DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a response to Applicant's amendment filed on July 07, 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 10-11 20-22, 25-26, 31,33, 41,50, 54-56, 58-59, and 61 are pending in the application. Claim 1 and 31 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Claims 1-3, 10-11 20-22, 25-26, 31,33, 41,50, 54-56, 58-59, and 61 are examined herein.
Response to Amendments
The Amendments to the Claims filed 07/07/2026 have been entered. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections of claims 1-3, 10-11 20-22, 25-26, 31, 33, 41,50, 54-56, 58-59, and 61 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendments and arguments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks/Arguments and Amendments to the Claims both filed 07/07/2026 have been fully considered. It is noted that claim 1, an independent claim from which all dependent claims depend, has been amended to recite “an acidic aqueous salt solution comprising a free-chlorine species and with a pH of less than 7, wherein the method comprises contacting the aqueous salt solution” in the context of a method of deacidifying and dechlorinating an acidic aqueous salt solution as claimed.
Claim 31 has been amended to further define the elemental composition of the deacidifying and dechlorinating composition by the recited formula and respective elemental coefficient ranges from changing “g is from about 0.001 to 0.01” to “g is from about 0.001 to about 0.01.”
Applicant argues that the claim 1 as amended and its dependent claims are not anticipated nor prima facie obvious over cited prior art(s) Fram et al., (U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigation Report 2005-5142, hereinafter as “Fram”) in view of Johnson et al. (Chemical Geology, 2014), hereinafter as “Johnson”), because the cited prior art(s), alone or in a combination, do not individually disclose the highlighted limitations of amended claim 1, “an acidic aqueous salt solution comprising a free-chlorine species and with a pH of less than 7, wherein the method comprises contacting the aqueous salt solution” in the context of a method of deacidifying and dechlorinating an acidic aqueous salt solution as claimed. See Remarks, p. 7, first paragraph, line 1 thru p. 8, paragraph 2, line 10.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants’ arguments directed to newly amended claim limitation which is a new issue. But the amended claim limitation is still obvious over the cited prior arts because the rejection does not rely upon Fram alone for all limitations of claim 1. Fram experimentally establishes contact between chlorinated aqueous water and basaltic rock and reports substantial chlorine demand, including its conclusion that the chlorine demand of the rocks is sufficiently large that free chlorine would be consumed. Thus, Fram is relied upon for the demonstrated technical property of free-chlorine consumption upon mineral-water contact, not for an express disclosure of Applicant’s complete treatment purpose while Johnson et al. (Chemical Geology, 2014), hereinafter as “Johnson”) is relied upon for the acidic saline olivine environmental missing from Fram.
Therefore, the amended claim limitation is still obvious over the cited prior arts as presented in the instant Office action.
Applicant argues that Johnson does not cure Fram because Johnson concerns olivine dissolution/carbonation for CO2 storage and does not disclose dechlorination itself. See Remarks, p. 8, third paragraph, line 1 thru p. 9, line 2.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Johnson is not relied upon to independently teach dichlorination. Johnson is relied upon for olivine in an acidic NaCl-containing aqueous environment and proton-consuming olivine dissolution. Johnson reports experiment containing 0.05M NaCl and explains the effect of dissolved NaCl on olivine dissolution.
Thus, Fram supplies the demonstrated chlorine-consumption interaction, while Johnson supplies the acidic saline environment and olivine deacidification chemistry. The rejection properly considers what the references collectively would have suggested obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2141 and 2145.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation or reasonable expectation of success because of ordinary skill would have had no reason to acidify Fram’s drinking water merely to subsequently deacidify it or to convert it into a salt solution. See Remarks, p. 9, top paragraph, lines 3-6.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection does not propose acidifying Fram’s potable drinking water embodiment for continued drinking-water storage. Rather, Fram establishes a known material property-substantial chlorine consumption upon contact with basaltic mineral material-and Johnson independently establishes the operation of olivine in an acidic NaCl-containing aqueous environment.
It would have obvious to employ the known chlorine-consuming mineral interaction demonstrated by Fram under Johnson’s independently disclosed acidic saline olivine conditions because Johnson establishes that olivine remain chemically reactive under those conditions and proton-consuming dissolution occurs therein.
Therefore, where chlorine removal rather than preservation of disinfectants is desired, the skilled artisan would reasonably have expected the known mineral contact to provide chlorine consumption together with proton consumption/acidification.
The combination rests on known properties operating predictably under conditions expressly taught in the prior art. Obviousness requires a reason to combine with a reasonable expectation of success, not absolute predictability. See MPEP 2143, 2143.02 and 2144.
Applicant argues that the proposed combination would render Fram inoperable or unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because increased rock dissolution increase DOC and THM formation and degrade water quality. See Remarks, p. 9, second paragraph, line 1 thru third paragraph line 10.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument assumes bodily incorporation of Johnson’s acidic conditions into Fram while requiring Fram’s original potable-water-storage objective to remain unchanged. That is not the focus of the rejection. Fram is relied upon for its experimentally demonstrated chlorine-demand property of basaltic material. Johnson is relied upon for the independently demonstrated behavior of olivine in acidic saline water. The rejection, therefore, does not require operation of the combined systems of Fram’s original-drinking-water storage process.
Moreover, Johnson’s teaching that olivine reacts under acidic saline conditions supports, rather than defeats, the expected proton-consuming function relied upon for deacidification. Thus, the combination does not consequently destroy either technical property on which the rejection relies.
Applicant argues that Fram teaches away because chlorine consumption and associated rock-water interactions were undesirable in Fram. See Remarks, p. 8, first paragraph, lines 1-4
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Fram does not discourage or discredit the ability of basaltic material to consume free chlorine; Fram affirmatively demonstrates that property and reports chlorine demand sufficiently large to consume free chlorine.
Thus, the fact that chlorine is undesirable where the objective is maintaining disinfection in stored potable water does not teach away from exploiting the same demonstrated material property which may be disadvantageous for a different intended use. See MPEP 2145.
Applicant argues that the Fram-Johnson combination is based upon impermissible hindsight. See Remarks, p. 9, fourth paragraph, line 1 thru p. 10, fourth paragraph line 9.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection does not rely upon Applicant’s disclosure to provide the technical facts underlying the combination. Fram independently demonstrates substantial free-chlorine consumption by basaltic mineral material, while Johnson independently teaches acidic NaCl-containing olivine dissolution. The reason for combining the teaching therefore arises from the references themselves and the predictable chemical functions of their disclosed mineral systems, rather than from reconstruction using Applicant’s specification.
Thus, the rejection is supported by articulated reasoning having rational underpinning and a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 and 2145.
Applicant argues that Foley does not cure the deficiencies of Fram and Johnson with respect to claim 11 and 31 because Foley merely characterizes trace-element-bearing olivine and does not itself teach simultaneous deacidification and dechlorination. See Remarks, p. 10, second paragraph, line 1 thru third paragraph line 9.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Foley is not relied upon to establish the underlying simultaneous deacidification/dechlorination process. Fram and Johnson are relied upon for the underlying process as discussed above. Foley is applied only for the additional olivine compositional limitations recited in claim 11. Applicants’ argument that Foley does not independently disclose the complete claimed treatment therefore does not address the limited teaching for which Foley is relied upon. See MPEP 2145.
Upon further consideration of claim 31 and the evidence of record, the rejection of claim 31 over Fram in view of Johnson and further in view of Foley is withdrawn. Claim 31 is indicated as containing allowable subject matter as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 50, 55, and 56 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) Claim 50 recites “the aqueous solution” whereas amened claim 1 recites “the aqueous salt solution”. It is respectfully recommended to amend the limitation to “the aqueous salt solution” for consistency and clarity.
(ii) Claim 56 recites “the aqueous solution” whereas amened claim 1 recites “the aqueous salt solution.” It is respectfully recommended to amend the limitation to “the aqueous salt solution” for consistency and clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regard(s) as the invention.
Claim 55 recites “the chlorine species” is indefinite due to a lack of antecedent basis.
MODIFIED REJECTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 10, 20-22, 25-26, 33, 41, 50, 54-56, 54-56, and 58- 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fram et al., (U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigation Report 2005-5142, hereinafter as “Fram”) in view of Johnson et al. (Chemical Geology, 2014), hereinafter as “Johnson”).
Fram discloses contacting chlorinated aqueous solution comprising free chlorine with basalt comprising mineral phases including olivine wherein iron species reduce free chlorine oxidants (p. 7, Experimental Setup, left column, lines 10-12), corresponding chlorination of aqueous solution.
Fram does not expressly disclose deacidification in an acidic aqueous salt solution with a pH of less than 7.
Johnson discloses that olivine silicate ((Mg, Fe)2SiO4) (p. 102, Fig, 5A, dissolution rate of olivine as a function of pH) minerals consumes H+ during dissolution in acidic aqueous solution resulting to driving pH to increase (p. 93, Reaction equation (2), second column; p. 98, Table 1 showing experimental data for four experiments; data shows where Experiment 1 shows that after 74 hours of contact time, alkalinity (meq) increases and CO2 (M) concentration decreases, would result to pH increase or turn the aqueous solution more basic), corresponding to deacidifying aqueous solution. Johnson discloses olivine experiments conducted in aqueous salt solutions containing 0.5 M NaCl (p. 96, 3. Results, 3.1 Solution data, left column, first paragraph, lines 1-16), thereby teaching the limitation, “aqueous salt solution.” Johnson further teaches acidic reaction conditions below pH 7, including acidic conditions shown in Fig. 5A showing experimental rate data as a function of pH (p.102, left column, second paragraph, lines 13-20), thereby teaching “an acidic aqueous salt solution…with a pH of less than 7). Johnson additionally establishes Fe-containing/ferrous olivine composition of the (Mg,Fe)2SiO4 type (p. 95, 2.3. Mineral and mineral surface analyses, right column, second paragraph, lines 1-6), corresponding to an Fe-containing olivine reductive species and therefore to the recitation that “the deacidifying and dechlorination composition comprises a reductive species.”
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the olivine-containing basalt mineral dechlorination system disclosed by Fram for use under the acidic NaCl-containing aqueous condition taught by Johnson because olivine remains chemically reactive in acidic saline media, that such dissolution consumes H+ and that the mineral composition contains Fe which would predictably provide the chlorine-consumption/dechlorination function when the reactive mineral contacts an acidic, free chlorine, free-chlorine-containing aqueous salt solution (Johnson: p. 93, Reaction equation (2), second column; p. Johnson: p. 94, left column, second paragraph, lines 1-6; p. 95, 2.3.Mineral and mineral surface analyses, right column, second paragraph, lines 1-6).
In regard to claim 2, Johnson discloses Fe2+ within olivine mineral structure (p. 95, 2.3 Mineral and mineral surface analyses section, right column, second paragraph, line 2), corresponding to the recited low valent metal reductive species.
In regard to claim 3, Johnson discloses olivine as a silicate mineral composition (p. 95, 2.3 Mineral and mineral surface analyses section, right column, second paragraph, line 2).
In regard to claim 10, Johnson discloses Fe as a transition metal present in olivine mineral composition (p. 95, 2.3 Mineral and mineral surface analyses section, right column, second paragraph, line 2). Iron (Fe) belonging to Group 8, is a transition metal within the Group 3-12 metal species, corresponding to the claimed limitation.
In regard to claim 20, Johnson discloses Mg present in olivine mineral composition (p. 95, 2.3 Mineral and mineral surface analyses section, right column, second paragraph, line 2). Magnesium is group II metal corresponding to the claimed limitation.
In regard to claim 21, Johnson discloses mafic and ultramafic silicate mineral (p. 94, left column, second paragraph, lines 1-2), corresponding to the claimed limitation.
In regard to claim 22, Johnson discloses preparation of olivine mineral particles for dissolution experiments, producing particular mineral materials having surface area within the 0.38 mm to 0.11 mm scale particle sizes (p. 95, right column, 2.3 Mineral and mineral analyses subsection, second paragraph, lines 9-10), which overlaps the claimed range of 100 nm (0.0001 mm) to 10 m. Because the prior art particle size range overlaps the claimed range, the limitation is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
In regard to claim 25, Johnson discloses olivine silicate composition (p. 95, 2.3 Mineral and mineral surface analyses section, right column, second paragraph, line 2), corresponding to the claimed silicate limitation.
In regard to claim 26, Fram discloses a mineral composition from a basalt (p. 5, right column, Experimental Method, line 4 (i.e., “Fallon basalt”), and Johnson also discloses a mineral composition from an olivine (p. 95, 2.3. Mineral and mineral surface analyses section, right column, second paragraph, line 2), corresponding to the claimed limitation.
In regard to claim 33, Johnson discloses dissolution of olivine in acidic solution (p. 102, Fig. 5A, dissolution rate of olivine samples as a function of pH), where H+ is consumed during reaction of silicate minerals with acidic solution (reaction equation (2), p. 93, right column). The extent depends on mineral loading and extent of reaction (p. 93, Reaction equation (2), second column; Table 1(p. 98) data where Experiment 1 shows that after 74 hours of contact time, alkalinity (meq) increases and CO2 (M) concentration decreases, would result in pH increase or turn the aqueous solution more basic). The claimed deacidification capacity of 1-100 mol H+ per kg, corresponds to the magnitude of acidity neutralization achievable from known proton-consuming silicate dissolution reactions. The claimed range reflects optimization of result-effective variable affecting reaction extent, thereby rendering this claimed limitation obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
In regard to claim 41, Fram discloses measurable reduction of chlorine concentration resulting from interaction between chlorinated water and basalt mineral (p. 11, Experimental Results, Fig. 5, column 3 and 4, all rows, where Final Cl (mg/L) and Initial Cl (mg/L) shows reduced chlorine concentration after contact with basalt mineral: water ratio in column 2) but does not quantify uptake capacity per unit mass. Chlorine removal depends on mineral composition, reactive Fe2+ content, and surface area of particles affecting reaction extent (Fram, p. 15, left column, lines 5-13). Selecting a desired uptake capacity represents optimization of a result-effective variable affecting reaction extent. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
In regard to claim 50, Fram dissolution experiments employs rock: water ratio, typically within 0.1-0.90 g/ml (p. 13, Experimental Results, Table 7, column 2, rock: water mass ratio), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.0001-10 g/ml. Because the prior art ratio overlaps the claimed range, the limitation is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
In regard to claim 54, Fram discloses chlorine removal using mineral media rather than activated carbon (p. 13, Experimental Results, Table 7 illustrates the final from initial chlorine (mg/L) removal indicate use of basalt mineral and not by activated carbon).
In regard to claim 55, Fram discloses aqueous chlorine species HOCl and OCl- present in chlorinated water systems (p. 15, left column, lines 10-11).
In regard to claim 56, Johnson discloses dissolution reactions conducted under acidic conditions approximately 3-6 (p. 102, Fig. 5A, dissolution rate of mineral olivine as a function of pH) overlapping the claimed pH <5 limitation.
In regard to claim 58, as set forth above, in light of the teachings of Fram in view of Johnson, it would be expected that the basalt mineral containing olivine phases would deacidify acidic aqueous solution as taught by Johnson, would predictably produce a dechlorinated aqueous solution having increased pH toward neutral-to-alkaline conditions corresponding to claimed invention, thereby render this claim obvious.
In regard to claim 59, Fram disclosed measured aqueous pH values greater than 4 following mineral-water interactions (p. 13, Experimental Methods, Table 7, column 6), overlapping the claimed pH limitation of greater than 4. Because the prior art overlaps the claimed pH range the limitation is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
In regard to claim 61, Fram disclosed reduction of free chlorine concentration following contact between chlorinated water and basalt mineral (p. 13, Experimental Methods, Table 7, column 3 and 4, showing free chlorine reduction from initial to final concentration of Cl (mg/L)). Chlorinated aqueous system operates within ppm concentrations ranges below 100 ppm. Because Fram discloses reduction of chlorine concentration within the ppm levels below the claimed threshold, this limitation is met.
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fram in view of Johnson, and further in view of Foley et. al., (Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology (2011) 162:1-20), hereinafter as “Foley”).
In regard to claim 11, Fram and Johnson fail to disclose Mn or Ni species recited in the claim limitation.
Foley teaches trace elements composition of olivine rock samples (Abstract, p. 1)
Foley discloses composition of Mn and Ni of olivine mineral (p. 6, Table 2, column 1 showing trace elements composition of olivine rock samples).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Mn-and Ni-substituted olivine of Foley into the olivine mineral composition of Johnson used in the aqueous dechlorination treatment environment using basalt mineral of Fram, to introduce additional redox-active transition metal species within the silicate olivine structure. The presence of additional transition metal species other than Fe (iron) would have been expected to increase electron transfer pathways for reducing free chlorine species, thereby improving the dechlorination function of the reductive mineral composition recited in claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, such as incorporating dependent claim 31 into an independent claim 1 as exemplified below.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: A thorough search for pertinent art did not locate any prior art that discloses or suggests the invention recited in claim 31. The concept of a method of deacidifying and dechlorinating an acidic aqueous salt solution comprising a free-chlorine species and with a pH of less than 7, wherein the method comprises contacting the an acidic aqueous salt solution with a deacidifying and dechlorinating composition, wherein the deacidifying and dechlorinating composition comprises a reductive species, wherein the deacidifying and dechlorinating composition comprises a reductive species, wherein the deacidifying and dechlorinating composition has an elemental composition of the formula: (MgaFebMncAldTieCafCrgNihCoi)2SiO4;wherein;a is from about 0.4 to about 0.5;b is from about 0.01 to about 0.1;c is from about 0.0001 to about 0.001;d is from about 0.001 to about 0.01;e is from about 0.0001 to about 0.001;f is from about 0.001 to about 0.01;g is from about 0.001 to about 0.01;h is from about 0.001 to about 0.01; andi is from about 0.00001 to about 0.001 (claim 1), is considered novel.
The closest prior art of record includes Fram et al., (U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigation Report 2005-5142, hereinafter as “Fram”) in view of Johnson et al. (Chemical Geology, 2014), hereinafter as “Johnson”) and Foley et. al., (Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology (2011) 162:1-20), hereinafter as “Foley”).
Fram teaches chlorine consumption upon contact of chlorinated aqueous water with basaltic mineral material but does not disclose the coordinated multi-element composition.
Johnson teaches Fe-containing olivine, acidic NaCl-containing aqueous conditions, and proton consuming olivine dissolution but does not disclose the complete recited Mg/Fe/Mn/Al/Ti/Ca/Cr/Ni/Co composition wherein each coefficient simultaneously falls within the claimed range.
Foley teaches quantitative trace-element constituents in olivine. However, the evidence of record does not establish a single olivine composition in which each of Mg, Fe, Mn, Al, Ti, Ca, Cr, Ni, and Co simultaneously satisfies its respective coefficients range cited in claim 31m nor does the evidence provide a sufficient reason to select and coordinate all such concentrations in the claimed composition for use in the deacidification/dichlorination method of claim 1.
The combination of Fram, Johnson and Foley does not provide guidance to use a deacidifying and dechlorinating composition comprises a reductive species, wherein the deacidifying and dechlorinating composition has an elemental composition of the formula: MgaFebMncAldTieCafCrgNihCoi)2SiO4; wherein; a is from about 0.4 to about 0.5; b is from about 0.01 to about 0.1; c is from about 0.0001 to about 0.001; d is from about 0.001 to about 0.01; e is from about 0.0001 to about 0.001; f is from about 0.001 to about 0.01; g is from about 0.001 to about 0.01; h is from about 0.001 to about 0.01; and i is from about 0.00001 to about 0.001, as recited in claimed invention.
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 communication from the examiner should be directed to Wilson Mendoza whose telephone number is (571) 272-8443. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9:00 AM until 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview request at http://www.uspto.gov.intwerviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Serv ice Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILSON GALLARDO MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights