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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 16 March 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 5, 10, 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 6: replace “sweetener” with “one or more sweeteners”
Claim 5, lines 5, 7, 9 and 11: replace “SoftServe” with “soft serve”
Claim 10, line 3: replace “sweetener” with “one or more sweeteners”
Claim 11, line 2: “Guar Gum, Vegetable Fiber, and Tara Gum” should read “guar gum, vegetable fiber and tara gum”
Claim 12, line 2: “Sunflower Lecithin” should read “sunflower lecithin”
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 5 and 10 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.
Claim 5, lines 5-6; recites “when transported in a cooler.” It is not clear the conditions under which the cooler is transported, is the cooler transported in cold weather or in hot weather? Also different coolers have different amounts of insulation, which will change the ability of the cooler to insulate the product from the outside temperatures. The conditions of transportation and the kind of cooler provided change the ability of the transported cooler to keep the product cold.
Claim 5, lines 7-8; recites “after being exposed to room temperature.” It is not clear what temperature is considered room temperature. The specification does not indicate the temperature which is considered “room temperature” and different rooms have different temperatures depending on the outside weather and the heating and cooling systems in place.
Claim 10, lines 4-5, recites “the one or more emulsifiers ranges from 0.02% to 0.07% by weight.” Claim 1, from which claim 10 depends, recites in lines 9-10, “one or more emulsifiers ranging from 0.1% to 0.5% by weight of the total formulation.” The amount of emulsifiers in claim 10 falls outside of the range of emulsifiers recited in claim 1. It is unclear how much emulsifier should be used in claim 10, 0.02-0.07% or 0.1-0.5% by weight. For the purpose of examination, 10 will be interpreted as requiring the 0.1-0.5% one or more emulsifiers by weight of the total formulation as recited in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chef Scott (Vanilla Ice Cream, 2018, https://devilsfoodkitchen.com/recipe/vanilla-ice-cream/) in view of Barey (US 2018/0192667 A1) as evidenced by Norohy (How much does a vanilla pod weigh, 2026, https://en.norohy.com/how-much-does-a-vanilla-pod-weigh/).
Regarding claims 1 and 10: Chef Scott discloses a vanilla ice cream (ice cream formulation) comprising whole milk, heavy cream, non-fat milk powder, vanilla bean (flavoring agent), sugar, glucose powder, inverted sugar (one or more sweeteners), egg yolk (emulsifier) and ice cream stabilizer (Recipe on p2).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chef Scott discloses the weights of the ingredients (Recipes on p2). The weights of the ingredients disclosed by Chef Scott are summarized in Table 1 below and the wt% of each ingredient is calculated relative to the total weight of the vanilla ice cream ingredients. The wt% of each ingredient of the instant claims 1, 4 and 10 are also included in Table 1. As evidenced by Norohy, a vanilla pod weighs between 3-5 grams (p1). For the purpose of the calculations below the vanilla pod has been given the mass of 5g.
As can be seen in Table 1 above, the quantity of whole milk disclosed by Chef Scott falls within the claimed ranges for instant claims 1 and 10.
The quantity of heavy cream disclosed by Chef Scott falls within the claimed ranges for instant claim 1.
The quantity of non-fat milk powder disclosed by Chef Scott falls within the claimed ranges for instant claims 1 and 10.
The quantity of sweeteners disclosed by Chef Scott falls within the claimed ranges for instant claims 1 and 10.
The quantity of stabilizer disclosed by Chef Scott falls within the claimed ranges for instant claims 1 and 10.
They quantity of flavoring agent (vanilla bean) disclosed by Chef Scott falls within the claimed ranges for instant claims 1 and 10.
As can be seen in Table 1, the quantity of heavy cream disclosed by Chef Scott falls outside the range of instant claim 10.
However, it is known in the art that the quantity of heavy cream is a result effective variable, change the quantity of heavy cream in the ice cream and you change the calorie content of the ice cream. It has long been settled to be no more than routine experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art to discover an optimum value of a result effective variable. Additionally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. MPEP 2144.05 II A. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges of the product disclosed by the prior art by normal optimization procedures known in the art.
Further, attention is invited to In re Levin, 84 USPQ 232 and the cases cited therein, which are considered in point in fact situation of the instant case. At page 234, the Court stated as follows:
This court has taken the position that new recipes or formulas for cooking food which involve the addition or elimination of common ingredients, or for treating them in ways which differ from the former practice, do not amount to invention, merely because it is not disclosed that, in the constantly developing art of preparing food, no one else ever did the particular thing upon which the applicant asserts his right to a patent. In all such cases, there is nothing patentable unless the applicant by a proper showing further establishes a coaction or cooperative relationship between the selected ingredients which produces a new, unexpected and useful function. In re Benjamin D. White, 17 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 956, 39 F.2d 974, 5 USPQ 267; In re Mason et al., 33 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1144, 156 F.2d 189, 70 USPQ 221.
Chef Scott does not disclose the claimed amount of emulsifier.
Barey, in the field of frozen confections, discloses an ice cream which is a dairy based confection, which can be soft serve [0014]. Barey discloses the soft serve comprises cream, liquid whole milk, milk powder, stabilizer, an emulsifier, sweeteners, flavors [0018] [0019] [0038] [0039]. Barey discloses the emulsifier is present in the frozen confection in an amount of at least 0.15 wt% [0022], which overlaps with the claim 1 range of from 0.1-0.5 wt%. 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combined the ice cream product of Chef Scott with the soft serve with the recited emulsifier of Barey, since both disclose methods of making ice cream products with similar ingredients.
Regarding claim 2, Chef Scott does not disclose the formulation is a soft serve formulation and has an air overrun of 20-100%.
Barey, in the field of frozen confections, discloses an ice cream which is a dairy based confection, which can be soft serve [0014]. Barey discloses the soft serve comprises cream, liquid whole milk, milk powder, stabilizer, an emulsifier, sweeteners, flavors [0018] [0019] [0038] [0039]. Barey discloses the frozen confection may have an overrun of 20-150 (claim 14), which overlaps with the claimed range of 20-100%. 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combined the ice cream product of Chef Scott with the soft serve with the recited overrun of Barey, since both disclose methods of making ice cream products with similar ingredients.
Regarding claim 3, Chef Scott does not disclose the viscosity of the formulation.
Barey, in the field of frozen confections, discloses an ice cream which is a dairy based confection, which can be soft serve [0014]. Barey discloses the soft serve comprises cream, liquid whole milk, milk powder, stabilizer, an emulsifier, sweeteners, flavors [0018] [0019] [0038] [0039]. Barey discloses the stabilizers affect the viscosity of the product [0018].
Barey does not disclose the viscosity of the product. However, it is known in the art that the viscosity is a result effective variable, change the viscosity of the ice cream and you change its ability to be extruded into a shaped cone and the organoleptic properties of the ice cream. It has long been settled to be no more than routine experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art to discover an optimum value of a result effective variable. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II A. As such, the viscosity recited in claim 3 is merely an obvious variant of the prior art.
Regarding claim 4, while it is recognized that the phrase “consisting essentially of” narrows the scope of the claims to the specified elements and those which do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention, absent a clear indication in the specification or the claims of what the basic and novel characteristics are, "consisting essentially of" is construed as equivalent to "comprising". Further, the burden is on the applicant to show that the additional ingredients or method steps in the prior art, i.e. Chef Scott, would in fact be excluded from the claims and that such ingredients or method steps would materially change the characteristics of the applicant's invention. See MPEP 2111.03.
Chef Scott discloses a vanilla ice cream (ice cream formulation) comprising whole milk, heavy cream, non-fat milk powder, vanilla bean (flavoring agent), sugar, glucose powder, inverted sugar (one or more sweeteners), egg yolk (emulsifier) and ice cream stabilizer (Recipe on p2).
Chef Scott discloses the weights of the ingredients (Recipes on p2). The weights of the ingredients disclosed by Chef Scott are summarized in Table 1 copied below and the wt% of each ingredient is calculated relative to the total weight of the vanilla ice cream ingredients. The wt% of each ingredient of the instant claims 1, 4 and 10 are also included in Table 1. As evidenced by Norohy, a vanilla pod weighs between 3-5 grams (p1). For the purpose of the calculations below the vanilla pod has been given the mass of 5g.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As can be seen in Table 1 above, the quantity of whole milk disclosed by Chef Scott falls within the claimed range for instant claim 4.
The quantity of heavy cream disclosed by Chef Scott falls within the claimed range for instant claim 4.
The quantity of non-fat milk powder disclosed by Chef Scott falls within the claimed ranges for instant claim 4.
The quantity of sweeteners disclosed by Chef Scott falls within the claimed ranges for instant claim 4.
The quantity of stabilizer disclosed by Chef Scott falls within the claimed ranges for instant claim 4.
They quantity of flavoring agent (vanilla bean) disclosed by Chef Scott falls within the claimed ranges for instant claim 4.
As can be seen in Table 1, the quantity of heavy cream disclosed by Chef Scott falls outside the range of instant claim 4.
However, it is known in the art that the quantity of heavy cream is a result effective variable, change the quantity of heavy cream in the ice cream and you change the calorie content of the ice cream. It has long been settled to be no more than routine experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art to discover an optimum value of a result effective variable. Additionally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. MPEP 2144.05 II A. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges of the product disclosed by the prior art by normal optimization procedures known in the art.
Chef Scott does not disclose the claimed quantity of emulsifier.
Barey, in the field of frozen confections, discloses an ice cream which is a dairy based confection, which can be soft serve [0014]. Barey discloses the soft serve comprises cream, liquid whole milk, milk powder, stabilizer, an emulsifier, sweeteners, flavors [0018] [0019] [0038] [0039]. Barey discloses the emulsifier is present in the frozen confection in an amount of at least 0.15 wt% [0022], which overlaps with the claim 4 range of from 0.1-0.5 wt%. 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combined the ice cream product of Chef Scott with the soft serve with the recited emulsifier of Barey, since both disclose methods of making ice cream products with similar ingredients.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chef Scott (Vanilla Ice Cream, 2018, https://devilsfoodkitchen.com/recipe/vanilla-ice-cream/) in view of Barey (US 2018/0192667 A1) as evidenced by Norohy (How much does a vanilla pod weigh, 2026, https://en.norohy.com/how-much-does-a-vanilla-pod-weigh/) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Muse (M.R. Muse, R.W. Hartel, Ice Cream Structural Elements that Affect Melting Rate and Hardness, Journal of Dairy Science, Volume 87, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 1-10, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73135-5.)
Regarding claim 5, Chef Scott does not disclose the formulation displays at least one of the following properties: wherein the formulation displays at least one of the following properties: the formulation is solid at 0 degrees Celsius and partial melting does not begin for at least 5 minutes at 25°C; the formulation maintains a consistency of SoftServe for at least 30 minutes when transported in a cooler; the formulation maintains a consistency of SoftServe when refrozen after being exposed to room temperature for at least 10 minutes; the formulation maintains a consistency of SoftServe at 0°C for at least one month; and the formulation maintains a consistency of SoftServe at 20°C for at least 15 minutes.
Muse, in the field of ice cream, discloses an ice cream made with 17% sweetener, 0.15% stabilizer, milk solids non-fat and milk fat and polysorbate 80 (an emulsifier) from 0-0.1% (p2, Materials and Methods – Composition). Muse discloses fat destabilization, ice crystal size, and the consistency coefficient of the mix were found to affect the melting rate of ice cream, whereas hardness was influenced by ice phase volume, ice crystal size, overrun, fat destabilization, and the rheological properties
of the mix (p1, Abstract). Muse also discloses the fat network plays a significant role in determining the melting rate of ice cream. Polysorbate 80 (an emulsifier and stabilizer) promotes destabilization and partial coalescence of fat globules (p1, Introduction RH col, 3rd para). Therefore the quantity of emulsifier and/or stabilizer changes the amount of fat destabilization which in turn changes the melt rate and hardness/consistency of the ice cream.
Regarding the properties of the ice cream recited in claim 5, Chef Scott does not disclose these ice cream properties. However, as disclosed by Muse, it is known in the art that the melting rate and hardness/consistency of ice cream are result effective variables, when the amount of stabilizer and/or emulsifier changes the melting rate and the hardness/consistency of the ice cream changes. It has long been settled to be no more than routine experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art to discover an optimum value of a result effective variable. MPEP 2144.05 II A. As such, the properties recited in claim 5 are merely an obvious variants of the prior art.
Claims 6, 7, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chef Scott (Vanilla Ice Cream, 2018, https://devilsfoodkitchen.com/recipe/vanilla-ice-cream/.) in view of Barey (US 2018/0192667 A1) as evidenced by Norohy (How much does a vanilla pod weigh, 2026, https://en.norohy.com/how-much-does-a-vanilla-pod-weigh/) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gigazine (Coolish frozen white peach tasing review that you can taste the frozen white peach as if you were drinking, 2020, https://gigazine.net/gsc_news/en/20200622-lotte-coolish-hakutou/)..
Regarding claim 6, Chef Scott does not disclose disposing the ice cream within a pouch.
Gigazine, in the field of frozen food products dispensed in pouches, discloses an ice cream in a pouch (p1, image and text pp1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the ice cream of Chef Scott and the pouch for dispensing ice cream of Gigazine since the pouch of Gigazine is disclosed as appropriate for dispensing ice cream.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Chef Scott does not disclose wherein the formulation is solid at 0 °C and begins to have liquid flow after 5 minutes at 25 °C (claim 7) nor wherein the formulation remains frozen for at least 30 minutes while in contact with an ice bath (claim 9).
Muse, in the field of ice cream, discloses an ice cream made with 17% sweetener, 0.15% stabilizer, milk solids non-fat and milk fat and polysorbate 80 (an emulsifier) from 0-0.1% (p2, Materials and Methods – Composition). Muse discloses fat destabilization, ice crystal size, and the consistency coefficient of the mix were found to affect the melting rate of ice cream, whereas hardness was influenced by ice phase volume, ice crystal size, overrun, fat destabilization, and the rheological properties
of the mix (p1, Abstract). Muse also discloses the fat network plays a significant role in determining the melting rate of ice cream. Polysorbate 80 (an emulsifier and stabilizer) promotes destabilization and partial coalescence of fat globules (p1, Introduction RH col, 3rd para). Therefore the quantity of emulsifier and/or stabilizer changes the amount of fat destabilization which in turn changes the melt rate and hardness/consistency of the ice cream.
Regarding the properties of the ice cream recited in claims 7 and 9, Chef Scott does not disclose these ice cream properties. However, as disclosed by Muse, it is known in the art that the melting rate and hardness/consistency of ice cream are result effective variables, when the amount of stabilizer and/or emulsifier changes the melting rate and the hardness/consistency of the ice cream changes. It has long been settled to be no more than routine experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art to discover an optimum value of a result effective variable. MPEP 2144.05 II A. As such, the properties recited in claim 5 are merely an obvious variants of the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, Chef Scott in view of Barey does not disclose the screw on a distal end of the plastic pouch.
Gigazine, in the field of frozen food products dispensed in pouches, discloses an ice cream in a pouch (p1, image and text pp1-2). Gigazine discloses the pouch has a screw top on one end of the pouch (images pp4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the ice cream of Chef Scott and the pouch for dispensing ice cream with the screw top of Gigazine since the screw top pouch of Gigazine is disclosed as appropriate for dispensing ice cream.
Gigazine does not disclose the thickness of the pouch. However, it is known in the art that the thickness of the pouch is a result effective variable, change the thickness of the pouch and the flexibility and insulating properties of the pouch change. It has long been settled to be no more than routine experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art to discover an optimum value of a result effective variable. MPEP 2144.05 II A. As such, the pouch thickness recited in claim 8 is merely an obvious variant of the prior art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chef Scott (Vanilla Ice Cream, 2018, https://devilsfoodkitchen.com/recipe/vanilla-ice-cream/) in view of Barey (US 2018/0192667 A1) as evidenced by Norohy (How much does a vanilla pod weigh, 2026, https://en.norohy.com/how-much-does-a-vanilla-pod-weigh/) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morely (US 4,400,405) and Jelu (Texturizers in ice cream: Jelucel® plant fibers, 2023, https://web.archive.org/web/20231129060552/https://www.jelu-werk.com/texturiser-in-ice-cream-jelucel/).
Regarding claim 11, Chef Scott discloses an ice cream stabilizer.
Chef Scott does not disclose the stabilizer is a blend of guar gum, vegetable fiber and tara gum.
Morely, in the field of frozen desserts discloses a soft serve dessert product comprising protein, sweeteners, flavor constituents, multi-ingredient sugar, stabilizer and emulsifier (col 4, lines 45-50; col 6, lines 16-19). Morely discloses the stabilizers can be guar gum, tara gum and cellulose fibers (col 7, lines 34-58).
Jelu discloses Jelucel ® plant fibers are suitable for use as a texturizer in ice cream. The plant fibers are sources from wheat, oat and bamboo, which meets the claim limitation of vegetable fiber. Jelucel® contains a high proportion of insoluble fibers, ensuring that a lot of water is bound in the ice cream, which leads to better rheological properties of the ice cream mix and improved ice cream texture, increased viscosity and consistency and an enhanced structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the guar gum and tara gum stabilizers of Morely as the stabilizer of Chef Scott since Morely discloses the stabilizers of guar gum and tara gum are appropriate for soft serve dessert products.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the ice cream of Chef Scott with the vegetable fibers of Jelu because Jelu discloses the fibers ensure that a lot of water is bound in the ice cream, which leads to better rheological properties of the ice cream mix and improved ice cream texture, increased viscosity and consistency and an enhanced structure.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chef Scott (Vanilla Ice Cream, 2018, https://devilsfoodkitchen.com/recipe/vanilla-ice-cream/) in view of Barey (US 2018/0192667 A1) as evidenced by Norohy (How much does a vanilla pod weigh, 2026, https://en.norohy.com/how-much-does-a-vanilla-pod-weigh/) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Underbelly (Ice Cream Emulsifiers, 2023, https://under-belly.org/ice-cream-emulsifiers/).
Regarding claim 12, Chef Scott discloses egg yolk as an emulsifier (p2).
Chef Scott does not disclose sunflower lecithin as the emulsifier.
Underbelly, in the field of emulsifiers for ice cream, discloses egg yolk as a common emulsifier in ice cream (p3, Egg Yolk). Underbelly discloses alternative emulsifiers for egg-free ice creams which can be lighter, have more vibrant flavors and cleaner finish. Underbelly discloses lecithin derived from sunflower oil as an alternative to egg yolk as an emulsifier (p3, Non-Egg Emulsifiers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the lecithin derived from sunflower oil of Underbelly for the egg yolk of Chef Scott because Underbelly teaches the lecithin derived from sunflower oil can provide an egg-free ice cream which can be lighter, have more vibrant flavors and cleaner finish.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARRIE GLIMM whose telephone number is (571)272-2839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:30-6:30 ET.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
/Michele L Jacobson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/C.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights