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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 112-131 as filed on 07/22/2024 are pending and herewith considered as indicated below. Claims 1-111 have been canceled as of 07/22/2024
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 113-115, 117, 122-131 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.
In regards to Claim 113, “said copolymer” as used in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears “said copolymer” is intended to recite “said acrylic copolymer”.
In regards to Claim 115, “the copolymer” as used in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears “the copolymer” is intended to recite “the acrylic copolymer”.
In regards to Claim 117, “two or more of the following properties” as used in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears “two or more of the following properties” is intended to recite “Two or more following properties”.
In regards to Claim 117, “the property” four times as used in lines 3, 6, 8, 9 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears “the property” is intended to recite “a property”.
The term “low temperature” in Claim 120, line 2 line is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low temperature” 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. It appears “low temperature glaze” is intended to recite “glaze”.
In regards to Claim 123, “coupled at the respective edges” as used in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears “coupled at the respective edges” is intended to recite “Coupled at respective edges”.
In regards to Claim 123, “in the plane” as used in line 5 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears “in the plane” is intended to recite “a plane”.
In regards to Claim 123, “at the respective edges” twice as used in lines 3-4 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears “at the respective edges” is intended to recite “at respective edges”.
In regards to Claim 123, “they” as used in lines 3 lacks proper antecedent basis. There have been numerous elements introduced and it is unclear what “they” is in reference to. It appears “they” is intended to recite “the decorative panel”.
In regards to Claim 123, “the plane” twice as used in line 5 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears “the plane” is intended to recite “a plane”.
In regards to Claim 123, “the decorative panels” twice as used in lines 5-6 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears “the decorative panels” is intended to recite “the two of such decorative panels”.
In regards to Claim 124, “at least the step of providing a substrate” as used in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears “at least the step of providing a substrate” is intended to recite “at least a step of providing a substrate”.
In regards to Claim 125, “said step of providing a substrate ” as used in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears “said step of providing a substrate” is intended to recite “said step of providing the substrate”. A substrate was previously introduced in independent claim 124, and it is unclear if both substrates as used in both claim 124 and 125 is the same substrate. For examination purposes, examiner has understood both instances of a substrate to reference the same substrate.
In regards to Claim 129, “the copolymer” as used in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears “the copolymer” is intended to recite “the acrylic copolymer”.
In regards to Claim 131, “two or more of the following properties” as used in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears “two or more of the following properties” is intended to recite “Two or more following properties”.
In regards to Claim 131, “the property” four times as used in lines 3, 6, 8, 9 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears “the property” is intended to recite “a property”.
In regards to Claims 126-128, rejected due to dependency on rejected independent claim 124.
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.
Claims 112-117, 119-120, 123 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segaert (US-20190032342-A1) in view of Jeon et al. (US-20190024389-A1)(Herein Jeon)
In regards to Claim 112, Segaert discloses
A decorative panel (1) [Fig 1] [Abstract] comprising a substrate (6) [Fig 2] and a decorative surface (7) [Fig 2] [0076]
However, Segaert fails to disclose
wherein said substrate comprises an acrylic copolymer
Furthermore, Jeon discloses
wherein said substrate (6, Segaert) [Fig 2] comprises an acrylic copolymer [Claims 2 and 5, “the back layer sheet further include any one or a mixture of two or more selected from a copolymer having a core-shell structure in which a core is an elastic body and a shell is formed of an acrylic resin, an inorganic particle, and an organic particle” and “wherein the acrylic resin is an acrylic polymer including an acrylic monomer alone or an aromatic vinyl compound-acrylic copolymer”].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the decorative panel by Segaert to further include wherein said substrate comprises an acrylic copolymer as disclosed by Jeon. When modified, the substrate comprises an acrylic copolymer allows for improved performance of the substrate by increasing mechanical strength, thermal stability, chemical resistance and flexibility.
In regards to Claim 113, Segaert as modified discloses
The decorative panel (1) [Fig 1] [Abstract] according to claim 112, wherein said copolymer [Claim 5, Jeon] is a copolymer [Claim 5, Jeon] of at least two acrylic compounds [Claim 6, “wherein the acrylic monomer is any one or two or more selected” , Jeon].
In regards to Claim 114, Segaert as modified discloses
The decorative panel (1) [Fig 1] [Abstract] according to claim 113, wherein said at least two acrylic compounds [Claim 6, “wherein the acrylic monomer is any one or two or more selected”, Jeon] are selected from the group consisting of methyl acrylate [Claim 6, Jeon], methyl methacrylate [Claim 6, Jeon], polymethyl methacrylate, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, or combinations thereof.
In regards to Claim 115, Segaert as modified discloses
The decorative panel (1) [Fig 1] [Abstract] according to claim 112, wherein said substrate (6) [Fig 2] further comprises filler [0039-0040] materials and the copolymer [Claims 2 and 5, “the back layer sheet further include any one or a mixture of two or more selected from a copolymer having a core-shell structure in which a core is an elastic body and a shell is formed of an acrylic resin, an inorganic particle, and an organic particle” and “wherein the acrylic resin is an acrylic polymer including an acrylic monomer alone or an aromatic vinyl compound-acrylic copolymer” Jeon].
However, Segaert fails to disclose
at least 3 weight parts filler materials per part of the copolymer
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filler of Segaert wherein said substrate further comprises at least 3 weight parts filler materials per part of the copolymer in order to further enhance mechanical properties and improved wear and abrasion resistance. In general, 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
In regards to Claim 116, Segaert as modified discloses
The decorative panel (1) [Fig 1] [Abstract] according to claim 112, wherein said substrate (6) [Fig 2] further comprises at least 5 wt.%, reinforcement fibers [0038, “the amount of mineral fiber structures in the composition preferably is situated between 5 wt % and 40 wt %”].
In regards to Claim 117, Segaert as modified discloses
The decorative panel (1) [Fig 1] [Abstract] according to claim 116, wherein said reinforcement fibers [0037, “Fibers of Glass”, 0071 “Glass fiber cloth”] show one or a combination of two or more of the following properties:
the property that said reinforcement fibers [0037, “Fibers of Glass”, 0071 “Glass fiber cloth”] are chosen from the list consisting of glass fibers [0071 “Glass fiber cloth”], rock fibers, basalt fibers, polyvinyl alcohol fibers, copolymer fibers, steel fibers, aramid fibers, polyethylene fibers and carbon fibers;
the property that said reinforcement fibers have a tensile strength above 2500 MPa and/or a Young's modulus of more than 40 GPa;
the property that said reinforcement fibers have an average length of 1 mm or more; and/or
the property that said reinforcement fibers have a diameter situated between 1 and 100 micrometers.
Examiners Comment: As per the claim language “wherein said reinforcement fibers show one or a combination of two or more of the following properties” only one property is required.
In regards to Claim 119, Segaert as modified discloses
The decorative panel (1) [Fig 1] [Abstract] according to claim 112, wherein said decorative surface (7) [Fig 2] comprises a printed carrier sheet selected from a printed paper sheet , a printed PVC film, a printed PP film, a printed PE film, a printed PET film, a printed PETG film. [0077, “An example of a resin-impregnated paper sheet is a melamine-impregnated paper sheet. Examples of synthetic material films are polyvinyl chloride films, polyurethane films, polypropylene films, polyethylene terephthalate films and polyethylene films.”]
In regards to Claim 120, Segaert as modified discloses
The decorative panel (1) [Fig 1] [Abstract] according to claim 112, wherein said decorative surface (7) [Fig 2] comprises a low temperature glaze, or a curable acrylic resin [0083, “According to a first possibility, the wear layer concerns a paper sheet soaked in resin”].
Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
In regards to Claim 123, Segaert as modified discloses
The decorative panel (1) [Fig 1] [Abstract] according to claim 112, wherein said decorative panel (1) [Fig 1] [Abstract] at two or more opposite edges (2,3) [Fig 2], is provided with coupling means (12) [Fig 2] [0114] or coupling parts, with which two of such decorative panels (1) [Fig 1] [0114] can be coupled at the respective edges [0114], such that they are locked together in a horizontal direction perpendicular [0114] to the respective edge (2,3) [Fig 2] and in the plane of the decorative panels (1) [Fig 1] [0114], as well as in a vertical direction perpendicular to the plane [0114] of the decorative panels (1) [Fig 1] [0114].
Claim 118 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segaert (US-20190032342-A1) in view of Jeon et al. (US-20190024389-A1)(Herein Jeon) and Liu et al. (US 20210221112-A1)(Herein Liu)
In regards to Claim 118, Segaert as modified discloses
The decorative panel (1) [Fig 1] [Abstract] according to claim 116
However, fails to disclose
wherein said reinforcement fibers are coated with an adherence promotor
Furthermore, Liu discloses
wherein said reinforcement fibers [0037, 0071, Segaert] are coated with an adherence promotor [0006] .
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the decorative panel by Segaert to further include adherence promotor as disclosed by Liu. When modified, the adherence promotor allows for increased bonding capacity [See Liu, 0006]
Claim 121 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segaert (US-20190032342-A1) in view of Jeon et al. (US-20190024389-A1)(Herein Jeon) and Naeyaert et al. (US-20200353722-A1)(Herein Naeyaert)
In regards to Claim 121, Segaert as modified discloses
The decorative panel (1) [Fig 1] [Abstract] according to claim 112
However, fails to disclose
wherein said decorative surface comprises a stone veneer layer.
Furthermore, Naeyaert discloses
wherein said decorative surface (7, Segaert) [Fig 2] comprises a stone veneer layer [0117].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the decorative panel by Segaert to further include stone veneer layer as disclosed by Naeyaert. When modified, the stone veneer layer allows for aesthetic appearances.
Additionally, since it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 (I).
Claim 122 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segaert (US-20190032342-A1) in view of Jeon et al. (US-20190024389-A1)(Herein Jeon) and Peter Sandkuehler (EP-2191961-A2)(Herein Sandkuehler)
In regards to Claim 122, Segaert as modified discloses
The decorative panel (1) [Fig 1] [Abstract] according to claim 112,
However fails to disclose
wherein said substrate further comprises one or more core elements, said core elements comprise a material selected from the group consisting of stone slabs, ceramics slabs, magnesium oxide based slabs, foamed polymer slabs, or combinations thereof.
Furthermore, Sandkuehler discloses
wherein said substrate (6, Segaert) [Fig 2] further comprises one or more core elements, said core elements comprise a material selected from the group consisting of stone slabs, ceramics slabs [Background, ” The term "ceramic tile," as used herein refers to thin (for example, thickness less than 50 cm) slabs”] , magnesium oxide based slabs, foamed polymer slabs, or combinations thereof.
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the decorative panel by Segaert to further include wherein said substrate further comprises one or more core elements, said core elements comprise a material selected from the group consisting of stone slabs, ceramics slabs, magnesium oxide based slabs, foamed polymer slabs, or combinations thereof as disclosed by Sandkuehler. When modified, the ceramic slabs allows for easier adherence to the floor.
Additionally, since it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 (I).
Claims 124-125, 129-131 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US-20190024389-A1)(Herein Jeon) in view of Segaert (US-20190032342-A1)
In regards to Claim 124, Jeon discloses
A method [Claim 13] for manufacturing a panel [Figs 1-3, Abstract]
wherein said method [Claim 13] comprises at least the step of providing a substrate (30) [Fig 1] comprising an acrylic copolymer. [Claims 2 and 5, “the back layer sheet further include any one or a mixture of two or more selected from a copolymer having a core-shell structure in which a core is an elastic body and a shell is formed of an acrylic resin, an inorganic particle, and an organic particle” and “wherein the acrylic resin is an acrylic polymer including an acrylic monomer alone or an aromatic vinyl compound-acrylic copolymer”].
However, Jeon fails to disclose
a decorative panel, wherein said decorative panel comprises a substrate and a decorative surface,
Furthermore, Segaert discloses
a decorative panel (1) [Fig 1] [Abstract], wherein said decorative panel (1) [Fig 1] [Abstract] comprises a substrate (6) [Fig 2] and a decorative surface (7) [Fig 2],
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method by Jeon to further include a decorative panel (1) [Fig 1] [Abstract], wherein said decorative panel (1) [Fig 1] [Abstract] comprises a substrate (6) [Fig 2] and a decorative surface (7) [Fig 2] as disclosed by Segaert . When modified, the decorative panel with all limitations allows for increased aesthetic appeal.
In regards to Claim 125, Jeon as modified discloses
The method [Claim 13] according to claim 124, wherein said step of providing [Fig 2, Showing a substrate provided, Segaert ] a substrate (6, Segaert ) [Fig 2] comprises:
providing a mixture [Claims 2 and 5] by mixing at least two acrylic compounds, selected from the group consisting of methyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate, polymethyl methacrylate, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, or combinations thereof; [Claims 2 and 5 disclosing providing a mixture, “the back layer sheet further include any one or a mixture of two or more selected from a copolymer having a core-shell structure in which a core is an elastic body and a shell is formed of an acrylic resin, an inorganic particle, and an organic particle” and “wherein the acrylic resin is an acrylic polymer including an acrylic monomer alone or an aromatic vinyl compound-acrylic copolymer”] and
shaping and curing said mixture [Claims 2 and 5 discloses mixture shaped and cured, Fig 3 showing (30) shaped and cured] disclosing into at least a part of said substrate (6, Sagert) [Fig 2].
In regards to Claim 129, Jeon as modified discloses
The method [Claim 13] according to claim 125, wherein said substrate (6, Segaert ) [Fig 2] further comprises filler [0039-0040, Segaert ] materials and the copolymer [Claims 2 and 5, “the back layer sheet further include any one or a mixture of two or more selected from a copolymer having a core-shell structure in which a core is an elastic body and a shell is formed of an acrylic resin, an inorganic particle, and an organic particle” and “wherein the acrylic resin is an acrylic polymer including an acrylic monomer alone or an aromatic vinyl compound-acrylic copolymer”].
However, Jeon fails to disclose
wherein said substrate further comprises at least 3 weight parts filler materials per part of the copolymer
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filler of Segaert wherein said substrate further comprises at least 3 weight parts filler materials per part of the copolymer in order to further enhance mechanical properties and improved wear and abrasion resistance. In general, 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
In regards to Claim 130, Jeon as modified discloses
The method [Claim 13] according to claim 125, wherein said substrate (6) [Fig 2] further comprises at least 5 wt.%, reinforcement fibers. [0038, “the amount of mineral fiber structures in the composition preferably is situated between 5 wt % and 40 wt %”, Segaert ].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method by Jeon to further include said substrate further comprises at least 5 wt.%, reinforcement fibers as disclosed by Segaert . When modified, the reinforcement fiber allows for a resilient reinforcement of the substrate and allows for increased structural integrity.
In regards to Claim 131, Jeon as modified discloses
The method [Claim 13] according to claim 130, wherein said reinforcement fibers [0037, 0071, Segaert] show one or a combination of two or more of the following properties:
the property that said reinforcement fibers [0037, 0071, Segaert] are chosen from the list consisting of glass fibers [0037, 0071, Segaert], rock fibers, basalt fibers, polyvinyl alcohol fibers, copolymer fibers, steel fibers, aramid fibers, polyethylene fibers and carbon fibers;
the property that said reinforcement fibers have a tensile strength above 2500 MPa and/or a Young's modulus of more than 40 GPa;
the property that said reinforcement fibers have an average length of 1 mm or more; and/or
the property that said reinforcement fibers have a diameter situated between 1 and 100 micrometers.
Examiners Comment: As per the claim language “wherein said reinforcement fibers show one or a combination of two or more of the following properties” only one property is required.
Claims 126-128 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US-20190024389-A1)(Herein Jeon) in view of Segaert (US-20190032342-A1) and Sarkis et al. (US-20170275476-A1)(Herein Sarkis)
In regards to Claim 126, Jeon as modified discloses
The method [Claim 13] according to claim 125
However, fails to disclose
wherein said mixture further comprises an initiator compound, 0.1 to 10 wt.% of an organic peroxide, and/or 0.1 to 10 wt.% of cobalt octonate.
Furthermore, Sarkis discloses
wherein said mixture [Claims 2 and 5, Jeon] further comprises an initiator compound, an organic peroxide [0123, 0127]
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Method by Jeon to further include wherein said mixture further comprises an initiator compound, an organic peroxide as disclosed by Sarkis. When modified, the initiator compound allows for activiation of the copolymers as it is known that an initiator compound of organic peroxide allows for initiate polymerization or crosslinking reactions in monomers, resins, or elastomers
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the initiator compound of Sarkis to have 0.1 to 10 wt.% of an organic peroxide in order to be mechanically compatible. In general, 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
In regards to Claim 127, Jeon as modified discloses
The method [Claim 13] according to claim 125
However, fails to disclose
wherein said mixture further comprises an activator compound, 0.1 to 10 wt.% of a tertiary amine.
Furthermore, Sarkis discloses
wherein said mixture [Claims 2 and 5, Jeon] further comprises an activator compound, of a tertiary amine [0091].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Method by Jeon to further include wherein said mixture further comprises an activator compound, of a tertiary amine as disclosed by Sarkis. When modified, the tertiary amine allows for stable performance.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the activator compound of Sarkis to have 0.1% to 10 wt.% of Tertiary in order to be mechanically compatible. In general, 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
In regards to Claim 128, Jeon as modified discloses
The method [Claim 13] according to claim 125
However, fails to disclose
wherein said mixture further comprises a coupling agent, 0.1 to 10 wt.% of a silane and/or 0.1 to 10 wt.% of a zirconate.
Furthermore, Sarkis discloses
wherein said mixture [Claims 2 and 5, Jeon] further comprises a coupling agent, of a silane [0140]
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Method by Jeon to further include wherein said mixture further comprises a coupling agent, of a silane as disclosed by Sarkis. When modified, the coupling agent of silane allows for enhanced mechanical properties.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coupling agent of Sarkis to have 0.1% to 10 wt.% in order to be mechanically compatible. In general, 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKARIA K. AL-ASWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-6335. The examiner can normally be reached M through F 7:30 to 5PM.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
/Z.K.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights