20DETAILED 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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed December 16, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 5, 8, 13, 15, and 16 have been amended. Claims 1-20 will be examined.
Status of the Claims
The objection of claim 5 because of informalities is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment of the claim.
The rejections of claims 8, 13, 15, and 16 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment of the claims.
The rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN104150985A is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment of the claims.
The rejection of claims 1, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zorner et al. (US 2023/0040362) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment of the claims.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zorner et al. (US 2023/0040362) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment of the claims.
The rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zorner et al. (US 2023/0040362) as applied to claims 1, 2, and 5-20 above, and further in view of Drumonde (WO 2020145834) (Derwent for English Translation) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment of the claims.
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections are newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections presently being applied to the instant application.
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.
New Rejections Necessitated by Amendment filed December 16, 2025
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 1, 9, 11, 18, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tang et al. (CN116235867A). Tang et al. (CN116235867A) Translation from FIT Database used as English Translation.
Regarding claim 1, Tang et al. discloses a preparation method of microbial inoculum for preventing and treating cotton blight, comprising the following components according to the following percentage: anti-disease type Bacillus subtilis ZD328 strain fermentation liquid 30%-50%, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi 10%-20% (mycorrhizal fungal species), Trichoderma 1%-5%, lactic acid bacteria fermentation liquid 5%-20% (biostimulant, microbial fermentation product, lactic acid bacterial fermentation culture), filling the rest 100% (page 1, Abstract; page 2, Contents of the Invention, paragraph 2, Translation).
Tang et al. disclose the lactic acid bacteria comprises but not limited to pediococcus acidilactici, plant germ lactobacillus, casein lactobacillus, streptococcus faecalis (page 2, Contents of the Invention, paragraph 5, Translation).
Tang et al. disclose the filler comprises but not limited to water, amino acid liquid, kaolin, organic fertilizer (page 3, paragraph 1, Translation).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Tang et al. disclose a preparation method of microbial inoculum for preventing and treating cotton blight, comprising the following steps: step one, fermenting the salt-alkali Bacillus subtilis ZD18 strain; step two, fermenting the trichoderma and lactic acid bacteria, culturing the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; step three, the fermentation liquid obtained in step one and step two, fungus, lactic acid bacteria, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and water according to the percentage to prepare the microbial inoculum (page 3, paragraphs 2-5, Translation).
Regarding claim 19, Tang et al. disclose the invention uses biological control method, infection and protection of cotton root by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, matched with anti-disease of bacillus subtilis and trichoderma, reducing the number of pathogenic bacteria around rhizosphere, inhibiting pathogenic growth, so as to reduce the disease of cotton (page 2, paragraph 15, Translation).
Tang et al. disclose compared with the existing technology, the invention uses multiple different types of bacteria for mixing, improves the adaptability of the microbial inoculum, especially the addition of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, ensures that in the severe soil environment, microorganism still can play a good effect (page 4, paragraph 1, Translation).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 11, and 20, Tang et al. disclose in example 2 the preparation of invention 1 and 2 are the same as in Example 1. After the material is prepared, it is prepared according to the following process: 1) low temperature vacuum freezing and drying the disease-preventing type Bacillus subtilis ZD18 strain fermentation liquid, preparing bacteria powder for further use; 2) uniformly mixing the following materials according to the proportion,
freeze-dried bacteria powder 30 kg
arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi 15kg
5 kg of trichoderma
5 kg of lactic acid bacteria fermentation liquid
bentonite 20 kg (solid carrier, bentonite)
Glucose 25kg
after the product is prepared, the qualified filling is checked (page 5, Example 2, Translation).
Tang et al. meets all limitations of the claims and thereby anticipates the claims.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ren et al. (CN 112385507A). Ren et al. (CN112385507A) Translation from FIT Database used as English Translation.
Regarding claim 1, Ren et al. disclose a seedling matrix containing arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, wherein the matrix containing arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi is composed of organic matrix, inorganic matrix and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi strain encapsulated by capsule (page 2, Contents of the Invention, paragraph 4; page 9, claim 1,Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Ren et al. disclose as a preferred embodiment, the compost fermentation product prepared by the following method: the straw, rice hull, sawdust, biogas residue, mushroom residue; wine residue according to mass ratio of (30 ~ 40): (10 ~ 20): (5 ~ 15): (5 ~ 15): (5 ~ 15): (5 ~ 15), uniformly mixing to obtain matrix raw material; adding fermentation microbial inoculum into the matrix raw material; the fermentation microbial inoculum is yeast, actinomycetes; mixed bacteria of lactic acid bacteria and bacillus (biostimulant, microbial fermentation product, lysate of lactic acid bacterial fermentation culture) (page 3, paragraph 2, Translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Ren et al. disclose the preparation method of lactobacillus acidophilus microbial inoculum is as follows: scraping little strain by inoculating rod; inoculating in the liquid culture medium; the liquid culture medium component (g/L) is as follows: glucose 20, peptone 10, yeast extract 5, beef extract 10, KH2PO4, NaAc5…Tween - -80 1mL. The lactobacillus acidophilus in the logarithmic phase as strain is inoculated to the fermentation tank; the fermentation culture medium is whey powder 12 %, glucose 3 %, NH4H2P04 0.5 %, pH value 6.2-6.6. detecting the pH value (biostimulant,, lysed lactic acid bacteria, fermentation medium and fermentation metabolites) (page 3, paragraph 8, Translation).
Regarding claims 2, 6, and 7, Ren et al. disclose the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi is heteromorphic root cyst mildew (Rhizophagusirregularis) (page 2, Contents of the Invention, paragraph 5, Translation).
Regarding claims 9, 10 and 13, Ren et al. disclose the organic matrix is compost fermentation product; the inorganic matrix is perlite and vermiculite (phyllosilicates and one or more naturally-occurring earth components) (page 8, claim 1, Translation).
Regarding claim 12, Ren et al. disclose as a preferred embodiment, the capsule is a plant capsule, the main raw material component is lupulan, glycerol, purified water and so on (solid carrier comprises a plant material) (page 4, paragraph 6, Translation).
Regarding claim 15, Ren et al. teach the water content of the substrate is 20%, dissolving when the water content of the substrate is 10% (page5, paragraph 5, Translation).
Regarding claims 16, 18, and 20, Ren et al. disclose the preparation method of the seedling substrate according to claim 1, wherein the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi strain is filled in the capsule, the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi carrier is obtained, the capsule is added to the organic inorganic substrate, the seedling substrate containing arbuscular mycorrhiza is obtained, wherein the adding amount of the strain is 0.2-1%. said organic inorganic substrate is formed by mixing organic substrate and inorganic substrate in proportion (page 9, claim 8, Translation).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Ren et al. disclose application of the seedling substrate containing arbuscular mycorrhiza according to claim 1 in vegetable breeding or cultivation, preferably in promoting the application of watermelon and tomato growth. further preferably selecting proper seedling plate, putting the seedling matrix containing arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi of the invention, sowing seed of germinating and white, watering to 100% water content…keeping the water content in the matrix between 15 %-80 %, culturing the robust seedling (page 9, claim 10, Translation).
Ren et al. disclose the invention is suitable for all arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, not limited to Rhizophagusirregularis (page 4, paragraph 7).
Ren et al. meet all limitations of the claims and thereby anticipate the claims.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al. (CN 112385507A) in view of Zorner et al. (US 2023/0040362). Ren et al. (CN112385507A) Translation from FIT Database used as English Translation.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a composition comprising: (i) a mycorrhizal fungi component comprising one or more mycorrhizal fungal species; and (ii) a biostimulant component comprising a microbial fermentation product, the microbial fermentation product comprising: a whole culture lysate of a lactic acid bacterial fermentation culture, the whole culture lysate comprising: lysed lactic acid bacteria; fermentation medium; and fermentation metabolites.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
The teachings of Ren et al. with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is hereby incorporated and are therefore applied in the instant rejection as discussed above.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Ren et al. do not specifically disclose one or more fungal species comprise Glomus sp., Glomus intraradices and/or Glomus mosseae. It is for this reason Zorner et al. is added as a secondary reference.
Zorner et al. teach compositions and methods for enhancing plant health, growth, and/or yields of crop plants by applying a microbial combination to the roots and/or soil in which the plant is growing (Abstract).
Regarding claim 1, Zorner et al. teach the soil treatment composition can comprise the substrate leftover from fermentation and/or purified or unpurified growth by-products, such as biosurfactants, enzymes and/or other metabolites. The microbes can be live or inactive, although in preferred embodiments, the microbes are live (page 2, paragraph 19).
Zorner et al. teach the microbe-based product may also comprise one or more components of a microbe-based composition that have been processed in some way such as, but not limited to, filtering, centrifugation, lysing, drying, purification and the like (page 3, paragraph 35).
Regarding claims 2, 5, 6, and 7, Zorner et al. teach non-limiting examples of mycorrhizal fungi include Rhizophagus spp. (e.g., R. irregularis) (page 5, paragraph 65).
Zorner et al. teach in certain preferred embodiments, the subject invention utilizes endomycorrhizal fungi, including fungi from the phylum Glomeromycota and the genera Glomus, Gigaspora, Acaulospora, and Entrophospora. Examples of endomycorrhizal fungi include, but not are not limited to, Glomus aggregatum, Glomus etunicatum, Glomus fasciculatum, Glomus intraradices (Rhizophagus irregularis), Glomus mosseae (Funneliformis mosseae), Glomus versiforme, Scutellospora heterogama, and Sclerocystis spp. (page 5, paragraph 66).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Zorner et al. teach the composition is preferably formulated for application to soil, seeds, whole plants, or plant parts (including, but not limited to, roots, tubers, stems, stalks, buds, flowers and leaves) (page 7, paragraph 99). Zorner et al. teach “applying” a composition or product refers to contacting a composition or product with a target or site such that the composition or product can have an effect on that target or site. The effect can be due to, for example, microbial growth and/or interaction with a plant, as well as the action of a metabolite, enzyme, biosurfactant or other microbial growth by-product (page 11, paragraph 168).
Regarding 18 and 20, Zorner et al. teach one microbe-based product of the subject invention is simply the fermentation medium containing the microorganisms and/or the microbial metabolites produced by the microorganisms and/or any residual nutrients (page 9, paragraph 135).
Finding a prima facie obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ren et al. and Zorner et al. and use Glomus sp., Glomus intraradices, and/or Glomus mosseae as the mycorrhizal fungi component. Ren et al. teach a seedling matrix containing arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, wherein the matrix containing arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi is composed of organic matrix, inorganic matrix and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi strain encapsulated by capsule. Ren et al. teach the organic matrix is compost fermentation product comprising a lactic bacterial fermentation; the inorganic matrix is perlite and vermiculite. Zorner et al. teach non-limiting examples of mycorrhizal fungi include Rhizophagus spp. (e.g., R. irregularis). Zorner et al. teach in certain preferred embodiments, the subject invention utilizes endomycorrhizal fungi, including fungi from the phylum Glomeromycota and the genera Glomus, Gigaspora, Acaulospora, and Entrophospora. Examples of endomycorrhizal fungi include, but not are not limited to, Glomus aggregatum, Glomus etunicatum, Glomus fasciculatum, Glomus intraradices (Rhizophagus irregularis), Glomus mosseae (Funneliformis mosseae), Glomus versiforme, Scutellospora heterogama, and Sclerocystis spp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any of the mycorrhizal fungi taught by Zorner et al., such as Glomus intraradices and Glomus mosseae, in the seedling substrate taught by Ren et al. Specifically, because Ren et al. teach the invention is suitable for all arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, not limited to Rhizophagusirregularis. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to use Glomus intraradices and Glomus mosseae, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al. (CN 112385507A) in view of Zorner et al. (US 2023/0040362) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5-10, and 12-20 above, and further in view of Drumonde (WO 2020145834) (Derwent for English Translation). Ren et al. (CN112385507A) Translation from FIT Database used as English Translation.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a composition comprising: (i) a mycorrhizal fungi component comprising one or more mycorrhizal fungal species; and (ii) a biostimulant component comprising a microbial fermentation product, the microbial fermentation product comprising: a whole culture lysate of a lactic acid bacterial fermentation culture, the whole culture lysate comprising: lysed lactic acid bacteria; fermentation medium; and fermentation metabolites. Applicant claims the one or more fungal species comprises Claroideoglomus sp. or Claroideoglomus etunicatum. Applicant claims the one or more fungal species comprise (i) Rhizophagus sp., Rhizophagus irregularis, Rhizophagus aggegatus, and/or Rhizophagus clarus, and (ii) Claroideoglomus sp. or Claroideoglomus etunicatum.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
The teachings of Ren et al. and Zorner et al. with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection is hereby incorporated and are therefore applied in the instant rejection as discussed above.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Ren et al. and Zorner et al. do not specifically disclose the fungal species comprise Claroideoglomus sp. or Claroideoglomus etunicatum, as claimed in claim 3 or the fungal species comprise (i) Rhizophagus sp., Rhizophagus irregularis, Rhizophagus aggegatus, and/or Rhizophagus clarus, and (ii) Claroideoglomus sp. or Claroideoglomus etunicatum, as claimed in claim 4. It is for this reason Drumonde is added as the secondary reference.
Drumonde teaches a method for producing a biofertilizer comprises at least four steps, specifically i) production of pure cultures or mother cultures of at least one of the species of arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi…iv.) preparation of a biofertilizer that includes just one or an equal-parts mixture of each the of the respective multi-spore cultures of the species of arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi produced in the previous step (page 1, Abstract). Drumonde teaches the biofertilizer is presented as a solid substrate comprises 5 species of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (EMA) namely: Cetraspora sp.; Claroideoglomus etunicatum; Funneliformis mosseae; Rhizophagus sp.; and Gigaspora sp. (pages 1 and 2, Scope of the Invention; page 6, Detailed Description of the Invention).
Finding a prima facie obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ren et al., Zorner et al. and Drumonde and use Claroideoglomus sp. or Claroideoglomus etunicatum as the one or more fungal species in the composition, a claimed in claim 3. Ren et al. teach a seedling matrix containing arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, wherein the matrix containing arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi is composed of organic matrix, inorganic matrix and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi strain encapsulated by capsule. Ren et al. teach the organic matrix is compost fermentation product comprising a lactic bacterial fermentation; the inorganic matrix is perlite and vermiculite. Zorner et al. teach “mycorrhizal fungi” includes any species of fungus that forms a non-parasitic mycorrhizal relationship with a plant's roots. The fungi can be ectomycorrhizal fungi and/or endomycorrhizal fungi, including subtypes thereof (e.g., arbuscular, ericoid, and orchid mycorrhizae). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use any mycorrhizal fungal species, such as Claroideoglomus etunicatum because Ren et al. teach the invention is suitable for all arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, not limited to Rhizophagusirregularis. Drumonde teaches the biofertilizer is presented as a solid substrate comprises 5 species of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (EMA) namely: Cetraspora sp.; Claroideoglomus etunicatum; Funneliformis mosseae; Rhizophagus sp.; and Gigaspora sp. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to use known ectomycorrhizal fungi that are used to formulate biofertilizers, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 [R-6] KSR International CO. v. Teleflex lnc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ren et al., Zorner et al., and Drumonde and use a combination of fungal species comprising (i) Rhizophagus sp., Rhizophagus irregularis, Rhizophagus aggegatus, and/or Rhizophagus clarus, and (ii) Claroideoglomus sp. or Claroideoglomus etunicatum. Ren et al. disclose the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi is heteromorphic root cyst mildew (Rhizophagusirregularis). Ren et al. also teach the invention is suitable for all arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, not limited to Rhizophagusirregularis. Zorner et al. teach “mycorrhizal fungi” includes any species of fungus that forms a non-parasitic mycorrhizal relationship with a plant's roots. The fungi can be ectomycorrhizal fungi and/or endomycorrhizal fungi, including Rhizophagus spp. (R. irregularis). Drumonde teaches the biofertilizer is presented as a solid substrate comprises 5 species of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (EMA) namely: Cetraspora sp.; Claroideoglomus etunicatum; Funneliformis mosseae; Rhizophagus sp.; and Gigaspora sp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine known ectomycorrhizal fungi because the combination of ectomycorrhizal is known in the art as taught by Drumonde, a composition comprising Claroideoglomus etunicatum and Rhizophagus sp. In addition, in view of In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069 (C.C.P.A. 1980), it is prima facie obvious to combine two or more compositions each of which is taught by prior art to be useful for the same purpose in order to form a third composition that is to be used for the very same purpose. The idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in prior art, thus claims that requires no more than mixing together two or three ectomycorrhizal fungal species set forth prima facie obvious subject matter.
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andriae M Holt whose telephone number is (571)272-9328. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am-4:30 pm 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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/ANDRIAE M HOLT/Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614