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 of Group I (claims 32-58) in the reply filed on July 6th, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 59-67 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected multilayer composite comprising at least two fire protection layer composites and method for producing a fire protection layer composite, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 6th, 2026.
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 32-58 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 32 recites the indefinite phrase “the at least one fire protection layer”. There is no antecedent basis for the phrase “the at least one fire protection layer”. The claimed fire protection layer composite includes a transparent fire protection layer. It is unclear if the phrase “the at least one fire protection layer” is directed to the claimed transparent fire protection layer, or instead, additional or alternative fire protection layers. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to the transparent fire protection layer.
Claims 33-58 are rejected as indefinite due to dependence on indefinite claim 32.
Claims 34, 35, 37, 44, and 46-48 each recite “the plastic layer”, but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 32, from which the present claims depend, recites the presence of “at least one plastic layer”. In the event multiple plastic layers exist, it is unclear which of the plastic layers is considered “the plastic layer”. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claims will be interpreted as directed to a plastic layer.
With respect to the issue of antecedent basis regarding the phrase “the plastic layer”, claims 35-36 are rejected due to dependence on claim 34, claim 38 is rejected due to dependence on claim 37, claim 45 is rejected due to dependence on claim 44, and claim 47 is rejected due to dependence on indefinite claim 46
Claims 42 and 46 each recite the phrase “the surface of the fire protection layer”, but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation. It is noted that the fire protection layer, as best understood, has multiple surfaces. Therefore, it is not clear which of the surfaces is considered “the surface” of the present claims. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claimed phrase will be interpreted as specifying “a surface of the fire protection layer”.
Claim 45 recites the phrase “the plastic material”, but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 44, from which claim 45 depends, requires “at least one combustible pyrolyzable or non-combustible plastic material”. In the event of multiple plastic materials (due to the phrase “at least one”), it is unclear which plastic material is specified by the phrase “the plastic material”. In addition, it is not clear if “the plastic material” necessarily refers to the “at least one combustible pyrolyzable or non-combustible plastic material”. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to “a plastic material of the plastic layer”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 44 specifies the plastic layer as comprising at least one “combustible, pyrolyzable or non-combustible plastic material”. Technically, any plastic material is either combustible or non-combustible, and the term “plastic layer” already requires the presence of plastic material. Effectively, therefore, claim 44 does not require any structure further limiting past claim 32, from which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 32-36, 42, 44, 46, 53, and 56-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hasegawa et al (US2007/0178292A1).
With regards to claim 32, Hasegawa discloses a fire-resistant laminate located between glass sheets (i.e., a fire protection layer composite) comprising a layer of polyvinyl butyral 13 (i.e., at least one plastic layer) laminated to a transparent fluorine resin layer 12 which carbonizes when heated (i.e., a transparent fire protection layer which is considered an intumescent material), wherein the layer of polyvinyl butyral 13 is depicted as covering an entire upper surface of the transparent heat-resistant fluorine resin layer 12 (i.e., the at least one plastic layer surrounds the transparent fire protection layer partially) (Hasegawa: Fig. 5; para. [0002], [0043], [0059], and [0067]; claim 1). Applicant’s description in the present specification of the term “intumescent” as a material which expands, swells, or foams in the event of fire, and in particular, releases gases and forms a “foamed” ash layer with incineration. It is noted that, while carbonizing fluorine resin material (or also, further heating carbonized material) falls within the scope of the term “intumescent”, any material is capable of “foaming” or having gas escape and ash formed when heated (i.e., any material is capable of being vaporized at least partially due to heat, and therefore, the phrase “intumescent” according to the specification is rather broad).
With regards to claim 33, the polyvinyl butyral layer partially surrounds the transparent fluorine resin layer (i.e., the at least one plastic layer partially surrounds the fire protection layer) (Hasegawa: Fig. 5).
With regards to claim 34, the polyvinyl butyral layer partially surrounds the transparent fluorine resin layer on only a first side thereof (i.e., the at least one plastic layer partially surrounds the fire protection layer only on a first side of the fire protection layer) (Hasegawa: Fig. 5). The transparent fluorine resin layer further includes, for example, a glass layer 16 laminated on a second side opposite the first side (i.e., the further layer is arranged on a second side of the fire protection layer opposite the first side) via an adhesive layer 15 (i.e., the plastic layer is bonded to the further layer via an adhesive) (Hasegawa: Fig. 5; para. [0099]-[0102]).
With regards to claim 35, the polyvinyl butyral layer is depicted as bonded to the further layer at an edge thereof (Hasegawa: Fig. 5). It is noted that the polyvinyl butyral layer is technically bonded everywhere to the further layer (including at an edge) via the intervening layers (Hasegawa: Fig. 5).
With regards to claim 36, the bonding is a coating of acrylic, fluorine, silicone, or vinyl adhesive (i.e., as best understood, a glue) (Hasegawa: para. [0051]).
With regards to claim 42, Hasegawa discloses a thickness of the fluorine resin layer (i.e., a thickness of the fire protection layer in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the fire protection layer) of, for example, 0.1 mm, which is within the range of 10 microns to 2 mm (i.e., 0.01 to 2 mm) (Hasegawa: para. [0082]).
With regards to claim 44, the polyvinyl butyral layer comprises polyvinyl butyral (i.e., a combustible material).
With regards to claim 46, Hasegawa discloses a thickness of the polyvinyl butyral layer (i.e., a thickness of the plastic layer in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the fire protection layer) of, for example, 0.38 mm, which is within the range of 10 microns to 1 mm (i.e., 0.01 mm to 1 mm) (Hasegawa: para. [0082]).
With regards to claim 53, Hasegawa does not recite the inclusion of glycerol in its fluorine resin layer (i.e., fire protection layer), and therefore, it is considered to not contain any glycerol (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 56, as best understood in view of the thickness of the fire protection layer of Hasegawa, the fire protection layer of Hasegawa is considered a film (see above discussion). It is noted that the term “flexible” is rather broad, as any film is capable of bending to at least some extent. Therefore, the fire protection layer of Hasegawa is considered to constitute a flexible film.
With regards to claim 57, the fire protection layer composite of Hasegawa is depicted as arranged between two glass panes, the fire protection layer including an additional polyvinyl butyral layer 13 (i.e., a further plastic layer is arranged, wherein the further plastic layer comprises polyvinyl butyral) (Hasegawa: Fig. 5; para. [0043], [0059], and [0067]).
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 39 and 49-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al as applied to claim 32 above, and in further view of Holden et al (WO2004082933A1).
With regards to claim 39, Hasegawa discloses a fire protection layer composite as applied to claim 32 above (see above discussion). However, Hasegawa does not appear to disclose or teach the inclusion of a water-containing silicate in its fire protection layer.
Holden is directed to a fire-resistant layer derived from alkali metal silicate for use in laminated fire resistant glazings, wherein the fire-resistant layer is applied to a polymeric backing layer used in a glazing, such as polytetrafluoroethylene (i.e., a fluororesin) (Holden: abstract; page 1, first paragraph; page 2, third paragraph; claim 1). The fire-resistant layer is, specifically, a waterglass (i.e., a water-containing silicate material) (Holden: page 2, last paragraph; page 6, second paragraph; page 8, last paragraph). According to Holden, such waterglass materials are exceptionally well-known in the art of fire-resistant materials for glass laminates (Holden: page 1, second through fifth paragraphs). Compared to other known fire-resistant materials in the art, the waterglass composition of Holden has improved adhesion, strength, and flexibility (Holden: page 1, second through fifth paragraphs). Hasegawa and Holden are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of fire-resistant glazings. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have incorporated the fire-resistant water-containing alkali metal silicate of Holden into the fire protection layer of Hasegawa (such as by, for example, coating the fluororesin layer of Hasegawa to form a fire-protection layer containing both a sublayer of fluororesin and a sublayer of water-containing alkali metal silicate), since such a modification is exceptionally well-known in the art, and further, to provide improved adhesion, strength, and flexibility (Holden: page 1, second through fifth paragraphs).
With regards to claim 49, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected a weight ratio (i.e., mass ratio) of SiO2:Na2O of less than 3.3:1, since it is taught as preferable according to Holden (Holden: page 2, last paragraph; claim 1). Moreover, as best understood, such a ratio results in improved adhesion, strength, and flexibility (Holden: page 1, second through fifth paragraphs). This range overlaps the claimed ratio range of between 2 and 3, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05
With regards to claim 50, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected a weight ratio (i.e., mass ratio) of SiO2:K2O of 1.43:1 to 2.05:1, since it is taught as preferable according to Holden (Holden: page 3, second paragraph). Moreover, as best understood, such a ratio results in improved adhesion, strength, and flexibility (Holden: page 1, second through fifth paragraphs). This range overlaps the claimed ratio range of between 5:1 and 1:1, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05
With regards to claim 51, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected a weight ratio (i.e., mass ratio) of SiO2:Li2O of at least 2:1, since it is taught as preferable according to Holden (Holden: page 3, second paragraph). Moreover, as best understood, such a ratio results in improved adhesion, strength, and flexibility (Holden: page 1, second through fifth paragraphs). This range overlaps the claimed ratio range of between 15:1 and 2:1, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 52, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected a water content of 10% to 35% by weight in order to ensure the resulting fire protection layer is free from bubbles and other optical imperfections (Holden: page 6, second paragraph).
Claims 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al as applied to claim 32 above, and in further view of von Bonin et al (US5,580,661A).
With regards to claim 40, Hasegawa discloses a fire protection layer composite as applied to claim 32 above (see above discussion). Hasegawa does not appear to disclose a fire protection layer comprising aluminum dihydrogen phosphate.
The von Bonin reference is directed to a gel composition for glazing comprising boric acid, an alkanolamine, and aluminum dihydrogen phosphate (von Bonin: abstract; col. 3, line 55 through to col. 4, line 8). The gel composition of von Bonin forms a foam when heated via flame, resulting in a sealing and insulating effect (i.e., the resulting foam prevents the temperature of the glass from exceeding 180C, and further, prevents spread of fire) (von Bonin: col. 1, lines 14-33). Hasegawa and von Bonin are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of fire-resistant glazings. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have included the gel composition of von Bonin in the fire protection layer of Hasegawa (inclusive of aluminum dihydrogen phosphate), in order to enable a foaming effect when the fire protection layer is exposed to heat and/or fire, resulting in further sealing and insulation (von Bonin: col. 1, lines 14-33).
With regards to claim 41, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have included the gel composition of von Bonin in the fire protection layer of Hasegawa (inclusive of boric acid, which is considered a foam-forming boron compound), in order to enable a foaming effect when the fire protection layer is exposed to heat and/or fire, resulting in further sealing and insulation (von Bonin: col. 1, lines 14-33).
Claims 43, 45, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al as applied to claims 32, 44, and 46 above, and in further view of Meiß et al (US2016/0137549A1).
With regards to claim 43, Hasegawa discloses a fire protection composite as applied to claim 32 above (see above discussion). Hasegawa is not explicit as to a transmission of at least 80%, in at least some areas, for light of a wavelength in the range of 400 nm to 800 nm.
Meiß is directed to a lightweight glass/plastic composite pane having a transmittance of greater than or equal to 80 percent in the visible wavelength range of 380 nm to 900 nm, and in particular, 420 nm to 800 nm (Meiß: abstract; para. [0003], [0005], and [0022]; claim 1). Meiß notes that the property of transparency itself is understood in the art to indicate a transmittance of greater than or equal to 80 percent at the visible wavelength range (i.e., transparent materials known in the art have this light transmittance in the visible length range) (Meiß: para. [0022]). Meiß teaches that higher levels of transparency, such as greater than 85%, are desirable in view of optical properties of viewing panes in various fields of application (Meiß: para. [0023]). Hasegawa and Meiß are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of fire-resistant glazings. As best understood from Hasegawa’s disclosure of its fire protection layer as “transparent”, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected from the transmittance and wavelength ranges of Meiß, as these ranges coincide with the transparency requirements of Hasegawa (Meiß: para. [0022]). Alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected from the ranges of Meiß in order to improve the optical properties of the resulting fire protection layer composite (Meiß: para. [0023]). The ranges taught by Meiß overlap the claimed ranges of a transmission of at least 80% and a wavelength of 400 nm to 800 nm, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 45, Hasegawa discloses a fire protection composite as applied to claim 44 above (see above discussion). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected PMMA for the plastic material, in order to reduce the weight, and further, to improve the refractive index of the resulting fire protection layer composite (i.e., by enabling a refractive index which is more closely tuned to glass, resulting in improved optical properties) (Meiß: para. [0075]-[0076]).
With regards to claim 47, Hasegawa discloses a fire protection composite as applied to claim 46 above (see above discussion). As best understood from Hasegawa’s disclosure of its plastic layer as “transparent”, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected from the transmittance and wavelength ranges of Meiß, as these ranges coincide with the transparency requirements of Hasegawa (Meiß: para. [0022]). Alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected from the ranges of Meiß in order to improve the optical properties of the resulting fire protection layer composite (Meiß: para. [0023]). The ranges taught by Meiß overlap the claimed ranges of a transmission of at least 80% and a wavelength of 400 nm to 800 nm, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al as applied to claim 32 above, and in further view of Brunet et al (FR3078014A1). Brunet is read from its English language equivalent US2021/0394490A1).
With regards to claim 48, Hasegawa discloses a fire protection layer composite as applied to claim 32 above (see above discussion). Hasegawa does not appear to disclose its plastic layer as including a titanium oxide sol and/or zirconium oxide sol, at least in some areas, on a side facing the fire protection layer.
Brunet is directed to a fire-resistant glazing comprising an essentially inorganic layer, wherein the essentially inorganic layer is based on a titanium oxide sol (Brunet: abstract; para. [0010] and [0014]). Brunet incorporates its essentially inorganic layer into its fire-resistant glazing in order to improve the mechanical strength of its glazing in the event of a fire, while also preventing exchange of heat throughout the laminate via radiation (Brunet: para. [0006]). The essentially inorganic layer of Brunet may be laminated to an adjacent layer comprising an organic binder (i.e., from this teaching, it is clear that the essentially inorganic layer is capable of being laminated to the plastic layer of Hasegawa) (Brunet: para. [0017]). Hasegawa and Brunet are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of fire-resistant glazings. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have placed the essentially inorganic layer on the plastic layer of Hasegawa on a side facing the fire protection layer (i.e., resulting in a plastic layer including titanium oxide sol in at least some areas on a side facing the fire protection layer) in order to improve the mechanical strength of the fire protection layer composite of Hasegawa, while also slowing the transport of incoming radiation via the fire protection layer during operation (Brunet: para. [0006] and [0017]).
Claims 54-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al as applied to claim 32 above, and in further view of Higuchi et al (US2016/0121575A1)
With regards to claim 54, Hasegawa discloses a fire protection layer composite as applied to claim 32 above (see above discussion). However, Hasegawa does not appear to disclose its fire protection layer as comprising fibers.
Higuchi is directed to a laminate sheet having flame retardancy, transparency, and excellent weather resistance comprising glass fiber cloth, wherein the laminate sheet is used to form a window (Higuchi: abstract; para. [0008]-[0010] and [0219]; claim 1). Higuchi further discloses its glass fiber cloth as laminated to a layer of fluorine resin (i.e., and therefore, would be capable of forming an overall plastic layer via lamination to the fluorine resin layer of Hasegawa) (Higuchi: claim 1). Hasegawa and Higuchi are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of fire-resistant windows. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have incorporated the glass fiber cloth of Higuchi in into the fire protection layer of Hasegawa (i.e., resulting in a fire protection layer comprising fibers) in order to improve the flame retardancy, transparency, and weather resistance of the fire protection layer of Hasegawa (Higuchi: abstract; para. [0008]-[0010] and [0219]; claim 1).
With regards to claim 55, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have formed the glass fiber cloth of Hasegawa as a woven fabric (i.e., a fabric structure) in order to improve the strength of the resulting fire protection layer (Higuchi: para. [0062]).
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al as applied to claim 32 above, and in further view of Lortz et al (US2010/0308287A1)
With regards to claim 58, Hasegawa discloses a fire protection layer composite as applied to claim 32 above (see above discussion). However, Hasegawa does not appear to disclose its fire protection layer as comprising silica particles having an average diameter of 5 to 50 nm as measured by dynamic light scattering.
Lortz is directed to a silicon dioxide dispersion including silicon dioxide aggregates (i.e., particles) with an average diameter of less than 200 nm (Lortz: abstract; para. [0006]; claim 14). Lortz discloses its dispersion as employed as a coating for structural components such as transparent insulating glass arrangements, and may also be applied to plastic (Lortz: para. [0039]-[0041] claim 21). According to Lortz, such silicon dioxide materials are well known for providing fireproofing, and are capable of forming thermally and mechanically stable materials (Lortz: para. [0040]-[0041]). Hasegawa and Lortz are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of fire-resistant materials for glazings. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have incorporated the silica particles of Lortz into the fire protection layer of Hasegawa, in order to improve the fireproofing and thermal and mechanical stability of the fire protection layer composite of Hasegawa, and further, since such material is well-known in the art (Lortz: para. [0039]-[0041]). The range taught by Lortz overlaps the claimed range of 5 to 50 nm, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05. As best understood, since Lortz directly instructs the selection of an average diameter of less than 200 nm, any structure imparted by the method of measurement (i.e., by dynamic light scattering) is further obviated.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 37-38 contain subject matter which distinguishes over the prior art of record. In the event the issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are rectified, claims 37-38 would be considered allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for indicating distinguishing subject matter.
None of the prior art of record discloses and/or teaches a plastic layer which completely surrounds a fire protection layer, wherein the plastic layer is bonded and/or welded to itself in at least some areas. None of the prior art of record discloses the creation of separate self-welds or self-bonds, and further, Hasegawa only acknowledges its polyvinyl butyral layer (i.e., plastic layer) as covering an entire surface of an adjacent fluroresin layer (i.e., fire protection layer). Furthermore, it is understood that the existence of plastic layers on both sides of a fire protection layer would be insufficient to meet the present claims (i.e., the plastic layer must completely surround the fire protection layer on all sides thereof).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN WEYDEMEYER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights