DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 and 16-19 in the reply filed on 06/098/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I and II are linked by the same or corresponding technical feature recited in amended claims received on 06/08/2026. This is not found persuasive because the Restriction Requirement filed on 04/09/2026 was based on set of claims received on 12/23/2023. Thus, the restricted claims required the technical feature of carbonation of a cement composition, wherein the chemical additives in the composition comprise more than 0.05% in weight, compared to the total weight of the cement, of a cement hydration retarder, wherein the additives further contain a carbonation accelerator, which is a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of JAIN.
In addition, applicant argues that the examiner did not cite any portions of the reference as allegedly teaching "a cement that includes at least 95 wt% of main constituent, the main constituent of the cement being comprised of Portland clinker or a mixture of Portland clinker and mineral component, and wherein the amount of the Portland clinker is at least 20 wt% compared to the total weight of the cement" as set forth in amended independent claims 1 and 20.
This argument is without merit as it is unclear as to how an examiner can cite a portion of a reference which refers to a claim limitation which is not even present in the claims when the restriction is made. Applicant’s arguments are referring to the claims as amended, not as they were previously presented.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Please note, that claim 17 is withdrawn from further consideration as a result of its dependency on non-elected claim 20.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6, 14, 16-17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, line 19, “80° %” should read “80%”;
in claim 1, line 1, p. 3, “from 0.1% to 3%, of” should read “from 0.1% to 3% of”;
in claim 3, lines 2-3, “Amino Tris Methylene Phosphonic acid” should read “amino tris methylene phosphonic acid” and “Ethylene Diamine Tetraacetic acid” should read “ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid”;
in claim 6, line 2, “from 0.1% to 1%, of” should read “from 0.1% to 1% of”;
in claim 14, line 3, “from 60°C. to 80°C.” should read “from 60°C to 80°C”.
in claim 16, line 2, “from 0.1% to 1%, of” should read “from 0.1% to 1% of”;
claim status identifier of claims 17 and 20 should be changed to “withdrawn – currently amended”.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-14, 16, 18-19 and 21 are 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “the cement comprises at least 95%, in weight compared to a total weight of the cement, of main constituent selected from the group consisting of Portland clinker and combinations of Portland clinker with mineral component”, and the claim also recites “the cement comprises at least 20% by weight compared to the total weight of cement, of Portland clinker” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the CO2 concentration" in line 15, and “the whole carbonation step” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Please note that claims 2-14, 16, 18-19 and 21 are rendered indefinite as a result of their dependency upon claim 1.
Regarding claims 13 and 19, claims 13 and 19 recite “water content ranging from 0.1 to …”. The claims are rendered indefinite because it is unclear whether the claims refer to a water content by mass or volume. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of a scope of the invention.
Please note, for the purpose of claim interpretation, the examiner will treat the limitation “water content” according to the Specification, lines 8-9 on page 9, describing that the water content is expressed in terms of remaining mass of liquid water after drying.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16, 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keulen et al. (WO 2021028581 A1), hereinafter referred to as KEULEN, in view of Al-Ghouleh et al. (WO 2017041188 A1), hereinafter referred to as GHOULEH.
Regarding claim 1, KEULEN teaches a method of preparation of a construction element by carbonation (see KEULEN at lines 23-35, p. 2 and lines 5-7, p. 3: a process for producing a composite comprising: a) providing a particulate material, wherein the particulate material comprises minerals having a content of at least 30% m/m of calcium, magnesium, aluminium, silicon, potassium or iron, or a combination of two or more thereof; e) carbonating the mixture in the presence of carbon dioxide), comprising the consecutive steps of:
preparing a composition containing a cement, water and chemical additives (see KEULEN at lines 32-33, p. 2: mixing the particulate material, the aggregate and the primary additive with water to form a mixture), wherein the cement comprises at least 95%, in weight compared to a total weight of the cement, of main constituent selected from the group consisting of Portland clinker and combination of Portland clinker with mineral component (see KEULEN at lines 16-18, p. 10: the particulate material comprises blast furnace slag, meta kaolin, calcinated clay, olivine, serpentine, Portland cement, cement by-pass dust, lime kiln dust, cement kiln dust, air pollution control residue, Portland clinker .., or any combination of two or more thereof), and the cement comprises at least 20% by weight compared to the total weight of the cement, of Portland clinker (see KEULEN at lines 16-18, p. 10: the particulate material comprises … Portland cement, …Portland clinker); then
pre-drying the composition to form a pre-dried composition (see KEULEN at lines 9-13, p. 21: the process comprising removing water (pre-curing form the mixture); this allows carbon dioxide to penetrate into the mixture easily during the carbonation step); then
carbonating the pre-dried composition by feeding a flow of CO2 containing gas (see KEULEN at lines 29-31, p. 22: the mixture is carbonated in the presence of gas comprising carbon dioxide concentration from about 2 vol% to about 90 vol%),
wherein during the carbonation step, pressure is atmospheric pressure (see KEULEN at lines 26-27, p. 23: the process is carried out at substantially atmospheric pressure) or with slight overpressure of 1000 to 3000 Pa, a relative humidity is above 80% (see KEULEN at line 12, p. 23: the relative humidity is less than 100%) and a temperature is ranging from 20°C to 80°C (see KEULEN at line 20, p. 23: the temperature is in the range of about -5°C to about 90°C),
wherein the chemical additives in the composition comprise more than 0.05% to 3% in weight, compared to the total weight of the cement, of a cement hydration retarder (see KEULEN at lines 6 and 18-22, p. 18: the primary additive comprises sodium gluconate/hydration retarder; the mixture comprises preferably from about 0.02 wt% to about 3 wt% as a percentage of the particulate material/cement),
wherein the chemical additives further contain a carbonation accelerator selected from the group consisting of triethylamine (TEA), triisopropanolamine (TIPA), calcium salts, sodium salts and mixtures thereof (see KEULEN at lines 1-3 and 9-10, p. 19: the further additive comprises sodium bicarbonate, calcium bicarbonate; calcium nitrate and/or sodium nitrate), and
wherein the composition comprises from 0.1% to 3% of the carbonation accelerator, the percentages are expressed in weight compared to the total weight of the cement (see KEULEN at lines 26-30, p. 19: the further additive is used in an amount of preferably from about 0.1 wt% to about 2 wt% as a percentage of the particulate material). KEULEN teaches ranges which overlap and render obvious the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
While KEULEN teaches a process for producing a concrete composite comprising cement, additives and water by carbonating the cementitious mixture in the presence of carbon dioxide, wherein the concentration of carbon dioxide is greater than about 2 vol%, from about to 2 vol% to about 100 vol% (see KEULEN at pages 24-25), KEULEN fails to explicitly teach placing the pre-dried composition in a chamber or incubator containing at least one inlet and one outlet, and wherein the variations of the CO2 concentration in the chamber of the incubator are kept below 10% of a reference value during the whole carbonation step.
However, GHOULEH discloses a process for producing precast products in an airtight enclosure, which comprises the steps of a carbonation of pre-dried concrete precast units by feeding CO2 gas into a closed airtight enclosure under near ambient atmospheric pressure (see GHOULEH at Abstract). GHOULEH also discloses that the subject matter disclosed generally relates to concrete precast units (referred thereto as Carboclave units) which are prepared by a unique process that chemically activates the binding of cement and cementitious materials by carbon dioxide through steps that involve pre-carbonation conditioning, self-cleaning carbonation impregnation, and post-carbonation hydration; the devised process can be applied to all precast concrete products; the process can similarly engage CO2-reactive minerals, including various formulations of calcium-silicates (alite, belite, wollastonite, olivine, etc.), calcium-hydroxide, magnesium-silicates, and magnesium-hydroxide; other non-conventional materials that can also be engaged by the presented process are magnesium- based binder systems, sulpho-aluminate-belite cements, steel-making slags, and waste incineration residues (fly-ash and bottom-ash) (see GHOULEH at paragraph [0002]). GHOULEH teaches the use of a relatively inexpensive curing chamber comprising inlet and outlet valves (see GHOULEH at paragraphs [0019] and [0022]). GHOULEN also teaches that the inlet valve can be configured such that air or CO2 can be flowed into the chamber; and that a regulator-type valve at the inlet ensures that a desired pressure is maintained, where CO2 is continuously replenished to match the rate of CO2 consumed by the concrete charge (see GHOULEH at paragraph [0022]), thus, GHOULEH indicates that the CO2 concentration can be regulated to be within the claimed range (see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
Both KEULEN and GHOULEH disclose methods of forming concrete products comprising the step of carbonating the cementitious composition. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated success when utilizing the device comprising carbonation chamber wherein the CO2 concentration can be regulated, as disclosed by GHOULEH in the carbonation process of KEULEN based on the teachings of GHOULEH describing that the devised process can be applied to all precast concrete products (see GHOULEH at paragraph [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of KEULEN by placing pre-dried composition in a chamber wherein the CO2 concentration can be regulated, as disclosed by GHOULEH in order to complete the carbonation step because there is a reasonable expectation of success that the carbonation chamber disclosed by GHOULEH would be suitable.
Regarding claim 2, KEULEN as modified by GHOULEH teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the composition comprises more than 0.1% to 3% of the cement hydration retarder, the percentages are expressed in weight compared to the total weight of the cement (see KEULEN at lines 6 and 18-22, p. 18: the primary additive comprises sodium gluconate/hydration retarder; the mixture comprises preferably from about 0.02 wt% to about 3 wt% as a percentage of the particulate material/cement). KEULEN teaches a range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, KEULEN as modified by GHOULEH teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the cement hydration retarder is selected from the group consisting of sodium gluconate (see KEULEN at line 6, p. 18: the primary additive comprises sodium gluconate/hydration retarder), amino tris methylene phosphonic acid (ATMP), saccharose, ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) and mixtures thereof.
Regarding claim 5, KEULEN as modified by GHOULEH teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the calcium salts are selected from the group consisting of Ca(NO3)2, CaCl2 or mixtures thereof and sodium salts are selected from the group consisting of NaHCO3, Na2CO3, NaCl and mixtures thereof (see KEULEN at lines 1-3 and 9-10, p. 19: the further additive comprises sodium bicarbonate, calcium bicarbonate; calcium nitrate and/or sodium nitrate).
Regarding claim 6, KEULEN as modified by GHOULEH teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the composition comprises from 0.1 to 1% of TEA, TIPA or sodium salts, the percentages are expressed in weight compared to the total weight of the cement (see KEULEN at lines 1-3 and 9-10, p. 19: the further additive comprises sodium bicarbonate, calcium bicarbonate; calcium nitrate and/or sodium nitrate; and lines 26-30, p. 19: the further additive is used in an amount of preferably from about 0.1 wt% to about 2 wt% as a percentage of the particulate material). KEULEN teaches a range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, KEULEN as modified by GHOULEH teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the cement comprises at least 50% in weight compared to the total weight cement, of Portland clinker (see KEULEN at lines 16-18, p. 10: the particulate material comprises blast furnace slag, meta kaolin, calcinated clay, olivine, serpentine, Portland cement, cement by-pass dust, lime kiln dust, cement kiln dust, air pollution control residue, Portland clinker .., or any combination of two or more thereof). Thus, KEULEN teaches that the particulate material can be Portland clinker.
Regarding claim 8, KEULEN as modified by GHOULEH teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the cement comprises mineral component selected from the group consisting of granulated blast furnace slag, pozzolanic materials, fly ashes, burnt shale, limestone, silica fume and combinations thereof (see KEULEN at lines 16-22, p. 10: the particulate material comprises blast furnace slag, meta kaolin, calcinated clay, olivine, serpentine, Portland cement, cement by-pass dust, lime kiln dust, cement kiln dust, air pollution control residue, Portland clinker, limestone powder, quicklime, rock fines, concrete fines, mine tailings, fly ash, bottom ash, biomass ash, metallurgy slag, red mud, paper ash, dusts, oil shale ash, metal silicate powder, metal hydroxide powder, calcium sulphate, pozzolanic material or any combination of two or more thereof).
Regarding claim 9, KEULEN as modified by GHOULEH teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the cement is selected from a CEM I or a CEM III (see KEULEN at lines 16-18, p. 10: the particulate material comprises … Portland cement, …Portland clinker; and line 20, p. 29: CEM 52.5 R/CEM I).
Regarding claim 10, KEULEN as modified by GHOULEH teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the composition of step a) has a weight of water/cement ratio below 0.6 (see KEULEN at lines 27-28, p. 28: mixing 450 g ground steel slag, 160 to 180 ml water). KEULEN also teaches that particulate material can be selected from Portland cement, Portland clinker or metallurgy slag (see KEULEN at lines 16-22, p. 10), thus, KEULEN teaches a weight of water/cement ratio in the range of 0.35-0.4, which is within the clamed range.
Regarding claim 11, KEULEN as modified by GHOULEH teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the composition of step a) is a cement paste, a mortar, or a concrete (see KEULEN at line 11, p. 24: the composite is a concrete composite).
Regarding claim 12, KEULEN as modified by GHOULEH teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein step b) is conducted at a temperature ranging from 20 to 80°C and at a controlled relative humidity, ranging from 10 to 95% (see KEULEN at line 34, p. 2: step e): carbonating the mixture; line 12, p. 23: in step e) the relative humidity is less than 100%; and line 20, p. 23: in step e) the temperature is in the range of about -5°C to about 90°C).
Regarding claim 13, KEULEN as modified by GHOULEH teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein step b) is conducted until the composition has a water content ranging from 0.1 to 0.3. KEULEN teaches mixing the particulate material/cement, additive and water to form a mixture (see KEULEN at lines 33-34, p. 2 and 27-28, p. 28), that the water is removed from the mixture prior to carbonation step until the mixture comprises from about 0.5 wt% to about 30 wt% of free water (see KEULEN at lines 9-14 and 32-34, p. 21). Thus, KEULEN teaches a water content ranging from 0.005 to 0.3, which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, KEULEN as modified by GHOULEH teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein during the carbonation step, one or many of the following conditions are satisfied:
the temperature within the chamber of the incubator is ranging from 60°C to 80°C;
the relative humidity within the chamber of the incubator is above 90% (see KEULEN at line 34, p. 2: step e): carbonating the mixture; line 12, p. 23: in step e) the relative humidity is less than 100%; and line 20, p. 23: in step e) the temperature is in the range of about -5°C to about 90°C).
KEULEN teaches ranges which overlap and render obvious the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 16, KEULEN as modified by GHOULEH teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the composition comprises from 0.1% to 1% of the cement hydration retarder, the percentages are expressed in weight compared to the total weight of the cement (see KEULEN at lines 6 and 18-22, p. 18: the primary additive comprises sodium gluconate/hydration retarder; the mixture comprises preferably from about 0.02 wt% to about 3 wt% as a percentage of the particulate material/cement). KEULEN teaches a range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 18, KEULEN as modified by GHOULEH teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the composition of step a) has a weight of water/cement ratio below 0.4 (see KEULEN at lines 27-28, p. 28: mixing 450 g ground steel slag, 160 to 180 ml water). KEULEN also teaches that particulate material can be selected from Portland cement, Portland clinker or metallurgy slag (see KEULEN at lines 16-22, p. 10), thus, KEULEN teaches a weight of water/cement ratio in the range of 0.35-0.4, which overlaps and renders obvious the clamed range.
Regarding clam 19, KEULEN as modified by GHOULEH teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein step b) is conducted until the composition has a water content ranging from 0.1 to 0.2. KEULEN teaches mixing the particulate material/cement, additive and water to form a mixture (see KEULEN at lines 33-34, p. 2 and 27-28, p. 28), that the water is removed from the mixture prior to carbonation step until the mixture comprises from about 0.5 wt% to about 30 wt% of free water (see KEULEN at lines 9-14 and 32-34, p. 21). Thus, KEULEN teaches a water content ranging from 0.005 to 0.3, which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 21, KEULEN as modified by GHOULEH teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising measuring the CO2 concentration, continuously or periodically, in the chamber of the incubator with CO2 sensors (see rejection of claim 1 above and GHOULEH at paragraph [0022]: the control system can control the gas inlet valve; the inlet valve can be configured such that air or CO2 can be flowed into the chamber; and that a regulator-type valve at the inlet ensures that a desired pressure is maintained, where CO2 is continuously replenished to match the rate of CO2 consumed by the concrete charge).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEULEN in view of GHOULEH as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Skocek et al. (US 20200290925 A1), hereinafter referred to as SKOCEK.
Regarding claim 4, KEULEN as modified by GHOULEH teaches the method according to claim 1. While KEULEN teaches a composition comprising additive, KEULEN fails to explicitly teach the cement hydration retarder being selected from the group consisting of ATMP, EDTA and mixtures thereof.
However, SKOCEK discloses a method of carbonating the recycled concrete fines (see SKOCEK at paragraph [0017]). SKOCEK also discloses that the SCM according to the invention is suitable to make composite binders analogously to known SCMs such as ground granulated blast furnace slag, fly ash and oil shale (see SKOCEK at paragraph [0025]). SKOCEK teaches that it is possible to include additional material into the starting material that accelerates the carbonation process and/or improves the final properties of the SCM; typically, additional material is included in an amount from 0.001 to 1 wt.-% with respect to the total starting material, and suitable materials include aqueous solvents like alkanolamines, for example primary amines like monoethanolamine (MEA) and diglycolamine (DGA), secondary amines like diethanolamine (DEA) and diisopropanolamine (DIPA), and tertiary amines like methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) and triethanolamine (TEA), or mixtures thereof, halogenides, ethylenedinitrilotetraaccetic acid (EDTA) or other substances that improve dissolution of CO2 in the pore solution; these additions can modify the hydration process of the final binder as well as modify the carbonation process (see SKOCEK at paragraph [0029]).
Both KEULEN and SKOCEK disclose compositions comprising carbonated cementitious materials. According to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of KEULEN by including the additional materials, e.g., tertiary amines like ethylenedinitrilotetraaccetic acid (EDTA), as disclosed by SKOCEK based on teachings of SKOCEK describing that these additional materials improve dissolution of CO2 in the pore solution see SKOCEK at paragraph [0029]. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the composition of KEULEN by including additives such as EDTA as disclosed by SKOCEK since SKOCEK explicitly teaches that additives like EDTA can modify the hydration process of the final binder as well as modify the carbonation process (see SKOCEK at paragraph [0029]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00am-5:00pm.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/A.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights