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
Claims 1-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 25, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 15-21 and 23-25 in the reply filed on August 25, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15-21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 now claimed “low density” which is not supported by the original claims or specification, which only support density of about 60 to 120 kg/m3.
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 15-21 and 23-25 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 15 claims “an acoustic attenuating material…comprising…inputs creating a paste” which is not clear if the material is a paste or a material made from a paste. Based on claim 1 and the specification, for examination it is interpreted as a material made from the claimed paste. Claims 16-21 and 23-25 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 15.
The term “low density” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low density” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The adjective "low" in "low density" does not provide context in setting forth a bounds as to what classifies a material having a low density in the context of acoustic attenuating materials. The term "low density" is not defined nor accounted for in the instant application. For the purposes of examination, the density range provided of 60 - 120 kg/m3 will be interpreted as being “low density”. Claims 16-21 and 23-25 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 15.
The term “fine” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fine” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The adjective "low" in "fine cellulose fibre" does not provide context in setting forth a bounds as to what classifies a cellulose fibre as being "fine" for the context of acoustic attenuating materials. The term "fine " is provided in the instant specification as fibers having widths in the micrometer range. For the purposes of examination, the “fine cellulose fibre” will be interpreted as fibers having widths in the micrometer range. Claims 16-21 and 23-25 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 15.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the solid paste" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 16-21 and 23-25 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 15.
Claim 23 reciting the acoustic attenuating material “for use”, is indefinite as unclear as to whether it is directed to a process as the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the process. Mention of the acoustic attenuating material “for use as tiles or panels for ceilings, walls or floors” merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this application/use is actually practiced.
Claim 24 reciting the acoustic attenuating material “for use”, is indefinite as unclear as to whether it is directed to a process as the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the process. Mention of the acoustic attenuating material “for use as a thermal insulator” merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this application/use is actually practiced.
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 15-17 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi et al (US PGPub 20220288869).
Regarding claim 15, Wakabayashi teaches manufacturing of a molded product. Wakabayashi teaches that the molded product can be prepared as a recording medium or as a sound absorbing material (thus acoustic attenuating material, see paragraph [0191]). The molded product comprises a fiber which may be synthetic or naturally derived (i.e., a biomass-derived fiber or cellulose fiber) citing that naturally derived fibers “more suitably correspond to environmental problems, saving of underground resources” and thus would be an obvious choice as a biodegradable/natural input (paragraphs [0029, 0033-36]). The average thickness of the fiber (width) may be 0.005mm (5 micron) to 0.5mm (500 micron) as disclosed in paragraph [0042], thus falling within “fine” as interpreted for examination. The stability of the shape and strength of the molded product can be improved by such a thickness (paragraph [0043]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to choose a naturally-derived fine cellulose fiber as a component in the molded product to improve the strength of the molded product, to save reserve resources and benefit the environmental load to arrive at the limitation as claimed. Furthermore, a binding material particle is included in the inputs whereby seaweed due to containing sodium alginate and agar is disclosed as a suitable binding material for binding the individual fibers together by being applied with moisture (thus addition of water see paragraphs [0056-57]). Wakabayashi also teaches that these materials for binding materials are excellent in biodegradability (paragraph [0058]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include seaweed as a known biodegradable binding material to bind fibers together in forming a molded product and conserve environmental load and further include water as water is necessary for the binding process in forming a molded product and arrive at the limitations as claimed. In paragraph [0062] and the manufacturing process, Wakabayashi teaches that heating the binding material with water results in a paste, thus the biodegradable inputs create a paste for forming the sound absorbing (acoustic attenuating) material or molded product. Additionally, in paragraph [0184], Wakabayashi teaches that the final product has a density of 0.05 g/cm3 to 1.5 g/cm3 (50 kg/m3 to 1500 kg/m3). Thus, the molded product can have a low density which overlaps with a range of 60-120 kg/m3. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range as a known suitable density capable of providing a sound absorbing material to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Wakabayashi teaches the claimed “An acoustic attenuating material capable of sound absorption comprising of natural and biodegradable inputs creating a paste, wherein the solid paste comprises a composite material paste made from a mixture composed of seaweed, fine cellulose fibre and water, and wherein the acoustic attenuating material has a low density, the acoustic attenuating material being biodegradable”.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is directed to the mixture from which the acoustic attenuating material is made and does not distinguish the material from the molded sound absorbing material of Wakabayashi which is also made from a mixture of seaweed, cellulose fiber and water. Thus, Wakabayashi teaches the claimed “The acoustic attenuating material of claim 15 wherein the mixture comprises one part solid ingredients and at least 3 parts water by weight.”
Regarding claim 17, Wakabayashi teaches the acoustic attenuating material of claim 15. Wakabayashi teaches the manufacturing apparatus to form the molded product (paragraphs [0126-131] and Figs. 2-3). The process includes a cutting unit (member 21) which is a machine that cuts the molded product into a desired shape (thus formed into shape by machine cutting paragraph [0184]) whereby the specific embodiment of Wakabayashi enables molded products having stable shapes (i.e., maintain strength and shape over time). Wakabayashi teaches the shape of the molded product is not particularly limited and may be any shape such as sheet-like and three-dimensional solid shapes which would include “a panel” despite not teaching specifically a panel. Thus, Wakabayashi teaches the claimed “The acoustic attenuating material of claim 15 formed into a panel by laser cutting, machine cutting, laser etching, drilling or sewing.”
Regarding claim 25, Wakabayashi teaches the acoustic attenuating material of claim 15. Furthermore, Wakabayashi teaches that the molded product can be formed into a “sheet-like” shape having a thickness of 30 µm to 30 mm, thus overlapping with the claimed minimum thickness of at least 0.5cm (5 mm) (paragraph [0184]). Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range as a known suitable thickness for forming a sheet-like sound absorbing molded product to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Wakabayashi teaches the claimed “The acoustic attenuating material of claim 15 having a minimum thickness of 0.5cm”.
Claims 16, 20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi et al (US PGPub 20220288869) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ahn et al (US PGPub 20180304555).
Regarding claim 16, Wakabayashi teaches the acoustic attenuating material of claim 15 but does not specifically disclose the mixture composition by parts by weight as claimed for solid ingredients (binder and fiber) and water. Ahn teaches an analogous embodiment of a porous resin fiber composite material (molded product) for sound absorption that is environmentally friendly while simultaneously providing excellent strength (paragraphs [0008] and [0032]). Ahn teaches differing components in that their composite contains fibers, a resin serving as the binder as opposed to seaweed, and a water but the teachings in principle can be applied to the analogous embodiment of Wakabayashi as both contain: fiber, binder, and water whereby the formed product is desired for being environmentally friendly and a sound absorbing material. Further, Ahn teaches that adjusting content ratios between the components enables adjustment of aimed properties of strength, sound absorption and thermal insulation whereby such a relationship would be predicted to hold similarly in the composition of Wakabayashi. In paragraph [0114], Ahn teaches preparation of the solid ingredients at 0.1g to 10g per 1L of aqueous solution (~1000g if pure water). Thus, Ahn teaches at least 3 parts of water per one part solid ingredients by weight which holds in Ahn’s provided examples (see example 1 whereby 2g of solid ingredients are provided per 1L or 1000g of water). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to prepare one part by weight of solid ingredients to at least 3 parts by weight water in the embodiment of Wakabayashi, as informed by Ahn, as a known suitable preparation weight ratio for preparing such an acoustic attenuating or sound absorbing material and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Wakabayashi and Ahn teach the claimed “The acoustic attenuating material of claim 15 wherein the mixture comprises one part solid ingredients and at least 3 parts water by weight”.
Regarding claim 20, Wakabayashi teaches the acoustic attenuating material of claim 15 but does not teach inclusion of specific additives outside of stating the molded product may further “include an additional portion” and/or may be “subjected to a post treatment”. Ahn teaches an analogous embodiment of a porous resin fiber composite material (molded product) for sound absorption that is environmentally friendly while simultaneously providing excellent strength (paragraphs [0008] and [0032]). Ahn teaches differing components in that their composite contains fibers, a resin serving as the binder as opposed to seaweed, and a water but the teachings in principle can be applied to the analogous embodiment of Wakabayashi as both contain: fiber, binder, and water whereby the formed product is desired for being environmentally friendly and a sound absorbing material. Ahn teaches in paragraphs [0123-125] that the mixture may further include an additive such as a crosslinking agent or an additional binder whereby the additional binder can include clay (calcium sulfate-based so biodegradable). Additionally, Ahn teaches a coating agent can be included to impart properties such as flame retardancy (thus a flame retardant see paragraph [0111]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include biodegradable additives (to reduce environmental harm and resource overuse) such as clay as a known additional binder to aid in molded body formation or a coating agent to impart flame retardancy properties and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Wakabayashi and Ahn teach the claimed “The acoustic attenuating material of claim 15, comprising a biodegradable additive, wherein the additive is one or more of clay, calcium carbonate, powdered eggshells, powdered seashells, dye, a flame retardant, and ginger”.
Regarding claim 25, Wakabayashi teaches the acoustic attenuating material of claim 15. Furthermore, Wakabayashi teaches that the molded product can be formed into a “sheet-like” shape having a thickness of 30 µm to 30 mm, thus overlapping with the claimed minimum thickness of at least 0.5cm (5 mm) (paragraph [0184]). Ahn teaches an analogous embodiment of a porous resin fiber composite material (molded product) for sound absorption that is environmentally friendly while simultaneously providing excellent strength (paragraphs [0008] and [0032]). Ahn teaches differing components in that their composite contains fibers, a resin serving as the binder as opposed to seaweed, and a water but the teachings in principle can be applied to the analogous embodiment of Wakabayashi as both contain: fiber, binder, and water whereby the formed product is desired for being environmentally friendly and a sound absorbing material. Furthermore, Ahn teaches a more restricted thickness range for the formed composite material in a range of 2mm to 8mm (0.2cm to 0.8cm see paragraph [0092]). Additionally, Ahn teaches the prepared material should be a sheet having uniform thickness, thus the minimum thickness would be held within the same range (paragraph [0114]). In example 1, Ahn prepares a board having thickness of 5.0 mm (0.5cm) enabling excellent sound absorption effect by the vibration and excellent high frequency sound absorption (paragraph [0153]). Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range in preparing a sound absorbing material having a uniform thickness suitable for imparting excellent sound absorption effects and high frequency sound absorption to arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Wakabayashi and Ahn teach the claimed “The acoustic attenuating material of claim 15 having a minimum thickness of 0.5cm”.
Claims 17, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi et al (US PGPub 20220288869) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Johansson et al (US Pat No 10907020).
Regarding claim 17, Wakabayashi teaches the acoustic attenuating material of claim 15. Wakabayashi teaches the manufacturing apparatus to form the molded product (paragraphs [0126-131] and Figs. 2-3). The process includes a cutting unit (member 21) which is a machine that cuts the molded product into a desired shape (thus formed into shape by machine cutting paragraph [0184]) whereby the specific embodiment of Wakabayashi enables molded products having stable shapes (i.e., maintain strength and shape over time). Wakabayashi teaches the shape of the molded product is not particularly limited and may be any shape such as sheet-like and three-dimensional solid shapes which would include “a panel” despite not teaching specifically a panel. Johansson teaches a similar solid material comprising cellulose nanofibers and a surfactant to be used for insulation or absorption (Col 3 lines 10-16), thus analogous to the claimed invention and to the embodiment of Wakabayashi. In Col. 9 lines 15-28, Johansson teaches several aspects of use for the cellular solid material for acoustic insulation, acoustic absorption, and can be specifically prepared as a sandwich panel for use in construction materials. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to prepare the embodiment of Wakabayashi into any desired sheet-like or 3D shape such as a sandwich panel, as informed by Johansson, for use as a construction material with acoustic absorption properties and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Wakabayashi and Johansson teach the claimed “The acoustic attenuating material of claim 15 formed into a panel by laser cutting, machine cutting, laser etching, drilling or sewing”.
Regarding claim 23, Wakabayashi teaches the acoustic attenuating material of claim 15. Wakabayashi teaches the manufacturing apparatus to form the molded product (paragraphs [0126-131] and Figs. 2-3). The process includes a cutting unit (member 21) which is a machine that cuts the molded product into a desired shape (thus formed into shape by machine cutting paragraph [0184]) whereby the specific embodiment of Wakabayashi enables molded products having stable shapes (i.e., maintain strength and shape over time). Wakabayashi teaches the shape of the molded product is not particularly limited and may be any shape such as sheet-like and three-dimensional solid shapes which would include “a panel” despite not teaching specifically a panel. Johansson teaches a similar solid material comprising cellulose nanofibers and a surfactant to be used for insulation or absorption (Col 3 lines 10-16), thus analogous to the claimed invention and to the embodiment of Wakabayashi. In Col. 9 lines 15-28, Johansson teaches several aspects of use for the cellular solid material for acoustic insulation, acoustic absorption, and can be specifically prepared as a sandwich panel for use in construction materials. Construction materials serving as an acoustic absorbing material or panel would be obvious to implement in ceilings, walls, floors or any solid structure whereby sound is desired to be absorbed and readily known in the art as such applications. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to prepare the embodiment of Wakabayashi into any desired sheet-like or 3D shape such as a sandwich panel, as informed by Johansson, for use as a construction material which could be implemented into any suitable structure of a building such as a wall, ceiling, or floor with acoustic absorption properties and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Wakabayashi and Johansson teach the claimed “The acoustic attenuating material of claim 15 for use as tiles or panels for ceilings, walls or floors”.
Regarding claim 24, Wakabayashi teaches the acoustic attenuating material of claim 15 but does not specifically disclose thermal insulation properties of their material. Johansson teaches a similar solid material comprising cellulose nanofibers and a surfactant to be used for insulation or absorption (Col 3 lines 10-16), thus analogous to the claimed invention and to the embodiment of Wakabayashi. In Col. 9 lines 15-28, Johansson teaches several aspects of use for the cellular solid material which includes thermal insulation. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to prepare the embodiment of Wakabayashi for use in thermal insulation as a known application of such molded products of cellulose fibers, as informed by Johansson, and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Wakabayashi and Johansson teach the claimed “The acoustic attenuating material of claim 15 for use as a thermal insulator”.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi et al (US PGPub 20220288869) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Tabei et al (US PGPub 20250137203) and Wang et al (NPL: "Porous Si3N4 fabrication via volume-controlled foaming and their sound absorption properties").
Regarding claim 18, Wakabayashi teaches the acoustic attenuating material of claim 15. Wakabayashi states the molded product may further “include an additional portion” and/or may be “subjected to a post treatment” but does not specifically mention a porosity-forming agent. Tabei teaches a composite material including a fibrous material, a binder, a foam promoter (a porosity-forming agent as described below), a surfactant, and a water-soluble softener (paragraph [0016]). Tabei’s embodiment is analogous to that of Wakabayashi in providing a fiber material, a binder, and a water to form a composite being environmentally friendly (paragraph [0003]) and applied as a sound absorbing material (paragraph [0151]). The foam promoter of Tabei (paragraphs [0129-130]) is intended to reduce the specific gravity of a fibrous material that includes waste paper and/or pulp and thus improve cushioning properties and the like (sound absorption). Foam promoting agents are known to impart porosity as evidenced in the research article of Wang et al. Wang teaches use of a foaming agent in a ceramic material (see section 3.2) whereby pores are formed as small air bubbles in foamed slurries tend to gather in gelling and drying process. Although the evidence of Wang is in a different material, the aspect of foaming to form pores evidenced by Wang is parallel in function to that of Tabei as the pores formed through foaming process significantly improve sound absorption (Fig. 4 of Wang). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include a foaming agent (porosity-forming agent as evidenced by Wang) in the embodiment of Wakabayashi, as informed by Tabei, such that the fibrous composite material forms pores in order to aid in acoustic absorption performance and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Wakabayashi, Tabei, and Wang teach the claimed “The acoustic attenuating material of claim 15, comprising a porosity-forming agent”.
Regarding claim 19, Wakabayashi, Tabei, and Wang teach the acoustic attenuating material of claim 18. Furthermore, Tabei teaches use of baking soda as the foam promoter (porosity-forming agent) due to its availability and economical use (paragraph [0129]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include baking soda as a foam promoter or porosity-forming agent because of its widespread availability and low economic load. Thus, Wakabayashi, Tabei, and Wang teach the claimed “The acoustic attenuating material of claim 18 wherein the porosity-forming agent is one or more of baking powder, baking soda, or Epsom salts”.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi et al (US PGPub 20220288869) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Hwang et al (US PGPub 20040071947).
Regarding claim 21, Wakabayashi teaches the acoustic attenuating material of claim 15. Wakabayashi states the molded product may further “include an additional portion” and/or may be “subjected to a post treatment” but does not specifically mention surface texture. In an analogous embodiment, Hwang teaches preparation of a composite fiber sheet which is composed of a binder fiber and matrix fiber (paragraphs [0017-18]) serving as a sound absorbing and/or heat insulating material and environmentally-friendly (biodegradable, paragraph [0002]). To further improve sound absorbing properties (paragraphs [0013-15]) Hwang teaches a surface treatment step which alters the surface layer to have surface pores (equivalent to surface holes or voids) having a size of less than 500µm or being within a size of 50-500µm (0.05 mm to 0.5mm, thus diameter size within the claimed range). Such surface pores enable improvements in sound absorbing property, bending strength, and moisture resistance (paragraph [0014]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include a surface treatment step in the embodiment of Wakabayashi, as informed by Hwang, such that surface pores having a size less than 500 µm are formed in order to improve sound absorption, bending strength, and moisture resistance of the prepared material and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Wakabayashi and Hwang teach the claimed “The acoustic attenuating material of claim 15 comprising a surface texture comprising a plurality of surface holes or voids having a diameter of 1mm or less”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noa W. F. Grooms whose telephone number is (571)272-9981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30PM EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/NWFG/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights