DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed April 13th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 29, and 32 have been amended.
The Section 102/103 rejections over Rahamat (as the primary reference) set forth in the Office action mailed January 13th, 2026 have been maintained due to Applicant’s arguments being unpersuasive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 13th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the embodiment of Rahamat where the perforated foil is embedded in the surfacing film is not a “conformal coating” as claimed due to the film not being discontinuous in the apertures. The Examiner disagrees with Applicant on their definition.
Perhaps the Examiner should have made a claim interpretation section for the term “conformal” as it applies to the coating, but in the specification “As used herein the term ‘conformal’ with respect to an organic coating refers to an organic coating present as a continuous or discontinuous film over the surface of the underlying metal substrate that maintains the underlying shape of the metal substrate, including, for a porous metal substrate a film that maintain the apertures of the porous metal substrate in which angles, scale, or other geometric properties of the apertures are preserved.” The bold definition is considered the base definition of the conformal coating, which the surfacing film meets because it is flat like the metal foil, and furthermore extends into the apertures preserving their shape. The further sentences were seen as further narrowing, which is confirmed by the claim set, wherein each claim is further narrowing the independent claim. If the definitions are inherent to the claim as argued by Applicant then claims 3 and 6-7 would not be further narrowing and would be in violation of Section 112, 4th paragraph. Alternatively, the structural elements argued by Applicant (i.e., discontinuous film in the apertures) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
It is noted that claim 7 was not rejected under Section 102 or 103 and if the subject matter of claim 7 were incorporated into claim 1, then it would overcome the rejections as set forth and as argued by Applicant.
Applicant argues the conformal coating of Sulzbach is inorganic is silent to corrosion resistance and does not comprise a teaching that the metal screen might replace the one in Prandy and that using it would somehow fundamentally change the nature of Prandy. Furthermore, even if one were to modify Prandy without the use of an isolation layer, there is no basis to predict that it might result in a composite with sufficient corrosion resistance and lightning strike protection. The Examiner is entirely confused by these arguments and also strongly disagrees.
Sulzbach teaches an annealed aluminum or copper mesh specifically for use in a lightning strike composite system [0003-0004] comprising conformal coating thereon that does not fill the apertures comprising curable butyl benzotriazole sodium salt (film-forming organic) [0022], curable Alodine (film-forming inorganic) [0026], or both (film-forming hybrid organic-inorganic) [claims 5 & 14] as set forth in 15/807,109 incorporated by reference [0022, 0026], wherein ‘109 teaches the coating system is a chromate-replacement corrosion-inhibiting coating [‘109; 0004-0005].
Therefore, the screen of Sulzbach does not need to physically replace that of Prandy because it is merely replacing the chromate conversion coating used in Prandy, which already does not have an isolation/intervening layer. In response to Applicant's argument that Sulzbach would not replace the mesh of Prandy, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Sulzbach teaches its general use with composites and does not teach that it requires an isolation/intervening layer. Perhaps Applicant sees this absence as evidence that it would require one. The Examiner disagrees and sees it as evidence that it may be incorporated into any aircraft composite material lightning strike system.
Furthermore, while Sulzbach does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Sulzbach is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely, providing an organic corrosion inhibiting conformal coating that maintains aperture openings that would have replaced chromate passivation in order to provide a coating that maintains conductivity of a lightning strike mesh without use of a restricted, carcinogenic, and non-environmental chromate-based chemical and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention. The chromate-replacement coating of Sulzbach is seen as being able to provide sufficient corrosion resistance on-par with that of a chromate-based coating and thus would have been obvious to replace Prandy’s corrosion inhibiting chromate-based coating with that of Sulzbach such that the openings remain open to bond the metal mesh/screen directly to the carbon fiber reinforced composite.
Lastly, even if it were relevant to Applicant’s arguments, which the Examiner does not think it is, but not including an isolation layer (or any intervening layer) as argued by Applicant is not set forth in the independent claim.
Regarding Yue, Applicant’s arguments against Sulzbach are largely mirrored and thus the Examiner disagrees for the same reasons as recited above.
Furthermore, although there is no explicit description of the coatings of Yue being usable with lightning strike meshes, Yue is seen as relevant to the teachings of corrosion resistant coatings in aerospace water/salt water environments, which would have modified the already available chromate-based or other corrosion resistant coating(s)/primer(s) set forth in Pandy and would have been optimized therefore such that the required corrosion resistance is met and such that the adhesive can extend through the openings thereof to bond the metal mesh/screen directly to the carbon fiber reinforced composite.
Regarding Justus (and optionally further in view of Metroke or Rossi teaching specific electrodeposited organic anticorrosion coatings), Applicant’s arguments against Sulzbach are largely mirrored and thus the Examiner disagrees for the same reasons as recited above. Justus teaches an organic anticorrosion coating for lightning strike metal meshes/screens and an improved process of making thereof able to be easily incorporated into automated composite lay-up operations (with no intervening/isolation layers taught) over prior art coatings used for both anticorrosion and improvement of adhesion (i.e. anticorrosion coating and/or primer set forth in Prandy) and would have been optimized therefore such that the required corrosion resistance is met and such that the adhesive can extend through the openings thereof to bond the metal mesh/screen directly to the carbon fiber reinforced composite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 1-3, 6, 19, 21, 23, 28, 32-35, 44, & 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Rahamat et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0257790 A1) (hereinafter “Rahamat”), OR, in the alternative, claims 1-3, 6, 16, 19, 21, 23, 28-29, 32-35, 44, & 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rahamat in view of van Ooji (Corrosion Protection Properties of Organofunctional Silanes…) (hereinafter “van Ooji”) AND/OR Metroke et al. (Corrosion resistance properties of Ormosil coatings on 2024-73 aluminum alloy) (hereinafter “Metroke”).
Regarding claims 1-3, 6, 19, 29, 32-33, 35, 44, and 47, Rahamat teaches a composite aerospace structure, such as an aircraft (vehicle) fuselage [0002, 0028, 0032], comprising a composite panel comprising a carbon (more noble) fiber ply reinforced composite (All Figs. [16]) [0032] having disposed directly thereon or via an optional isolation layer (All Figs. [17]) [0032] a metallic foil having a plurality of perforated holes of any shape but a surface area of about 0.5x10-3 to 5.0x10-3 square inches and an open area optimized relative to the total foil area [0012, 0034-0035, 0040-0044], the metallic foil being typically aluminum or copper and alloys thereof [0028], wherein the metal foil top and bottom surfaces may be passivated to create an inert surface resistant to tarnishing and oxidation and may be coated with silane (conformal organic coating), which helps to provide the material with improved adhesion characteristics [0008, 0010, 0039].
Regarding claims 21 and 34, although the prior art does not disclose a pore resistance or galvanic corrosion weight loss as measured, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Rahamat (or Rahamat in view of Ooji and/or Metroke) teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claims 23 and 28, a particular application method of the silane coating is not taught. Although 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, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In the event that the conformal organic coating is not taught as recited above and (further) regarding claims 16, 21, 23, and 28, and 34:
Ooji teaches an electrodeposited silane coating to passivate metal surfaces, specifically aluminum surfaces, in the aerospace industry improved over on a per weight basis and being equivalent in performance to typical chromate passivation treatment used for corrosion protection due to environmental concerns (pgs. 641-643), and while a film thickness of 200-300 nm are considered thin, methods of forming thicker coatings are desired and sought after [pgs. 652-653], wherein Metroke teaches thicker silane coatings to replace chromate coatings (pg. 231), wherein aluminum surfaces are sprayed with the silane coatings to thicknesses of 6 to 16 µm (pg. 233) providing pore resistances of at least 0.01 MΩcm2 (104 Ωcm2) with preferred embodiments exhibiting pore resistances of above 10 MΩcm2 (107 Ωcm2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the silane coating as a passivation coating (that also enhances adhesion) within or near the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace prior art passivation techniques based on environmentally concerning substances (chromates) while still providing the desired corrosion protection [Ooji and/or Metroke].
Regarding claims 29 and 35, the metallic foil may be disposed under or embedded within a surfacing film (All Figs. [19]), such as an epoxy-based resin (polymer matrix) [0032].
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 19, 21, 23, 28-29, 32-35, 44, & 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Prandy et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,225,265) (hereinafter “Prandy”) in view of Sulzbach (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0037675 A1) (hereinafter “Sulzbach”).
Regarding claims 1-3, 6-8, 19, 21, 23, 28-29, 32-35, 44, and 47, Prandy teaches a composite structure having lightning strike protection and having corrosion resistance against salty air (col. 1, lines 50-57), comprising a plurality of fiber reinforced resin layers (All Figs. [5/6]) having carbon/graphite (more noble) fibers therein (col. 2, line 65 – col. 3, line 6; col. 4, lines 23-38) having disposed directly thereon (with no intervening/isolating layer) a metal screen (All Figs. [2]), such as woven gauze metal, expanded metal, or perforated metal, the metal preferably being aluminum or copper, wherein the metal screen may be anodized to increase corrosion resistance and also coated with a chromate-based or other corrosion resistant coating or primer (col. 4, lines 39-57), wherein the metal screen is embedded in an adhesive matrix resin (All Figs. [3]), which extends through the coated/primed mesh openings to bond it to the composite and optionally covered with a protective surface layer/film (All Figs. [8]) (col. 4, lines 58-61).
However, neither the chromate-based layer or the primer is taught to be an organic layer and in the event that the coating/film is not taught to only reduce the surface area of the aperture by less than 50%:
Sulzbach teaches a conductive metal screen for lightning strike protection, which incorporates the disclosure of 15/807,109 by reference [0022, 0026], wherein ‘109 teaches a non-chromate based solution forming a cured coating/film on an expanded foil mesh to inhibit corrosion and enhance adhesion of materials thereto [‘109; 0005, 0008], the non-chromate based solution being a cured layer butyl benzotriazole sodium salt (organic coating/film) [0022, 0026], the expanded foil mesh retaining its open structure following the application of the curable corrosion resistant coating solution, specifically one having opening lengths and widths that do not substantially change in dimension (reduced by about ~0%), exemplarily being about 0.075±0.006 inches to allow it to be tailored to the topography of the surface structure [0024, 0027].
It would have been obvious to and motivated one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art to provide specific corrosion resistant coatings/primers and improvements thereon, while still allowing adhesive bonding/embedding through the openings of the metal mesh.
Further regarding claims 21 and 34, although the prior art does not disclose a specific pore resistance or galvanic corrosion weight loss as measured, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Prandy in view of Sulzbach teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 16, 19, 21, 23, 28-29, 32-35, 44, & 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Prandy et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,225,265) (hereinafter “Prandy”) in view of Yue et al. (Corrosion Prevention by Applied Coatings on Aluminum Alloys in Corrosive Environments) (hereinafter “Yue”), optionally further in view of Sulzbach (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0037675 A1) (hereinafter “Sulzbach”) as applied to claim 8.
Regarding claims 1-3, 6-8, 16, 19, 21, 23, 28-29, 32-35, 44, and 47, Prandy teaches a composite structure having lightning strike protection and having corrosion resistance against salty air (col. 1, lines 50-57), comprising a plurality of fiber reinforced resin layers (All Figs. [5/6]) having carbon/graphite (more noble) fibers therein (col. 2, line 65 – col. 3, line 6; col. 4, lines 23-38) having disposed directly thereon (with no intervening/isolating layer) a metal screen (All Figs. [2]), such as woven gauze metal, expanded metal, or perforated metal having a thickness of 1 to 10 mil (0.025 to 0.25 mm/25 to 250 µm), the metal preferably being aluminum or copper, wherein the metal screen may be anodized to increase corrosion resistance and also coated with a chromate-based or other corrosion resistant coating or primer (col. 4, lines 39-57), wherein the metal screen is embedded in an adhesive matrix resin (All Figs. [3]), which extends through the coated/primed mesh openings to bond it to the composite and optionally covered with a protective surface layer/film (All Figs. [8]) (col. 4, lines 58-61),
However, neither the corrosion resistant chromate-based layer or primer is taught to be an organic layer, the thickness of the organic coating/film is not taught, and in the event that the coating/film is not taught to only reduce the surface area of the aperture by less than 50%:
Yue teaches both prior art and inventive corrosion preventive coatings for aluminum in salty water or watery environments, wherein both chromate coatings and improved alodine/ceramic coatings are better sealed and protected in both salty water and watery environments by the addition of an electrodeposited e-coating of cationic epoxy having a thickness range of about 0.0005 to 0.0009 inch (12.7 to 22.86 µm), and/or a sprayed epoxy-based primer having a thickness range of about 0.0015 to 0.003 inch (38.1 to 76.2 µm), and/or a sprayed acrylic-based polyurethane topcoat having a thickness range of about 0.0012 to 0.0014 inch (30.5 to 35.56 µm) a total possible calculated organic coating/film thickness being 12.7 to 134.6 µm, wherein although all exhibit excellent improvements in salt water conditions, the best pore resistance and reduced corrosion rates in both environments was exhibited by the alodine-based coating having the primer and topcoat thereon (pg. 5236) giving a preferred total organic coating/film thickness of about 68.6 to 111.8 µm.
It would have been obvious to and motivated one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art to provide specific corrosion resistant coatings/primers for salty water (and optionally just water) and improvements thereon, while still allowing adhesive bonding/embedding through the openings of the metal mesh.
Further regarding claims 21 and 34, although the prior art does not disclose a specific pore resistance or galvanic corrosion weight loss as measured, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Prandy in view of Yue teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Further regarding claim 8, Sulzbach teaches a conductive metal screen for lightning strike protection, which incorporates the disclosure of 15/807,109 by reference [0022, 0026], wherein ‘109 teaches a non-chromate based solution forming a cured coating/film on an expanded foil mesh to inhibit corrosion and enhance adhesion of materials thereto [‘109; 0005, 0008], the non-chromate based solution being a cured layer butyl benzotriazole sodium salt (organic coating/film) [0022, 0026], the expanded foil mesh retaining its open structure following the application of the curable corrosion resistant coating solution, specifically one having opening lengths and widths that do not substantially change in dimension (reduced by about ~0%), exemplarily being about 0.075±0.006 inches to allow it to be tailored to the topography of the surface structure [0024, 0027], wherein a having each opening size reduced by the total possible organic coating thickness of Yue would provide an approximate reduction in opening surface area of 3% to 26% and a preferred organic coating thickness of Yue would provide an approximate reduction in opening surface area of about 14% to 22%.
It would have been obvious to and motivated one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art to provide specific conductive metal screens used for the same purpose and accounting for any coatings provided thereon such that it functions the same.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 16, 19, 21, 23, 28-29, 32-35, 44, & 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Prandy et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,225,265) (hereinafter “Prandy”) in view of Justus (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0032756 A1) (hereinafter “Justus”), optionally also in view of Metroke et al. (Corrosion resistance properties of Ormosil coatings on 2024-73 aluminum alloy) (hereinafter “Metroke”) OR Rossi et al. (Corrosion Protection of aluminum foams by cataphoretic deposition of organic coatings) (hereinafter “Rossi”) as applied to claims 8, 16, 21, and 34, and optionally further in view of Sulzbach (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0037675 A1) (hereinafter “Sulzbach”) as applied to claim 8.
Regarding claims 1-3, 6-8, 16, 19, 21, 23, 28-29, 32-35, 44, and 47, Prandy teaches a composite structure having lightning strike protection and having corrosion resistance against salty air (col. 1, lines 50-57), comprising a plurality of fiber reinforced resin layers (All Figs. [5/6]) having carbon/graphite (more noble) fibers therein (col. 2, line 65 – col. 3, line 6; col. 4, lines 23-38) having disposed directly thereon (with no intervening/isolating layer) a metal screen (All Figs. [2]), such as woven gauze metal, expanded metal, or perforated metal having a thickness of 1 to 10 mil (0.025 to 0.25 mm/25 to 250 µm), the metal preferably being aluminum or copper, wherein the metal screen may be anodized to increase corrosion resistance and also coated with a chromate-based or other corrosion resistant coating or primer (col. 4, lines 39-57), wherein the metal screen is embedded in an adhesive matrix resin (All Figs. [3]), which extends through the coated/primed mesh openings to bond it to the composite and optionally covered with a protective surface layer/film (All Figs. [8]) (col. 4, lines 58-61),
However, neither the corrosion resistant chromate-based layer or primer is taught to be an organic layer, the thickness of the organic coating/film is not taught, and in the event that the coating/film is not taught to only reduce the surface area of the aperture by less than 50%:
Justus teaches an expanded metal foil, such as expanded aluminum foil, that assists in dissipating lightning strikes from aircraft/vehicle composite structures, wherein the expanded aluminum foil is typically coated with anticorrosion agents, treatments, coatings that also improve bonding adhesion to prevent microcracking [0002-0003], coating in the process of Justus being an organic material coating [abstract, claims, 0014, 0016] applied via immersion, roll-coating, electro-deposition, spraying [0028] and cured on the expanded aluminum foil [0029]
It would have been obvious to and motivated one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art to provide specific corrosion resistant coatings/primers and improvements thereon, while still allowing adhesive bonding/embedding through the openings of the metal mesh.
Metroke teaches silane (organic) coatings for aluminum surfaces in salt spray conditions to replace chromate coatings and sol-gel anti-corrosion coatings due to the environmental concerns of the former and have increased flexibility and thickness over the latter (pg. 231), wherein aluminum surfaces are sprayed with the silane coatings to thicknesses of 6 to 16 µm (pg. 233) providing pore resistances of at least 0.01 MΩcm2 (104 Ωcm2) with preferred embodiments exhibiting pore resistances of above 10 MΩcm2 (107 Ωcm2).
OR
Rossi teaches corrosion protection of structured/porous aluminum surfaces, wherein electrodeposition of organic coatings allows for a protective and homogeneous coating over complex geometry, wherein increased voltage during deposition leads to increased coating thickness, wherein average coating thicknesses ranged from about 18.6 µm to about 56.5 µm [Table 1, pg. 147], which achieved pore resistance values within the range of near or above 105 Ωcm2, with the thickest coating achieving a pore resistance in the range of near or above 106 Ωcm2 [Fig. 11, pg. 150].
Further regarding claim 8, Sulzbach teaches a conductive metal screen for lightning strike protection, which incorporates the disclosure of 15/807,109 by reference [0022, 0026], wherein ‘109 teaches a non-chromate based solution forming a cured coating/film on an expanded foil mesh to inhibit corrosion and enhance adhesion of materials thereto [‘109; 0005, 0008], the non-chromate based solution being a cured layer butyl benzotriazole sodium salt (organic coating/film) [0022, 0026], the expanded foil mesh retaining its open structure following the application of the curable corrosion resistant coating solution, specifically one having opening lengths and widths that do not substantially change in dimension (reduced by about ~0%), exemplarily being about 0.075±0.006 inches to allow it to be tailored to the topography of the surface structure [0024, 0027], wherein a having each opening size reduced by the organic coating thickness of Metroke would provide an approximate reduction in opening surface area of 1% to 3% OR reduced by the organic coating thickness of Rossi would provide an approximate reduction in opening surface area of about 4% to 12%.
It would have been obvious to and motivated one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art to provide specific conductive metal screens used for the same purpose and accounting for any coatings provided thereon such that it functions the same.
Further regarding claim 34, although the prior art does not disclose a specific galvanic corrosion weight loss as measured, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Prandy in view of Justus and optionally Metroke or Rossi teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
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 JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Frank J Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 June 6th, 2026
Prosecution Insights