as discussed in claim 3. Xu further teaches that the polyvinyl alcohols include those under the CELVOL trade name including CELVOL 523, CELVOL 530, CELVOL 540, CELVOL 518, CELVOL 513, CELVOL 508, CELVOL 504, and combinations thereof (see [0054]). Xu, however, fails to specifically disclose an additional polyvinyl alcohol that has a weight average molecular weight of from about 5,000 to about 100,000 Daltons; and wherein the weight ratio of the additional polyvinyl alcohol to said polyvinyl alcohol ranges from about 0.1 to about 0.9.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an additional polyvinyl alcohol having a molecular weight within those recited because Xu specifically desires a combination of CELVOL or polyvinyl alcohol polymers such that their weighted average molecular weight is from about 80,000 to about 150,000, hence, an additional polyvinyl alcohol having MW of 100,000 is envisaged.
With respect to the weight ratio of the additional polyvinyl alcohol to said polyvinyl alcohol, while Xu is silent as to their respective specific proportions, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the proportions of each of the additional polyvinyl alcohol to said polyvinyl alcohol, to be non-critical, which means that each proportion can vary in a wide range, hence, would overlap those recited. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the proportions of the two polyvinyl alcohols through routine experimentation for best results.
Regarding claim 5, Xu further teaches that the solid sheet article includes anionic surfactant in an amount from about 3%, about 5% or about 10% by total weight of the solid sheet article (see [0094] and examples include C6-C20 linear alkylbenzene sulfonates (LAS) (see [0095]).
Regarding claims 7-8, Xu further teaches that the solid sheet article has an average cell wall thickness from 5 µm to 200 µm, or from 10 µm to 80 µm (see [0015]).
Regarding claims 9-12, Xu further teaches that the flexible, porous, dissolvable solid sheet article comprises two or more flexible having a first surface and an outer surface, porous, dissolvable sheets, wherein a coating composition is present on at least one surface of at least one of said two or more sheets, provided that said coating composition is not on any of the outer surfaces of the solid sheet article, and wherein said coating composition comprises one or more ingredients comprising an additional surfactant, perfume, silicone, an emulsifier, a solvent, a rheology modifier, an enzyme, a bleach, a colorant, a brightener, a dye transfer inhibiting agent, a deposition aid, an anti-microbial agent, a non-film forming polymer, an anti-foamer, a defoamer, or a combination thereof (see claim 12), which are fabric or dishwashing cleaning actives. The coating composition may have a viscosity of about 25,000 cps (see [0153]), hence, in the form of a paste.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mac Namara et al. (US 2022/0112449), hereinafter “Mac Namara.”
The applied reference has two (2) common inventors (C. Mac Namara and H. Tan) with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 9-12, Mac Namara teaches a dissolvable solid article comprising two or more flexible, porous, dissolvable sheets, wherein each of said two or more sheets comprises a water-soluble polymer and a surfactant and is characterized by a Percent Open Cell Content of from about 80% to about 100% and an Overall Average Pore Size of from about 100 μm to about 2000 μm; and a coating composition comprising a non-aqueous liquid carrier, solid particles, and a thickening agent is present on at least one surface of at least one of said two or more sheets, provided that said coating composition is not on any of the outer surfaces of the dissolvable solid article (see claim 1), and wherein the solid particles comprise a chelant, an anionic surfactant, an enzyme, a bleaching agent, or a combination thereof (see claim 5), which are fabric care, dishwashing, or hard surface cleaning actives. The water-soluble polymer, after drying, may be present in the flexible, porous, dissolvable solid sheet in an amount ranging from about 5% to about 60%, by total weight of the solid sheet (see [0099]). The total amount of the surfactant present in the solid sheet may range widely from about 5% to about 95%, by total weight of the solid sheet (see [0111]). The flexible, porous, dissolvable solid sheet may further comprise a plasticizer, in the amount ranging from about 0.1% to about 25%, by total weight of the solid sheet (see [0126]), wherein suitable plasticizers include polyols like glycerin (see [0127]-[0128] and Table 1). In one example, the laundry care sheet has a 90.75% open cell content and an overall average pore size of 467.1 µm (see Table 7). Mac Namara, however, fails to specifically disclose the sheet comprising, by total weight of the sheet: from 55% to about 85% by weight of the water-soluble polymer, from about 1% to about 40% by weight of surfactant and from 20% to about 40% by weight of glycerin as recited in claim 1, and from 20% to about 30% by weight of glycerin as recited in claim 6.
Considering that Mac Namara teaches the sheet comprising from about 5% to about 60% of water-soluble polymer, by total weight of the solid sheet, from about 5% to about 95% of surfactant, by total weight of the solid sheet, and from about 0.1% to about 25% of plasticizer, preferably glycerin, by total weight of the solid sheet, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (i.e., 55-60wt% water soluble polymer; 5-40wt% surfactant; 20-25wt% glycerin) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, Mac Namara further teaches that the water-soluble polymers include polyvinyl alcohols, polyvinylpyrrolidones, polyalkylene oxides, starch and starch derivatives, pullulan, gelatin, hydroxypropylmethylcelluloses, methycelluloses, and carboxymethycelluloses (see [0105]).
Regarding claim 3, Mac Namara further teaches that the water-soluble polymers suitable for use may be selected from those with weight average molecular weight from about 5,000 to about 400,000 Daltons (see [0100]), and examples of the polymer include polyvinyl alcohols (see [0105]), which may be characterized by a degree of hydrolysis ranging from about 65% to about 92% or from about 70% to about 90% (see [0106]).
Regarding claim 4, Mac Namara teaches the features as discussed in claim 3. Mac Namara further teaches that the polyvinyl alcohols include those under the CELVOL trade name including CELVOL 523, CELVOL 530, CELVOL 540, CELVOL 518, CELVOL 513, CELVOL 508, CELVOL 504, and combinations thereof (see [0106]). Mac Namara, however, fails to specifically disclose an additional polyvinyl alcohol that has a weight average molecular weight of from about 5,000 to about 100,000 Daltons; and wherein the weight ratio of the additional polyvinyl alcohol to said polyvinyl alcohol ranges from about 0.1 to about 0.9.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an additional polyvinyl alcohol having a molecular weight within those recited because Mac Namara specifically desires a combination of CELVOL or polyvinyl alcohol polymers such that their weighted average molecular weight is from about 5,000 to about 500,000, hence, an additional polyvinyl alcohol having MW of 50,000 is envisaged.
With respect to the weight ratio of the additional polyvinyl alcohol to said polyvinyl alcohol, while Mac Namara is silent as to their respective specific proportions, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the proportions of each of the additional polyvinyl alcohol to said polyvinyl alcohol, to be non-critical, which means that each proportion can vary in a wide range, hence, would overlap those recited. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the proportions of the two polyvinyl alcohols through routine experimentation for best results.
Regarding claim 5, Mac Namara further teaches that the surfactant includes anionic surfactants (see [0109] and examples include C6-C20 linear alkylbenzene sulfonates (LAS) (see [0113]), and the amount of LAS in the solid sheet may range from about 10% to about 70%, by total weight of the solid sheet. Mac Namara , however, fails to disclose from about 2% to about 30% of said anionic surfactant by total weight of the sheet.
Considering that Mac Namara teaches the sheet comprising from about 10% to about 70% of LAS anionic surfactant, by total weight of the solid sheet, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (i.e., 10-30 wt%) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 7-8, Mac Namara further teaches that the solid sheet has an average cell wall thickness from 5 µm to 200 µm, or from 10 µm to 80 µm (see [0091]).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection as discussed above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights