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 .
Priority
1. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/EP2023/059512, filed on 12 April 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 October 2024, 29 April 2026, and 18 June 2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 2, line 15: “reducing reducing” should read –reducing—.
Page 4, line 7: “low- pressure” should read –low-pressure—.
Page 6, line 24: “some degree or transparency” should read –some degree of transparency—.
Page 6, line 32: “more of less” should read –more or less—.
Page 9, line 20: “side- by- side” should read –side-by-side—.
Page 9, line 32: “fluoropolymer-, polyethylene and/or polyurethane-based polymers” should likely read --fluoropolymer-, polyethylene-, and/or polyurethane-based polymers— (unless polyethylene derivatives are intended to be excluded, in which case the quoted phrase should read –fluoropolymer- or polyurethane-based polymers and/or polyethylene—).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the fifth line, “the inlet and the outlet” should read –the liquid inlet and the liquid outlet—to clearly refer to the components introduced in the third line and avoid confusion with the inlet end and outlet end of the tubes introduced in the fourth line.
5. Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the second line, “wherein system further comprises” should read –wherein the system further comprises—.
6. Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the second line, “the set of liquid tubes” should read –the at least one set of liquid tubes—, for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
7. Regarding claims 5-6, the use of “wavelength” and “the waves” are interpreted in reference to the geometry of the curved tubes, not to the wavelength of ultraviolet light introduced in claim 1. Examiner cautions that these references may raise confusion and recommends revising “the waves” to --the wave shape of each liquid tube-- and “the wavelength” to --the wavelength corresponding to the wave shape--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claims 4, 8-9, and 12 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.
10. Regarding claim 4, it is unclear what is encompassed by the limitation “two lamp frame structures”, as a lamp frame is introduced in antecedent claim 3, but whether the limitation refers to two substructures of a single lamp frame or to a duplication of the introduced lamp frame is undeterminable. Accordingly, the corresponding structure of the mounting/connecting configuration with the tube frame structure is also indefinite.
11. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the extension of the tubes" in the second and third lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the tubes are known to extend in multiple directions due to the claimed turns, leading to uncertainty as to how arrangement of UV light sources in “a parallel manner” would be defined.
12. Claim 9 is indefinite by virtue of its dependence on indefinite claim 8.
13. Claim 12 recites the limitation "the one or more filters" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
15. Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landry (US 3634025 A) in view of Bachmann et al (US 3971968 A).
16. Regarding claim 1, Landry discloses a UV-treatment unit (water sterilizer using multiple germicidal lamps, Abstract; germicidal ray generators ordinarily ultraviolet ray lamps, col 2 lines 6-15). The limitation for reducing the amount of active or living microorganisms in a liquid food product is recited as an intended use in the preamble thus is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020). See MPEP 2111.02(II), though Examiner notes that Landry considers the unit suitable for the sterilization of several fluid foods and beverages (col 2 lines 48-51). Landry discloses the unit comprising:
a liquid inlet (FIGS. 3 and 5, large main inlet pipe 10, col 1 lines 60-65) and a liquid outlet (FIGS. 3 and 5, main outlet pipe 12, col 1 lines 60-65);
at least one set of translucent liquid tubes (FIGS. 5-6, banks 22 of irradiation tubes 24 and 26, col 1 line 68 to col 2 line 2; material of the tubes is TEFLON…for efficient transmission of the rays through the tubes, col 2 lines 24-33), each tube comprising an inlet end and an outlet end (FIG. 5), the tubes being fluidly connected to the inlet and the outlet of the unit (FIG. 5, tubes indicated individually at 24 and 26 are connected to and between the main inlet and outlet pipes 10 and 12, col 1 lines 68-74) and defining a flow channel for the liquid (FIG. 5, transparent irradiation media flow tubes, Abstract), wherein each tube has a shape providing at least two turns for the flow direction between the inlet end and the outlet end of the tube (FIG. 5, tubes 24 and 26 each define a generally planar folded path with interdigitated loops, col 1 lines 68-74); and
one or more UV-light sources (plurality of germicidal ray generators 34 ordinarily ultraviolet ray lamps, col 2 lines 6-16) configured to emit light in a wavelength range described simply as ultraviolet (col 2 line 9) towards at least one side of the set of liquid tubes (FIG. 6, disposed parallel to and along the full length of each leg of each loop of tubes 24 and 26, col 2 lines 6-16).
Landry does not specifically teach the wavelength range of between 180-300 nm.
Bachmann teaches an analogous UV radiation source for cold sterilization of foodstuffs (Abstract, col 1 line 53 to col 2 line 28) that emits at a peak wavelength of 253.7 nm (col 1 line 53 to col 2 line 8), which is known as well-suited to the industrial use of high-speed dry in-situ cold sterilization, in particular of packaging materials for foodstuffs which cannot be sterilized by heating in the packed condition, e.g. milk products, or of liquids of sufficient UV transmissivity (e.g. water) (col 10 lines 8-14). This germicidal emission is from low-pressure mercury vapor lamps (Abstract, col 4 lines 11-41) that can be configured in a variety of shapes including planar (e.g. FIG. 1), which would be operable to disinfect flowing fluids within the unit of Landry.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the generic UV lamp of Landry for a low-pressure mercury vapor lamp configured to emit at 253.7 nm as taught by Bachmann, because this 253.7 nm emission would predictably provide a similar ability to sterilize without heating the liquid food product in the unit of Landry and involves simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
17. Regarding claim 2, Landry as modified by Bachmann teaches the UV-treatment unit according to claim 1, wherein the UV-treatment unit comprises a tube frame structure (FIGS. 1-2, banks 22 of flow tubes fixed within a cabinet, Landry Abstract), the tube frame structure comprising or being fluidly connected to the liquid inlet and outlet (Landry FIG. 5) and being configured to support the at least one set of translucent liquid tubes in fluid connection with the inlet and the outlet (Landry FIG. 5).
18. Regarding claim 3, Landry as modified by Bachmann teaches the UV-treatment unit according to claim 2, wherein the UV-treatment unit comprises a lamp frame configured to support the UV-light sources (each frame 32 carries a plurality of germicidal ray generators 34 terminally socketed in the frame, Landry col 2 lines 6-15).
19. Regarding claim 4, Landry as modified by Bachmann teaches the UV-treatment unit according to claim 3, wherein the tube frame structure and the lamp frame structure are configured to be mountable and/or connectable to each other (Landry FIG. 3, banks 22 of irradiation tubes are spaced apart just sufficiently to accept the frames 32 mounted therebetween, Landry col 2 lines 6-14), and wherein the tube frame structure is sandwiched between two lamp frame structures such that the UV light sources emit light towards opposing sides of the liquid tubes (generators or lamps 34 are disposed on two sides of tubes 24 and 26 for maximum exposure, Landry col 2 lines 6-15).
20. Regarding claim 5, Landry as modified by Bachmann teaches the UV-treatment unit according to claim 1, wherein each liquid tube has a wave shape resembling a serpentine shape (Landry FIG. 5, tubes 24/26) and wherein a wavelength and amplitude of the waves is constant or varies along the length of the tube (Landry FIG. 5, wave periodicity of tubes 24/26 mostly constant along horizontal dimension).
21. Regarding claim 6, Landry as modified by Bachmann teaches the UV-treatment unit according to claim 1. Although Landry does not specifically teach wherein the amplitude of the waves is from 0.1 to 2 times the wavelength, the Landry FIG. 5 view of the tubes 24/26 shows a periodic wave shape with a height or amplitude that appears only slightly larger in dimension than the wavelength. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the tubes of Landry such that the amplitude of the waves is from 0.1 to 2 times the wavelength, because Landry discloses the general conditions in FIG. 5 and such a ratio would be expected to enable UV sterilization of a serpentine-flowing medium in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
22. Regarding claim 8, Landry as modified by Bachmann teaches the UV-treatment unit according to claim 1, wherein the UV-light sources are arranged in a parallel manner along the extension of tubes between the inlet end and the outlet end of the tubes (Landry FIG. 6, germicidal ray generators 34 disposed parallel to and along the full length of each leg of each loop of tubes 24 and 26, Landry col 2 lines 6-14).
23. Regarding claim 9, Landry as modified by Bachmann teaches the UV-treatment unit according to claim 8, wherein a reflective material is sandwiched between the UV-light sources (Landry FIGS. 3-4, elongated reflectors 36 are interposed between each pair of lamps 34 in each frame 32, Landry col 2 lines 15-23).
24. Regarding claim 10, Landry as modified by Bachmann teaches the UV-treatment unit according to claim 1, wherein the one or more light sources are selected from a mercury-vapor lamp, xenon lamp, laser and/or a light emitting diode or combinations thereof (discharge tube having a thermoemissive cathode and a discharge space and filled with mercury/argon, Bachmann Abstract and col 4 lines 11-41).
25. Regarding claim 11, Landry as modified by Bachmann teaches the UV-treatment unit according to claim 1, wherein the one or more light sources are a low-pressure germicidal lamp (mercury pressure in discharge lamp is between 5e-3 and 5e-1 Torr i.e. low pressure, Bachmann Abstract; germicidal lamp causes cold sterilization, Bachmann col 10 lines 8-14).
26. Regarding claim 18, Landry as modified by Bachmann teaches the UV-treatment unit according to claim 1, wherein the one or more light sources are a low-pressure mercury-vapor lamp (mercury pressure in discharge lamp is between 5e-3 and 5e-1 Torr i.e. low pressure, Bachmann Abstract; germicidal lamp causes cold sterilization, Bachmann col 10 lines 8-14).
27. Regarding claim 19, Landry as modified by Bachmann teaches the UV-treatment unit according to claim 2, wherein each liquid tube has a wave shape resembling a serpentine shape (Landry FIG. 5, tubes 24/26) and wherein a wavelength and amplitude of the waves is constant or varies along the length of the tube (Landry FIG. 5, wave periodicity of tubes 24/26 mostly constant along horizontal dimension).
28. Regarding claim 20, Landry as modified by Bachmann teaches the UV-treatment unit according to claim 3, wherein each liquid tube has a wave shape resembling a serpentine shape (Landry FIG. 5, tubes 24/26) and wherein a wavelength and amplitude of the waves is constant or varies along the length of the tube (Landry FIG. 5, wave periodicity of tubes 24/26 mostly constant along horizontal dimension).
29. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landry (US 3634025 A) and Bachmann et al (US 3971968 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gunn et al (US 6586172 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Landry as modified by Bachmann teaches the UV-treatment unit according to claim 1, but the combination is silent on tube diameter so does not teach wherein each tube has an inner tube diameter between 3 mm and 15 mm.
Gunn teaches an analogous flow-through UV radiation system for inactivating micro-organisms in biological fluids (Abstract, col 1 lines 13-25) with an empirical relationship between tube diameter and operational parameters including fluid optical density and UV radiation intensity (col 7 line 57 to col 8 line 64), finding that an internal tube diameter of 6 mm will provide suitable mixing for irradiation over an effective irradiation length of between 30 to 600 cm (col 9 lines 46-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select for the tubes of Landry an inner tube diameter of between 3 mm and 15 mm as taught by Gunn, as this range of tube diameters would predictably enable suitable fluid flow relative to UV radiation to sterilize the flows during operation, and Gunn provides a playbook that a person having ordinary skill in the art could follow to readily optimize the tube diameter within the claimed range based on the desired fluid sterilization application with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G) and MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
30. Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landry (US 3634025 A) and Bachmann et al (US 3971968 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mortensen (US 20200214306 A1).
31. Regarding claim 12, Landry as modified by Bachmann teaches the UV-treatment unit according to claim 1, but the combination does not teach optical filters selected from bandpass filters, notch filters, or a combination of both.
Mortensen teaches an analogous UV reactor instrument for cold pasteurization of opaque liquid food products (Abstract, pars 0005-0009) that includes one or more filters positioned between the one or more light sources and the liquid flow tubes to narrow the wavelength of the light radiated to the tubes to a narrower band (pars 0028-0029)to ensure an optimal wavelength for killing bacteria and viruses while avoiding oxidation of the liquid food product (par 0041), wherein the one or more filters are selected from bandpass filters, notch filters, or a combination of both (pars 0121-0122).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include between the one or more light sources and the liquid flow tubes of Landry one or more optical filters selected from bandpass filters, notch filters, or a combination of both as taught by Mortensen, because such a filter would predictably block undesired wavelengths to avoid oxidation of the liquid product in the same manner and involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
32. Regarding claim 17, Landry as modified by Bachmann teaches the UV-treatment unit according to claim 1, but the combination does not teach an optical filter placed between the UV light sources and the set of liquid tubes, the filter configured to prevent wavelengths of more than 300 nm to pass through the filter.
Mortensen teaches an analogous UV reactor instrument for cold pasteurization of opaque liquid food products (Abstract, pars 0005-0009) that includes one or more filters positioned between the one or more light sources and the liquid flow tubes to narrow the wavelength of the light radiated to the tubes to a narrower band (pars 0028-0029)to ensure an optimal wavelength for killing bacteria and viruses while avoiding oxidation of the liquid food product (par 0041), the filters selected to attenuate the light above 300 nm (pars 0041-0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include between the one or more light sources and the liquid flow tubes of Landry an optical filter configured to prevent wavelengths of more than 300 nm to pass through the filter as taught by Mortensen, because such a filter would predictably block undesired wavelengths of >300 nm to avoid oxidation of the liquid product in the same manner and involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
33. Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landry (US 3634025 A) and Bachmann et al (US 3971968 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ressler et al (US 5626768 A).
34. Regarding claim 13, Landry discloses a UV-treatment system (water sterilizer using multiple germicidal lamps, Abstract; germicidal ray generators ordinarily ultraviolet ray lamps, col 2 lines 6-15). The limitation for reducing the amount of active or living microorganisms in a liquid food product is recited as an intended use in the preamble thus is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020). See MPEP 2111.02(II), though Examiner notes that Landry considers the sterilization unit of the system suitable for the sterilization of several fluid foods and beverages (col 2 lines 48-51).
Landry as modified by Bachmann teaches the unit UV treatment unit according to claim 1 but only teaches it as a disconnected, continuous flow-through unit (Landry Abstract) having an inlet and an outlet (Landry FIGS. 1-2, Landry col 1 lines 60-67). Accordingly, Landry as modified does not teach a liquid food tank for untreated liquid food, a feed supply line between the tank and a liquid supply pump, a liquid inlet line fluidly connected to the outlet of the UV-treatment unit, and a liquid outlet line connected to the outlet of the UV-treatment unit, wherein a recirculation line is connected to the outlet line and to the inlet line downstream of the pump.
Ressler teaches an analogous apparatus for killing bacteria with ultraviolet radiation in a flowing opaque liquid (Abstract, FIGS. 1-3) in which flow through the UV exposure apparatus is driven by a pump which receives liquid from a main reservoir containing contaminated fluid, and the sterilized liquid can either be delivered to a different reservoir, or, in a closed system it can be returned to the original reservoir (col 2 lines 17-25), the main reservoir reading upon a liquid food tank for untreated liquid food, the circulating pump outlet line in FIG. 3 reading upon a feed supply line between the tank and a liquid supply pump, the inlet line 19 in FIG. 3 reading upon a liquid inlet line fluidly connected to the inlet of the UV-treatment unit, the outlet line 21 in FIG. 3 reading upon a liquid outlet line connected to the outlet of the UV-treatment unit, the pump inlet line in FIG. 3 reading upon wherein a recirculation line is connected to the outlet line and to the inlet line downstream of the pump as a conventional recycle loop system. Ressler further teaches that in order to optimally reduce the bacteria, the circulating pump can be operated to independently control the fluid velocity within enclosure and to effectively pass the liquid through UV exposure enclosure more than one time (col 5 lines 30-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to connect the inlet and outlet of the UV-treatment unit of Landry to the liquid tank, supply pump, and valved recirculation line system taught by Ressler, because doing so would predictably enable the controlled flow of liquid through the sterilizing unit of Landry to provide multiple passes for optimal bacteria reduction in the same manner, the modification involving combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
35. Regarding claim 14, Landry as modified by Bachmann and Ressler teaches the UV-treatment system of claim 13, wherein the recirculation line is fluidly connected to a manually or electrically controllable flow valve (control valve allows liquid to flow through UV exposure apparatus 16 at whatever rate is required to yield the liquid velocity within UV exposure apparatus 16 which is most satisfactory for the specific liquid being treated, Ressler col 4 lines 50-56).
36. Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landry (US 3634025 A), Bachmann et al (US 3971968 A), and Ressler et al (US 5626768 A) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Massey et al (US 20200330629 A1).
37. Regarding claim 15, Landry as modified by Bachmann and Ressler teaches the UV treatment system according to claim 13, wherein the pump and flow valve can be manipulated to adjust the flow through the UV treatment unit (Circulating pump 17 can therefore be operated to independently control the fluid velocity within enclosure, col 5 lines 34-40; control valve 22 to control the liquid velocity through UV exposure apparatus 16, Ressler col 4 lines 44-56). The combination does not teach wherein system further comprises a controller configured to control the pump and/or the flow valve to adjust the flow through the UV-treatment unit.
Massey teaches an analogous UV disinfection system for flowed liquids (Abstract, FIG. 1) wherein a controller may be operationally associated with valves, pumps, etc. to automatically modulate operations in response to set points e.g. for a desired flow rate (pars 0064-0065). Examiner further notes that In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) holds that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that such automation with a controller is obvious in view of the prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the pump and/or the flow valve of modified Landry using a controller as taught by Massey, because such a controller would predictably enable automatic modulation of operations to match desired flow settings in the same manner and involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
38. Regarding claim 16, Landry as modified by Bachmann, Ressler, and Massey teaches the UV treatment system according to claim 15, wherein the controller is configured to control the flow valve (controller 175 may be operationally associated with control and monitoring operational devices 199 such as actuators/valves, Massey par 0064) to provide recirculation of the liquid food product such that the flow rate through the unit is larger than the flow rate provided by the pump (Massey FIG. 3, stream from pump merges with inlet from main system before passing through unit).
Conclusion
39. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights