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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 11-13, 20, 21 and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by USPUB 2012/0077397 A1 issued to Porter et al.
Regarding Claim 1, where Applicant seeks a reinforced fabric comprising: a fiber composite having a reinforcement fiber and a low melt fiber wherein the low melt fiber is heated to above a low melt melting point forming a fiber composite wherein a reinforcement fiber melting point is higher than the low melt melting point; and, a coating on a coated area of the reinforcement fiber wherein the coated area includes a lower melt temperature than a core of the reinforcement fiber; Applicant is directed to Porter who teaches a reinforced fabric [¶ 0012 and Figure 4], comprising: a fiber composite [Figure1 -discloses a composite fiber] having a reinforcement fiber [¶ 0005] which is a plurality of carbon strands and a low melt fiber [¶ 0005] of a polyolefin fiber which are in the formed into woven, nonwoven or knits. At ¶ 0033, the instant reference teaches that at the spinning stage the carbon fiber is passed through heat to melt the polypropylene fibers, and are heated to a temperature of 250-350 degrees F [¶ 0033]. As such, the low melt fibers with a melting point below 140 degrees C wherein the low melt fiber is heated to above a low melt melting point forming a fiber composite, passed through heat to melt the polypropylene fibers, wherein a reinforcement fiber melting point is higher than the low melt melting point ( [¶ 0005], carbon fibers, core sheath spinning of polyolefin fibers, [¶ 0037], heated to a temperature of 250-350 degrees F (implying the carbon fibers do not melt at this temperature).
At ¶ 0004, Porter teaches that an outer coating of a second polyolefin material via extrusion.
Regarding Claim 2, where Applicant seeks that the reinforced fabric of claim 1 wherein the reinforced fiber is a multifilament yarn having a polyolefin filament; Applicant is directed to ¶¶ 0005 and 0019, where the instant reference teaches that the reinforced fiber can be a strand or yarn [¶ 0019] having a polyolefin filament [¶0005].
Regarding Claim 3, where Applicant seeks that the reinforced fabric of claim 2 wherein the polyolefin filament is a polypropylene filament; Applicant is directed to ¶¶ 0017 and 0033, where the instant reference teaches that the polyolefin filament is a polypropylene filament which may be spun to form the sheathing over the core carbon.
Regarding Claim 5, where Applicant seeks that the reinforced fabric of claim 1 wherein the fiber composite is hydrophobic; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0021 of the instant reference where Porter teaches that the composite fiber is hydrophobic as it reduces moisture wicking in a wet environment.
Regarding Claim 6, where Applicant seeks that the reinforced fabric of claim 1 wherein the fiber composite includes micro voids; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0021 of the instant reference where Porter teaches that the composite fiber is hydrophobic as it reduces moisture wicking in a wet environment. The fiber has to have voids in order to assist in wicking.
Regarding Claim 7, where Applicant seeks that the reinforced fabric of claim 1 wherein the fiber composite can include material taken from the group consisting of carbon, glass, aramids, basalt, and any combination; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0005 where the instant reference teaches that carbon may be a choice.
Regarding Claim 11, where Applicant seeks that the reinforced fabric of claim 1 wherein the low melt fiber is a thermoplastic fiber; Applicant is directed to ¶¶ 0005 and 0012, where the instant reference teaches that the carbon fiber is coated with a thermoplastic polyolefin fiber [¶ 0005] and thermoplastic resin [¶ 0012].
Regarding Claim 12, where Applicant seeks that the reinforced fabric of claim 1 wherein the fiber composite is a combination of the reinforcement fiber woven with the low melt fiber prior to an application of heat to melt the low melt fiber; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0033, where the instant reference teaches where the core fiber or strand is provided and another fiber is spun around it prior to an application of heat to melt the low melt fiber.
Regarding Claim 13, where Applicant seeks that the reinforced fabric of claim 1 wherein the fiber composite is adapted to be included in a lay-up process for manufacturing an article wherein one of a layer is the fiber composite; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0020, where the instant reference teaches a lay-up process for manufacturing an article wherein one of a layer is the fiber composite.
Regarding Claim 20, where Applicant seeks a reinforced thermoset fabric comprising: a reinforcement fiber; a low melt fiber integrated with the reinforcement fiber using a method of plying, twisting, air texturing, air entanglement, co-weaving, co-mingling, and any combination thereof; wherein the reinforcement fiber includes a coating applied to a coated area of the reinforcement fiber during an extrusion process; whereas the coating has a lower melt temperature than the reinforcement fiber; and, whereas the low melt fiber is adapted to melt upon an application of a heat to form a fiber composite wherein a melting point of the reinforcement fiber is higher than an operational temperature resulting from the application of the heat; Applicant is directed to the teachings of Porter and the rationale set forth for claim 1, who discloses a creating a reinforced fabric [¶ 0012]. The instant reference teaches that the strand may be heated to bond the outer polyolefin layers to form a sheath (making it thermoset). The reinforcement fiber [¶ 0005] is a plurality of carbon fibers and a low melt fiber [¶ 0005] polyolefin fibers which are then passed through heat to melt the polypropylene fibers [¶ 0033], then heated to a temperature of 250-350 degrees F [¶0037]. The low melt fibers with a melting point below 140 degrees C are integrated with the reinforcement fiber, the core fiber or strand and then another fiber is spun around it using a method of plying, twisting, air texturing, air entanglement, co-weaving, co-mingling, and any combination thereof, they use core sheath spinning.
Regarding Claim 21, where Applicant seeks that the reinforced thermoset fabric of claim 20 wherein the low melt fiber has a melting point of less than 140 º C and the reinforcement fiber has a melting point of more than 140 º C; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0037, where the instant reference Porter further discloses wherein the low melt fiber has a melting point of less than 140 degrees C, heated to a temperature of 250-350 degrees F) and the reinforcement fiber has a melting point of more than 140 degrees C [0037], heated to a temperature of 250-350 degrees F (implying the carbon fibers do not melt at this temperature)).
Regarding Claim 25, where Applicant seeks a fabric material comprising: a reinforcement fiber; a low melt fiber combined with the reinforcement fiber using a method of plying, twisting, air texturing, air entanglement, co-weaving, co-mingling, and any combination thereof; whereas a coated area has a lower melting point than a core of the reinforcement fiber and, where the combination of the reinforcement fiber and the low melt fiber is heated to melt the low melt fiber to form a fiber composite wherein a melting point of the reinforcement fiber is higher than an operational temperature resulting from an application of a heat; Applicant is directed to the teachings of Porter and the rationale set forth for Claim 1, who discloses fabric material (Fig 4 disclosing a fabric material) comprising: a reinforcement carbon fiber and a low melt polyolefin fiber [¶ 0005], which are passed through heat to melt the polypropylene fibers [¶ 0033], and heated to a temperature of 250-350 degrees F [¶ 0037], combined with the reinforcement fiber [¶ 0033], core fiber or strand and then another fiber is spun (core sheath spinning) around it using a method of plying, twisting, air texturing, air entanglement, co-weaving, co-mingling, and any combination thereof [¶ 0033].
Regarding Claim 26, where Applicant seeks that the fabric material of claim 25 wherein the low melt fiber is combined with the reinforcement fiber using a method of a coating process; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0029, where the instant reference teaches that the method of coating used is extrusion.
Regarding Claim 27, where Applicant seeks that the fabric material of claim 26 wherein the method is a coating extrusion process; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0029, where the instant reference teaches that the method of coating used is extrusion.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 8-10, 14-19 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPUB 2012/0077397 A1 issued to Porter et al.
Regarding claim 4, where Applicant seeks that the reinforced fabric of claim 3 wherein the polypropylene filament has a crystallinity greater than 50% when measured using wide-angle x-ray scattering; Porter teaches using polypropylene but does not disclose wherein the polypropylene filament has a crystallinity greater than 50 percent when measured using wide-angle x-ray scattering. Porter does teach the use of polypropylene to provide for stiffness [¶ 0015]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to infer that such a polypropylene would have a crystallinity greater than 50 percent when measured using wide-angle x-ray scattering through routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 8, where Applicant seeks that the reinforced fabric of claim 1 wherein the reinforcement fiber can have a physical property taken from the group consisting of a denier of less than about 1 grams/30 meters, a filament drawn at a draw ratio of greater than about 6, a modulus greater than about 40 grams/denier, and any combination thereof; Porter discloses the use of fibers for making the composite [¶ 0005] to make a fabric (Fig 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to infer that such a fabric can be woven wherein the reinforcement fiber can have a physical property taken from the group consisting of a denier of less than about 1 grams/30 meters, a filament drawn at a draw ratio of greater than about 6, a modulus greater than about 40 grams/denier, and any combination thereof; through routine experimentation.
Additionally, it is the position of the Office that the claimed resultant properties as desired in the aforesaid claim, would be inherent if not obvious to the reinforced fabric of Porter. It is reasonable to presume so, as support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. same combination for the composite fiber). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties as set forth above, it would obviously have been present once the Porter product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding Claim 9, where Applicant seeks that the reinforced fabric of claim 1 wherein a reinforcement fiber amount compared is in a range of 10% to 90% of a composition by volume; Porter discloses the formation of a reinforcement fiber (Fig 1 and 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have constructed a reinforced fabric wherein a reinforcement fiber amount compared is in a range of 10% to 90% of a composition by volume, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges that would be discovered through routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See also KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding Claim 10, where Applicant seeks that the reinforced fabric of claim 1 wherein a reinforcement fiber amount compared is in a range of 10% to 90% of a composition by weight; Porter discloses the formation of a reinforcement fiber (Fig 1 and 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have constructed a reinforced fabric wherein a reinforcement fiber amount compared is in a range of 10% to 90% of a composition by weight, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges that would be discovered through routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See also KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding Claim 14, where Applicant seeks that the reinforced fabric of claim 13 wherein the lay-up process includes a ramp up rate of 10 degrees per minute or less to 140°C; This claim is considered a product by process claim. The lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. The Office is therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriads of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531,535,173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. " In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding Claim 15, where Applicant seeks that the reinforced fabric of claim 13 wherein the lay-up process includes a dwell time of 10 minutes or more at 150°C; This claim is considered a product by process claim. The lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. The Office is therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriads of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531,535,173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. " In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding Claim 16, where Applicant seeks that the reinforced fabric of claim 13 wherein the lay-up process includes a cooling cycle at or below 500 C; This claim is considered a product by process claim. The lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. The Office is therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriads of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531,535,173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. " In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding Claim 17, where Applicant seeks that the reinforced fabric of claim 1 wherein the fiber composite has a denier in a range of 300 to 3250; Applicant is directed ¶ 0025 of the instant reference where they teach that the linear density of the base strand may be between 66 tex and 5000 tex. For concrete reinforcement, 600-1400 tex may provide a preferred material. When converted, 300 denier equals 33.33 tex-3250 denier equals 361.11 tex. Since the base fiber falls within the range, the base fiber plus the coating would also fall within Applicant’s claimed range.
Additionally, it is well within the purview of a skilled artisan to adjust the denier within a fabric, as the significance of denier in a reinforced fabric lies in its ability to influence the durability, weight, and texture of the material. A higher denier count typically indicates a more robust, thicker fabric, which is essential for products that need to withstand stress, such as backpacks, luggage, and tents. Conversely, lower denier fabrics are finer and lighter but not as durable. Understanding denier helps in distinguishing between the different qualities of textiles and making informed decisions when selecting materials for specific purposes.
Regarding Claim 18, where Applicant seeks that the reinforced fabric of claim 1 wherein the fiber composite has a tensile strength in a range of 30 to 40 lbs.; Porter does not further disclose wherein the fiber composite has a tensile strength in a range of 30 to 40 lbs. However, Porter discloses a fabric formed to be used in high-strength applications [¶ 0012], as such a skilled artisan would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to infer that this can be such that the fiber composite has a tensile strength in a range of 30 to 40 lbs.; through routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 19, where Applicant seeks that the fiber composite of claim 1 wherein the fiber composite has a tenacity in a range of 4.50 to 6.50 grams per denier: Porter does not further disclose wherein the fiber composite has a tenacity in a range of 4.50 to 6.50 grams per denier. However, Porter discloses a fabric formed is used in high-strength applications at [¶0012], as such it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to infer that this can be wherein the fiber composite has a tenacity in a range of 4.50 to 6.50 grams per denier; through routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 22, where Applicant seeks that the reinforced thermoset fabric of claim 20 wherein a reinforcement fiber amount is more than twenty percent of a composition by volume; Porter discloses the formation of a reinforcement fiber (Fig 1 and 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have constructed a reinforced fabric wherein a reinforcement fiber amount compared is in a range of 10% to 90% of a composition by volume, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges that would be discovered through routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See also KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding Claim 23, where Applicant seeks that the reinforced thermoset fabric of claim 20 wherein a reinforcement fiber amount is more than twenty percent of a composition by weight; Porter discloses the formation of a reinforcement fiber (Fig 1 and 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have constructed a reinforced fabric wherein a reinforcement fiber amount compared is in a range of 10% to 90% of a composition by weight, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges that would be discovered through routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See also KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding Claim 24, where Applicant seeks that the reinforced thermoset fabric of claim 20 wherein the reinforcement fiber can include a physical property taken from the group consisting of a denier of less than about 300 grams/9000 meters, a filaments drawn at a draw ratio of greater than about 6, a modulus greater than about 40 grams/denier, a ratio of equatorial intensity to meridional intensity greater than about 1.0 according to SAXS measuring techniques, a crystallinity greater than 50% when measured using wide-angle x-ray scattering and any combination thereof; Porter discloses the use of fibers for making the composite [¶ 0005] to make a fabric (Fig 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to infer that such a fabric can be woven wherein the reinforcement fiber can have a physical property taken from the group consisting of a denier of less than about 1 grams/30 meters, a filament drawn at a draw ratio of greater than about 6, a modulus greater than about 40 grams/denier, and any combination thereof; through routine experimentation.
Additionally, it is the position of the Office that any of the claimed resultant properties as desired in the aforesaid claim, would be inherent if not obvious to the reinforced fabric of Porter. It is reasonable to presume so, as support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. same combination for the composite fiber). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties as set forth above, it would obviously have been present once the Porter product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20160264453 A1 teaches fiber glass strands, yarns, fabrics, composites, prepregs, laminates, fiber-metal laminates, and other products incorporating glass fibers formed from glass compositions. The glass fibers, in some embodiments, are incorporated into composites that can be used in reinforcement applications
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arti Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 and 8:00-10:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
asp