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 .
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 1-27 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-12, 15-17, and 23-24 claim numerical ranges modified by the relative term “about”. It is unclear what mathematical boundaries the modifier “about” claims. The instant specification at [0070] of the PGPub states “[r]anges can be expressed herein as from “about” one particular value, and/or to “about” another particular value. When such a range is expressed, examples include from the one particular value and/or to the other particular value, for example within a measurement error of such value. Similarly, when values are expressed as approximations, by use of the antecedent “about,” it will be understood that the particular value forms another aspect. It will be further understood that the endpoints of each of the ranges are significant both in relation to the other endpoint, and independently of the other endpoint.”, however, Examiner notes this definition does not clarify the meaning of the modifier “about” when used to describe a range. For example, is a transmittance of 75% “about 90%” per instant claim 1, or instead would 85%, or 89% be “about 90%”? This uncertainty creates ambiguity as to the claim boundaries.
All claims not specifically addressed are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US20150166401, hereinafter referred to as Yamamoto).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto makes obvious a glass article (see Yamamoto at the Abstract, disclosing a glass) comprising a glass having a composition comprising in mole percent on an oxide basis: SiO2 61 -74 (see Yamamoto at [0057], disclosing SiO2 is 75% or less as well as 65% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range.) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05); Al2O3 9 – 14 (see Yamamoto at [0058], disclosing Al2O3 is 14% or less, as well as 0.5% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range.); B2O3 0 – 12 (see Yamamoto at [0059], disclosing B2O3 is 11% or less, which is within the claimed range.); MgO 0-9 (see Yamamoto at [0062], disclosing MgO is 12% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); CaO 3.5- 12 (see Yamamoto at [0063], disclosing CaO is 12% or less as well as 0.1% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range.); SrO 0-5 (see Yamamoto at [0099], disclosing SrO is not essential but can be contained ... typically 9% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); BaO 0-5 (See Yamamoto at [0100], disclosing BaO is not essential but can be contained ... typically 9% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); SnO2 0- 0.15 (See Yamamoto at [0096], disclosing SnO2 is 0.3% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); NiO 0.025 - 0.13 (see Yamamoto at [0086], disclosing NiO as a coloring component cannot be obtained sufficiently if its content is less than 0.05% ... preferably 4% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); Co3O4 0.005 - 0.04 (see Yamamoto at claim 4, claiming 0-6% of Co3O4, which overlaps with the claimed range.);
while Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose (MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO)/Al2O3 is equal to or greater than about 1, Yamamoto discloses a range of MgO, CaO, SrO, BaO, and Al2O3 as detailed in the rejection above. These ranges overlap with the claimed (MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO)/Al2O3 range, which can be demonstrated by selecting a point within the MgO, CaO, SrO, BaO, and Al2O3 ranges disclosed by Yamamoto and performing the (MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO)/Al2O3 function. In the instant case, the point 10.2 mol% Al2O3, 5.3 mol% MgO, 8.5 mol% CaO, 0% SrO, and 0% BaO provides a value of (MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO)/Al2O3 of (5.3+8.5+0+0)/10.2= 1.35, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the ranges of MgO, CaO, SrO, BaO, and Al2O3 disclosed by Yamamoto overlap with the claimed (MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO)/Al2O3 range.
While Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose an average optical transmittance of the glass article over a wavelength range from 450 nm to 650 nm for a thickness of 0.7 mm is less than about 90% because Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose an average optical transmittance of the glass article over a wavelength range from 450 nm to 650 nm for a thickness of 0.7 mm, this is a property which depends upon the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0116] disclosing the glass may comprise nickel or cobalt in amounts sufficient to obtain reduced transmittance. The glass of Yamamoto has a composition which is substantially identical to the instantly claimed composition as detailed in the rejection above, and would therefore inherently possess the claimed transmittance. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph). This is further evidenced by Yamamoto at [0160] disclosing a minimum value of absorbance at wavelengths of 380 nm to 780 nm is preferred to be 0.7 or more, which Examiner notes corresponds to a transmittance of 20% or less because transmittance has an inverse logarithmic relationship with absorption.
Regarding claim 4, while Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose an optical transmittance of the glass article over the wavelength range from 450 nm to 650 nm for a thickness of 0.7 mm is within +/-5% of the average optical transmittance because Yamamoto does not disclose an optical transmittance of the glass article over the wavelength range from 450 nm to 650 nm for a thickness of 0.7 mm, this is a property which depends upon the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0116] disclosing the glass may comprise nickel or cobalt in amounts sufficient to obtain reduced transmittance. The glass of Yamamoto has a composition which is substantially identical to the instantly claimed composition as detailed in the rejection above, and would therefore inherently possess the claimed transmittance.
Regarding claim 5, while Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose an anneal point of the glass is greater than about 700°C because Yamamoto does not disclose the anneal point of the glass, the anneal point of a glass is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0122] of the PGPub, which states anneal point decreases as B2O3 increases. Because the glass of Yamamoto has a composition which is substantially identical to the instantly claimed composition as detailed in the rejections above, the glass of Yamamoto would inherently possess the claimed anneal point.
Regarding claim 6, while Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose an anneal point of the glass is in a range from about 710°C to about 810°C because Yamamoto does not disclose the anneal point of the glass, the anneal point of a glass is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0122] of the PGPub, which states anneal point decreases as B2O3 increases. Because the glass of Yamamoto has a composition which is substantially identical to the instantly claimed composition as detailed in the rejections above, the glass of Yamamoto would inherently possess the claimed anneal point.
Regarding claim 7, while Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose a liquidus temperature of the glass is greater than about 1,000°C because Yamamoto does not disclose the liquidus temperature, the liquidus temperature is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0104], which states MgO may serve to stabilize the liquid relative to the crystal and thus lower the liquidus temperature. Because the glass of Yamamoto has a composition which is substantially identical to the instantly claimed composition as detailed in the rejections above, the glass of Yamamoto would inherently possess the claimed liquidus temperature.
Regarding claim 8, while Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose the liquidus temperature is in a range from about 1,000°C to about 1,300°C because Yamamoto does not disclose the liquidus temperature, the liquidus temperature is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0104], which states MgO may serve to stabilize the liquid relative to the crystal and thus lower the liquidus temperature. Because the glass of Yamamoto has a composition which is substantially identical to the instantly claimed composition as detailed in the rejections above, the glass of Yamamoto would inherently possess the claimed liquidus temperature.
Regarding claim 9, while Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose a coefficient of thermal expansion of the glass is in a range from about 29x107 to about 40x107 over a temperature range of 0°C to 300°C because Yamamoto does not disclose the coefficient of thermal expansion, the coefficient of thermal expansion is a function of the composition as detailed by the instant specification at [0111], which states Al2O3 and B2O3 concentrations can be selected as a pair to increase the anneal point, increase Young's modulus, improve durability, reduce density, and reduce the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE). Because the glass of Yamamoto has a composition which is substantially identical to the instantly claimed composition as detailed in the rejections above, the glass of Yamamoto would inherently possess the claimed coefficient of thermal expansion.
Regarding claim 10, while Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose a density of the glass is equal to or less than about 2.65 g/cc3 because Yamamoto does not disclose the density, the density of a glass is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0107], which states CaO increases density and CTE. Because the composition of Yamamoto is substantially identical to the instantly claimed composition as detailed in the rejections above, the glass of Yamamoto would inherently possess the claimed density.
Regarding claim 11, Yamamoto makes obvious the glass comprises B2O3 in an amount in a range from about 0.2 mol% to about 12 mol% (see Yamamoto at [0059], disclosing B2O3 is 11% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 12, Yamamoto makes obvious the glass comprises MgO in an amount in a range from about 0.9 mol% to about 8 mol% (see Yamamoto at [0062], disclosing MgO is 12% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 13, Yamamoto makes obvious the glass comprises: SiO2 67- 74 (see Yamamoto at [0057], disclosing SiO2 is 75% or less as well as 65% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range.); Al2O3 10 -14 (see Yamamoto at [0058], disclosing Al2O3 is 14% or less, as well as 0.5% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range.); B2O3 0-3 (see Yamamoto at [0059], disclosing B2O3 is 11% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); MgO 3-8 (see Yamamoto at [0062], disclosing MgO is 12% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); CaO 3.9 -8 (see Yamamoto at [0063], disclosing CaO is 12% or less as well as 0.1% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range.); SrO 0-2 (see Yamamoto at [0099], disclosing SrO is not essential but can be contained ... typically 9% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); and BaO 2-5 (See Yamamoto at [0100], disclosing BaO is not essential but can be contained ... typically 9% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 14, Yamamoto makes obvious the glass comprises: SiO2 68- 74 (see Yamamoto at [0057], disclosing SiO2 is 75% or less as well as 65% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range.); B2O3 0.2 – 2 (see Yamamoto at [0059], disclosing B2O3 is 11% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); MgO 3.5-8 (see Yamamoto at [0062], disclosing MgO is 12% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); CaO 3.9 -6 (see Yamamoto at [0063], disclosing CaO is 12% or less as well as 0.1% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range.); SrO 1 - 1.6 (see Yamamoto at [0099], disclosing SrO is not essential but can be contained ... typically 9% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); and BaO 3 -5 (See Yamamoto at [0100], disclosing BaO is not essential but can be contained ... typically 9% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 15, while Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose an anneal point of the glass is greater than about 800°C because Yamamoto does not disclose the anneal point of the glass, the anneal point of a glass is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0122] of the PGPub, which states anneal point decreases as B2O3 increases. Because the glass of Yamamoto has a composition which is substantially identical to the instantly claimed composition as detailed in the rejections above, the glass of Yamamoto would inherently possess the claimed anneal point.
Regarding claim 16, while Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose a coefficient of thermal expansion of the glass is in a range from about 34x10-7 to about 40x107 over a temperature range of 0°C to 300°C because Yamamoto does not disclose the coefficient of thermal expansion, the coefficient of thermal expansion is a function of the composition as detailed by the instant specification at [0111], which states Al2O3 and B2O3 concentrations can be selected as a pair to increase the anneal point, increase Young's modulus, improve durability, reduce density, and reduce the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE). Because the glass of Yamamoto has a composition which is substantially identical to the instantly claimed composition as detailed in the rejections above, the glass of Yamamoto would inherently possess the claimed coefficient of thermal expansion.
Regarding claim 17, while Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose a liquidus temperature of the glass is greater than about 1100°C because Yamamoto does not disclose the liquidus temperature, the liquidus temperature is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0104], which states MgO may serve to stabilize the liquid relative to the crystal and thus lower the liquidus temperature. Because the glass of Yamamoto has a composition which is substantially identical to the instantly claimed composition as detailed in the rejections above, the glass of Yamamoto would inherently possess the claimed liquidus temperature.
Regarding claim 18, Yamamoto makes obvious the glass comprises: SiO2 64 – 71 (see Yamamoto at [0057], disclosing SiO2 is 75% or less as well as 65% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range.); Al2O3 9- 12 (see Yamamoto at [0058], disclosing Al2O3 is 14% or less, as well as 0.5% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range.); B2O3 7 – 12 (see Yamamoto at [0059], disclosing B2O3 is 11% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); MgO 0.9 -3 (see Yamamoto at [0062], disclosing MgO is 12% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); CaO 6 – 12 (see Yamamoto at [0063], disclosing CaO is 12% or less as well as 0.1% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range.); SrO 0 -2 (see Yamamoto at [0099], disclosing SrO is not essential but can be contained ... typically 9% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); and BaO 0 -1 (See Yamamoto at [0100], disclosing BaO is not essential but can be contained ... typically 9% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 19, Yamamoto makes obvious the glass comprises: SiO2 66 – 71 (see Yamamoto at [0057], disclosing SiO2 is 75% or less as well as 65% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range.); MgO 0.9-2 (see Yamamoto at [0062], disclosing MgO is 12% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); CaO 7 – 12 (see Yamamoto at [0063], disclosing CaO is 12% or less as well as 0.1% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range.); SrO 0.5- 1.5 (see Yamamoto at [0099], disclosing SrO is not essential but can be contained ... typically 9% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); and BaO 0-0.1 (See Yamamoto at [0100], disclosing BaO is not essential but can be contained ... typically 9% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 20, Yamamoto makes obvious the glass comprises: SiO2 61 – 69 (see Yamamoto at [0057], disclosing SiO2 is 75% or less as well as 65% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range.); Al2O3 11 -14 (see Yamamoto at [0058], disclosing Al2O3 is 14% or less, as well as 0.5% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range.); B2O3 5 -9 (see Yamamoto at [0059], disclosing B2O3 is 11% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); MgO 2 -9 (see Yamamoto at [0062], disclosing MgO is 12% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); CaO 3 -9 (see Yamamoto at [0063], disclosing CaO is 12% or less as well as 0.1% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range.); and SrO 1 -5 (see Yamamoto at [0099], disclosing SrO is not essential but can be contained ... typically 9% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 21, Yamamoto makes obvious the glass comprises: SiO2 64 – 69 (see Yamamoto at [0057], disclosing SiO2 is 75% or less as well as 65% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range.); B2O3 6 -9 (see Yamamoto at [0059], disclosing B2O3 is 11% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); MgO 3-6 (see Yamamoto at [0062], disclosing MgO is 12% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); CaO 5-7 (see Yamamoto at [0063], disclosing CaO is 12% or less as well as 0.1% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range.); and SrO 3 -5 (see Yamamoto at [0099], disclosing SrO is not essential but can be contained ... typically 9% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 22, Yamamoto makes obvious the glass comprises: SiO2 66 – 71 (see Yamamoto at [0057], disclosing SiO2 is 75% or less as well as 65% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range.); Al2O3 11 – 14 (see Yamamoto at [0058], disclosing Al2O3 is 14% or less, as well as 0.5% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range.); B2O3 3-6 (see Yamamoto at [0059], disclosing B2O3 is 11% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); MgO 3 -6 (see Yamamoto at [0062], disclosing MgO is 12% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); CaO 4 -7 (see Yamamoto at [0063], disclosing CaO is 12% or less as well as 0.1% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range.); SrO 1-5 (see Yamamoto at [0099], disclosing SrO is not essential but can be contained ... typically 9% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); and BaO 0-2 (See Yamamoto at [0100], disclosing BaO is not essential but can be contained ... typically 9% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 23, while Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose a coefficient of thermal expansion of the glass is in a range from about 33x107 to about 40x107 over a temperature range of 0°C to 300°C because Yamamoto does not disclose the coefficient of thermal expansion, the coefficient of thermal expansion is a function of the composition as detailed by the instant specification at [0111], which states Al2O3 and B2O3 concentrations can be selected as a pair to increase the anneal point, increase Young's modulus, improve durability, reduce density, and reduce the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE). Because the glass of Yamamoto has a composition which is substantially identical to the instantly claimed composition as detailed in the rejections above, the glass of Yamamoto would inherently possess the claimed coefficient of thermal expansion.
Regarding claim 24, while Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose a liquidus temperature of the glass is greater than about 1100°C because Yamamoto does not disclose the liquidus temperature, the liquidus temperature is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0104], which states MgO may serve to stabilize the liquid relative to the crystal and thus lower the liquidus temperature. Because the glass of Yamamoto has a composition which is substantially identical to the instantly claimed composition as detailed in the rejections above, the glass of Yamamoto would inherently possess the claimed liquidus temperature.
Regarding claim 25, Yamamoto makes obvious the glass comprises: SiO2 66-69 (see Yamamoto at [0057], disclosing SiO2 is 75% or less as well as 65% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range.); Al2O3 12 – 14 (see Yamamoto at [0058], disclosing Al2O3 is 14% or less, as well as 0.5% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range.); B2O3 4 -5 (see Yamamoto at [0059], disclosing B2O3 is 11% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); MgO 4-6 (see Yamamoto at [0062], disclosing MgO is 12% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); CaO 5-7 (see Yamamoto at [0063], disclosing CaO is 12% or less as well as 0.1% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range.); and SrO 1-4 (see Yamamoto at [0099], disclosing SrO is not essential but can be contained ... typically 9% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 26, Yamamoto makes obvious the glass comprises: NiO 0.055 - 0.065 (see Yamamoto at [0086], disclosing NiO as a coloring component cannot be obtained sufficiently if its content is less than 0.05% ... preferably 4% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); and Co3O4 0.011 - 0.013 (see Yamamoto at claim 4, claiming 0-6% of Co3O4, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 27, Yamamoto makes obvious the glass comprises: NiO 0.077 - 0.128 (see Yamamoto at [0086], disclosing NiO as a coloring component cannot be obtained sufficiently if its content is less than 0.05% ... preferably 4% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.); and Co3O4 0.025 - 0.037 (see Yamamoto at claim 4, claiming 0-6% of Co3O4, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20140154440.
Examiner notes claims 2 and 3 are not rejected over prior art, and would be allowed if the 112(b) rejections were overcome and if claims 3 and/or 4 were rewritten in independent format.
Claim 2 is directed towards the glass article of claim 1, wherein the glass is alkali free.
Claim 3 is directed towards the glass article of claim 1, wherein the average optical transmittance is in a range from about 60% to about 82%.
The closest prior art is Yamamoto. Per instant claim 2, Yamamoto does not disclose or make obvious the glass is alkali free (See Yamamoto at the Abstract, requiring a minimum of 5 mol% Na2O). Per instant claim 3, Yamamoto does not disclose or make obvious the average optical transmittance is in a range from about 60% to about 82% (See Yamamoto at [0160] disclosing a minimum value of absorbance at wavelengths of 380 nm to 780 nm is preferred to be 0.7 or more, which Examiner notes corresponds to a transmittance of 20% or less because transmittance has an inverse logarithmic relationship with absorption).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights