The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on June 25, 2026.
Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9, 13 and 19 are currently amended.
The objection to claims 1, 9, 13 and 19 for minor informalities is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claims 1-10, 12, 14-16 and 18-19 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 42 of copending Application No. 18/682,509 for the reasons set forth in the previous office action.
Claims 1-19 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 34 of copending Application No. 18/682,540 in view of Delplancke et al. (US 2017/0121638) for the reasons set forth in the previous office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claim 1, lines 11-13, the limitation “wherein each of the at least two monomers of alkylene oxide moieties selected are present in relative amounts in the polymer backbone (A) from less than 80%” lacks literal basis in the specification as originally filed, see Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983) aff'd mem. 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In addition, the phrase “less than 80%” includes zero as a lower limit, see In re Mochel, 470 F.2d 638, 176 USPQ 194 (CCPA 1974), hence may cause the claim to read on embodiments outside the range "5 to 95%" in the specification on page 7, line 32 to page 8, line 2. See also MPEP 2163.05 III. Please note that the full citation in the specification on page 7, line 32 to page 8, line 2 states that “the relative amount of EO in the polymer backbone A is within 5 to 95%, preferably 10 to 90%, more preferably 15 to 85%, even more preferably at least 20 to 80% (all as weight percent in relation to the total mass of alkylene oxides in the polymer backbone (A)).”
Claims 2-19, being dependent from claim 1, inherit the same rejection as in claim 1 above.
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 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delplancke et al. (US 2017/0121638), hereinafter “Delplancke.”
Regarding claims 1-4, Delplancke teaches a liquid detergent composition which comprises a surfactant system which comprises an anionic surfactant and a primary co-surfactant, and a specific cleaning amine (see [0008]), and preferably, the composition comprises an amphiphilic graft copolymer (see [0026]), preferably a random graft copolymer having a hydrophilic backbone comprising monomers like alkoxy units, and hydrophobic side chains like a vinyl ester of a saturated monocarboxylic acid containing from 1 to 6 carbon atoms (see [0035]). The polymer may contain either a linear or branched polyalkylene oxide backbone with ethylene oxide, propylene oxide and/or butylene oxide; the polyalkylene oxide backbone may contain more than about 80%, by weight ethylene oxide; and the weight average molecular weight (Mw) of the polyalkylene oxide backbone is typically from about 400 g/mol to 40,000 g/mol, or from about 1,000 g/mol to about 18,000 g/mol (see [0179]). The amphiphilic graft polymers have preferably (A) from 20% to 70% by weight of a water-soluble polyalkylene oxide as a graft base and (B) side chains formed by free-radical polymerization of from 30% to 80% by weight of a vinyl ester component composed of (B1) from 70% to 100% by weight of vinyl acetate and/or vinyl propionate and (B2) from 0 to 30% by weight of a further ethylenically unsaturated monomer, in the presence of (A) (see [0191]). Water-soluble polyalkylene oxides suitable for forming the graft base (A) are in principle all polymers based on C2-C4-alkylene oxides which comprise at least 50% by weight, preferably at least 60% by weight, more preferably at least 75% by weight of ethylene oxide in copolymerized form (underlinings supplied, see [0193]), and the copolymers of ethylene oxide and propylene oxide and/or butylene oxide with an ethylene oxide content of at least 50% by weight, which may likewise be capped at one or both end groups have mean molar masses Mn of preferably from 1500 to 20,000, more preferably from 2500 to 15,000 (underlining supplied, see [0196]). The vinyl ester component (B) may consist advantageously of (B1) vinyl acetate or vinyl propionate (see [0198]), therefore the vinyl component (B) does not contain monomer (B2), hence, the weight ratio of (B2) to (B1) is 0, which reads on “less than 0.5” because “less than” includes zero as a lower limit, see In re Mochel, 470 F.2d 638, 176 USPQ 194 (CCPA 1974); see also MPEP 2173.05(c)II. Delplancke, however, fails to specifically disclose the random graft copolymer wherein the backbone comprises at least two monomers like ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, i.e., 1,2-propylene oxide, as recited in claim 1-3, wherein the distribution of the monomers is in random order, the copolymer backbone having a molecular weight within 500 to 7000 g/l, from 25 to 85% by weight of the copolymer backbone and 15 to 75% by weight of the sidechain, i.e., vinyl ester; wherein each of the at least two monomers like ethylene oxide and propylene oxide are present in relative amounts in the polymer backbone from less than 80% as recited in claim 1, or wherein the relative amount of EO in the polymer backbone (A) is from about 15 to less than 80% as recited in claim 2, or from about 20% to about 75% as recited in claim 4.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected at least ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, i.e., 1,2-propylene oxide as the specific monomers in the backbone because Delplancke specifically desires said combination as one suitable selection as disclosed in [00179] and to reasonably expect the at least ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, i.e., 1,2-propylene, to have been distributed in the backbone in random order because Delplancke discloses a random graft polymer which implies that the monomers in the backbone are in random order.
With respect to the percentages of the polyalkylene backbone and vinyl ester side chains, and the ethylene oxide in the polyalkylene backbone, considering that Delplancke teaches amphiphilic graft polymers having from 20% to 70% by weight of a water-soluble polyalkylene oxide as a graft base and from 30% to 80% by weight of a vinyl ester side chains; and at least 50% by weight of ethylene oxide in the polyalkylene backbone as disclosed in para. [0193] and [0196], 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 (e.g., 25-70 wt% polyalkylene oxide backbone and 30-75 wt% vinyl ester side chains; and 50% ethylene oxide and remaining 50% propylene oxide) 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 5, Delplancke further teaches that the amphiphilic graft polymer has a polydispersity Mw/Mn of less or equal than 3 (see [0039]), preferably 2.5 and more preferably 2.3 (see 0186]).
Regarding claims 6-8, Delplancke, as discussed above, teaches that the side chains (B) are formed by free-radical polymerization of from 30% to 80% by weight of a vinyl ester component composed of (B1) from 70% to 100% by weight of vinyl acetate and/or vinyl propionate and (B2) from 0 to 30% by weight of a further ethylenically unsaturated monomer, in the presence of backbone (A) (see [0191]), preferably (B1) is from about 90% to about 99% by weight vinyl acetate (see [0180]).
Regarding claim 9, Delplancke, as discussed above, teaches that the amphiphilic graft polymers have preferably (A) from 20% to 70% by weight of a water-soluble polyalkylene oxide as a graft base and (B) side chains formed by free-radical polymerization of from 30% to 80% by weight of a vinyl ester component composed of (B1) from 70% to 100% by weight of vinyl acetate and/or vinyl propionate and (B2) from 0 to 30% by weight of a further ethylenically unsaturated monomer, in the presence of (A) (see [0191]). Delplancke also teaches that the water-soluble polyalkylene oxides suitable for forming the graft base (A) are in principle all polymers based on C2-C4-alkylene oxides which comprise at least 50% by weight, preferably at least 60% by weight, more preferably at least 75% by weight of ethylene oxide in copolymerized form (underlining supplied, see [0193]), and the copolymers of ethylene oxide and propylene oxide and/or butylene oxide with an ethylene oxide content of at least 50% by weight, which may likewise be capped at one or both end groups have mean molar masses Mn of preferably from 1500 to 20,000, more preferably from 2500 to 15,000 (underlining supplied, see [0196]). The vinyl ester component (B) may consist advantageously of (B1) vinyl acetate (see [0198]), therefore the vinyl component (B) does not contain monomer (B2). Delplancke, however, fails to specifically disclose the detergent composition comprising: (A) about 55% to about 75% by weight of the graft polymer of the copolymer backbone (A) comprising ethylene oxide and 1,2-propylene oxide, wherein the distribution of the alkylene oxide moieties within the copolymer backbone is in random order, and the molecular weight of the copolymer backbone Mn in g/mol is within 1200 to 2500, with the relative amount of EO in the polymer backbone (A) being within 15 to less than 80% by weight of the total mass of alkylene oxides in the polymer backbone (A), and (B) 25% to 45% by weight of the graft polymer of the polymeric sidechains grafted onto the copolymer backbone, i.e., solely vinyl acetate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected at least ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, i.e., 1,2-propylene oxide as the specific monomers in the backbone because Delplancke specifically desires said combination as one suitable selection as disclosed in [00179] and to reasonably expect the at least ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, i.e., 1,2-propylene, to have been distributed in the backbone in random order because Delplancke discloses a random graft polymer which implies that the monomers in the backbone are in random order.
With respect to the percentages of the polyalkylene backbone, i.e., ethylene oxide and 1,2-propylene oxide, and vinyl acetate side chains; the ethylene oxide in the polyalkylene backbone and molecular weight of the copolymer backbone, considering that Delplancke teaches amphiphilic graft polymers having from 20% to 70% by weight of a water-soluble polyalkylene oxide as a graft base and from 30% to 80% by weight of a vinyl ester, i.e., vinyl acetate, side chains, the copolymers of ethylene oxide and propylene oxide and/or butylene oxide with an ethylene oxide content of at least 50% by weight and the polyalkylene oxide backbone having a mean molar masses Mn of preferably from 1500 to 20,000, 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 (e.g., 55-70 wt% polyalkylene oxide backbone and 30-45 wt% vinyl ester side chains; 50% ethylene oxide and remaining 50% propylene oxide; and 1500 to 2500 Mn of polyalkylene oxide backbone) 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 10, Delplancke teaches the features as discussed above. Delplancke, however, fails to disclose the graft polymer having a biodegradability of at least 40% within 28 days when tested under OECD301F.
Even though Delplancke does not explicitly disclose the biodegradability of the amphiphilic random graft copolymer, 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 amphiphilic random graft copolymer of Delplancke to exhibit a biodegradability within those recited because similar backbone monomers and side chains having overlapping proportions, and similar backbone monomers having similar molecular weights have been utilized, hence would behave similarly.
Regarding claim 11, Delplancke further teaches that the composition preferably comprises from about 1% to about 40%, by weight of the composition of the surfactant system (see [0023] and [0059]), and from about 0.1% to about 2% by weight of the composition of the amphiphilic random graft polymer (see claim 14).
Regarding claim 12, Delplancke, as discussed above, teaches a liquid detergent composition which comprises a surfactant system (see [0008]), and an amphiphilic graft copolymer (see [0026]).
Regarding claim 13, Delplancke further teaches that the composition can optionally further comprise a number of other adjunct ingredients suitable for use in liquid detergent compositions such as perfume, suds stabilizers/boosters, structurants, chelants, enzymes and anti-caking agents (see [0210]).
Regarding claims 14-15, Delplancke, as discussed above, teaches that the weight average molecular weight (Mw) of the polyalkylene oxide backbone is typically from about 400 g/mol to 40,000 g/mol, or from about 1,000 g/mol to about 18,000 g/mol (see [0179]). Delplancke, however, fails to specifically disclose the copolymer backbone having a molecular weight from 500 to about 4500 g/mol as recited in claim 14, or from about 1000 to about 3500 g/mol as recited in claim 15.
Considering that Delplancke teaches polyalkylene oxide backbone having a weight average molecular weight (Mw) from about 400 g/mol to 40,000 g/mol, 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 (e.g., 500 to about 4500 g/mol, or about 1000 to about 3500 g/mol ) 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 16-17, Delplancke, as discussed above, teaches that the vinyl ester component (B) may consist advantageously of (B1) vinyl acetate or vinyl propionate (see [0198]), therefore the vinyl component (B) does not contain monomer (B2), hence, the weight ratio of (B2) to (B1) is 0, which reads on “less than 0.3” as recited in claim 16, or “less than 0.1” as recited in claim 17 because “less than” includes zero as a lower limit, see In re Mochel, 470 F.2d 638, 176 USPQ 194 (CCPA 1974); see also MPEP 2173.05(c)II.
Regarding claims 18-19, Delplancke, as discussed above, teaches that the amphiphilic graft polymers have preferably (A) from 20% to 70% by weight of a water-soluble polyalkylene oxide as a graft base and (B) from 30% to 80% by weight of a vinyl ester component side chains (see [0191]); and the weight average molecular weight (Mw) of the polyalkylene oxide backbone is typically from about 400 g/mol to 40,000 g/mol, or from about 1,000 g/mol to about 18,000 g/mol (see [0179]). Also, as discussed above, the weight ratio of monomer (B2) to monomer (B1) is 0. Delplancke, however, fails to specifically disclose from about 40 to about 75% by weight of the copolymer backbone (A), and about 25 to about 60% by weight of the polymeric sidechains (B) as recited in claim 17, or from about 55 to about 75% by weight of the copolymer backbone (A), and about 25 to about 45% by weight of the polymeric sidechains (B); and backbone molecular weight from about 1200 to about 3000 g/mol as recited in claim 18
Considering that Delplancke teaches amphiphilic graft polymers having from 20% to 70% by weight of a water-soluble polyalkylene oxide as a graft base and from 30% to 80% by weight of a vinyl ester side chains; and the polyalkylene oxide backbone having a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of from about 400 g/mol to 40,000 g/mol, 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 (e.g., about 40-70 wt%, or about 55-70 wt% polyalkylene oxide backbone and 30-60 wt% or 30-45 wt% vinyl ester side chains; and 1200 to 3000 Mw of polyalkylene oxide backbone) 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the obviousness rejection based upon Delplancke, Applicant argues that the amended claim 1 now recites, inter alia, “wherein the at least monomers of alkylene oxide moieties are present in relative amounts in the polymer backbone (A) from less than 80%, and no longer overlap the EO range of Delplancke.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments because, as stated in paragraph 11 above, Delplancke teaches that the water-soluble polyalkylene oxides suitable for forming the graft base (A) are in principle all polymers based on C2-C4-alkylene oxides which comprise at least 50% by weight, preferably at least 60% by weight, more preferably at least 75% by weight of ethylene oxide in copolymerized form (underlining supplied, see [0193]), and the copolymers of ethylene oxide and propylene oxide and/or butylene oxide with an ethylene oxide content of at least 50% by weight, which may likewise be capped at one or both end groups (see [0196]). Hence, considering that Delplancke teaches at least 50% by weight of ethylene oxide in the polyalkylene backbone as disclosed in para. [0193] and [0196], 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 (e.g., 50% ethylene oxide and remaining 50% propylene oxide) 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).
Applicant also argues that Delplancke is directed to a different problem than the present application and Delplancke does not address the problem solved by the present application, namely biodegradability.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments because rationale different from Applicant’s is permissible. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). See MPEP 2144IV. As discussed in claim 10 above, even though Delplancke does not explicitly disclose the biodegradability of the amphiphilic random graft copolymer, 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 amphiphilic random graft copolymer of Delplancke to exhibit a biodegradability within those recited because similar backbone monomers and side chains having overlapping proportions, and similar backbone monomers having similar molecular weights have been utilized, hence would behave similarly.
With respect to the provisional rejection over each of copending Application No. 18/682,509 and copending Application No. 18/682,540 in view of Delplancke, Applicant will consider filing a terminal disclaimer, if necessary, upon indication of allowable subject matter.
The provisional rejections above are maintained until such time Applicant submits a timely filed terminal disclaimer.
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 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