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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment of 1 December 2025, in which claims 11, 13 have been amended, and claims 23, 24 have been cancelled, is acknowledged.
Claims 5-8, 11-13, 19, 21-22 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 21-22 are withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claims 5-8, 11-13, 19 are being examined on their merits herein.
Response to arguments of 1 December 2025
In view of Applicant’s amendment of 1 December 2025, all the rejections to claims 23, 24 are herein withdrawn. Claims 23, 24 have been cancelled.
In view of Applicant’s amendment of 1 December 2025, the objections to claims 11, 13 are herein withdrawn. Applicant has clarified/corrected the claim language.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks of 1 December 2025, pages 4-6) against the rejection of claims 5-8, 11-13, 19, 23, 24 under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 over Nissen, in view of Dibner and Koyuncu, have been considered.
Applicant argues that none of the cited references disclose that CaHMB is in the form of a powder that is coated on pet food. Nissen emphasizes that HMB should be mixed uniformly in feed.
Applicant argues (page 5) that a powdered coating is not an obvious variant because it is not expected to interact with the feed except the surface. Applicant argues that animal feed can be contaminated not only by the environment of the facility where the food is subjected to the extrusion process, but it also can be contaminated from the initial ingredients used to make the feed. If the feed pellets contain Salmonella within the pellets rather than on the surface of the pellet, then one of skill in the art would have presumed that any antimicrobial treatment would be required to be uniformly mixed within the pellet rather than used as a mere surface treatment. Applicant argues that by the time the CaHMB would interact with the feed, during the chewing and digestion, the CaHMB would be expected to be separated upon ingestion.
In response, the instant Specification tests the effectiveness of CaHMB against surface contamination with Salmonella. Inoculation of Salmonella to coated kibble is performed by spray application (page 11). That means that contamination with Salmonella will occur at the surface of the kibble where the CaHMB coating was applied, and not below the surface of the kibble (it is not contamination from the initial ingredients used to make the feed, as Applicant has argued). Applicant has conducted antimicrobial tests for postextrusion contamination that occurs at the surface of the kibble where the CaHMB coating was applied; and showed antimicrobial efficacy against Salmonella.
Dibner teaches that many organic acids are effective as feed preservatives, and are used for their antimicrobial activity in animal feed. Nissen teaches that HMB and CaHMB can be mixed/blended in the animal feed, while Applicant claims that CaHMB is coated on the animal feed/pet food. The instant CaHMB is expected to have antimicrobial properties. Applicant has stated in the Specification that better antimicrobial properties are achieved, yet no data are shown.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks of 1 December 2025, page 6) against the rejection of claims 5-8, 11-13, 19, 23, 24 under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 over Nissen, in view of Westermarck, Dibner and Koyuncu, have been considered.
Applicant argues that Westermarck fails to teach, suggest or provide any reason for method wherein CaHMB is in the form of powder coated on pet food. Westermarck teaches 2-hydroxy-3-methyl butyric acid mixed with fermented fish meal or other meal/blended, not as a coating.
In response, Westermarck is used in the rejection for the teaching that 2-hydroxy-3-methyl butyric acid, which is an isomer 2-OH vs. 3-OH of 3-hydroxy-3-methyl butyric acid of the instant application, has antimicrobial activity: it inhibits the growth of E. coli and S. aureus (column 4, lines 14-17), and it inhibits the growth of a number of bacteria strains (column 4, lines 18-29). Westermarck teaches (Example 5, column 5, lines 63-67, column 6, lines 1-17) that 2-hydroxy-3-methyl butyric acid at 0.03, 0.1 and 0.3% inhibits the growth of Salmonella infantis bacterium (representing the genus of Salmonella). Westermarck clearly teaches that 2-hydroxy-3-methyl butyric acid is effective to eliminate Salmonella growth.
These teachings in Westermarck are clearly related to evaluating antimicrobial activity of an isomer 2-OH vs. 3-OH of 3-hydroxy-3-methyl butyric acid of the instant application, in animal feed.
Regarding the establishment of unexpected results, a few notable principles are well settled. It is applicant’s burden to explain any proffered data and establish how any results therein should be taken to be unexpected and significant. See MPEP 716.02 (b). The claims must be commensurate in the scope with any evidence of unexpected results. See MPEP 716.02 (d). Further, A DECLARATION UNDER 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art in order to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. See, MPEP 716.02 (e). In this case, Applicant has not shown unexpectedly better antimicrobial activity with 3-hydroxy-3-methyl butyric acid (of the instant application) versus 2-hydroxy-3-methyl butyric acid (Westermarck) against Salmonella.
In the absence of such showing, the rejection is herein maintained and is reproduced below.
Applicant’s amendment of 1 December 2025 necessitated the following modified rejections below.
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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 5-8, 11-13, 19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nissen (U.S. 5,087,472 of 11 February 1992, cited in IDS), in view of Dibner et al. (J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2002, 11, 453-463, cited in PTO-892 of 20 February 2018) and Koyuncu et al. (BMC Veterinary Research 2013, 9 (81), 1-9, cited in PTO-892 of 20 February 2018).
Nissen (U.S. 5,087,472) teaches feed compositions for domestic animals (Title) comprising b-hydroxy-b-methylbutyric acid (HMB).
Nissen defines HMB to be HMB acid or the preferred edible water-soluble Ca-HMB salt (column 3, lines 12-41), which is CaHMB of the instant claims. Nissen explains (column 3, lines 28-41) that Ca-HMB is particularly desirable because it is dry, non-sticky and finely divided (thus powder, as in instant claim 5) for blending with feed materials. Thus, Nissen teaches that CaHMB powder is an additive to animal feed, as in the instant claims.
While Nissen does not specifically teach CaHMB as additive to pet food, as in the instant claims, the genus of feed compositions for domestic animals taught by Nissen includes pet food.
Nissen teaches mixing the b-hydroxy-b-methylbutyric acid (HMB) salt with the dry feed ingredients to a predetermined concentration (column 3, lines 61-65, column 4, lines 46-50). Nissen teaches that the amount of HMB in the feed composition is 0.001 to 0.5% (column 4, lines 10-15). Nissen exemplifies animal feed containing 0.5% CaHMB (Example 3), and teaches (column 4, line 30-31) that greater concentration of HMB in animal feed may be required.
Nissen teaches that HMB is mixed into the foodstuff (column 3, lines 61-67); the feed material can be converted into pellets (column 3, lines 65-67)/ dry kibble, as in instant claims 7, 12.
Nissen teaches adding b-hydroxy-b-methylbutyric acid (HMB) as CaHMB to the foodstuff, wherein the foodstuff is livestock feed or poultry feed (feed material given to cattle, sheep, chickens, turkeys, column 4, lines 48-49).
Nissen does not teach a method of eliminating and/or preventing microbial growth in pet food with additive CaHMB present at 0.9% to 1.5% of the pet food, as in instant claims 5-8, nor does he teach a method of preventing and/or eliminating a microbial contaminant of pet food, as in the instant claims, wherein such contaminant is Salmonella, as in instant claims 6, 19, nor does he teach the method, wherein challenge of the animal feed with a microbial contaminant results in the reduction of the microbial contaminant to below detectable limits within at least fourteen days from the challenge with the microbial contaminant, as in the instant claims.
Nissen does not teach that the CaHMB is adhered to the feed/dry kibble (feed pellet) to form coated feed/coated kibble, as in instant claims 1, 8, 11, 13.
Dibner et al. (J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2002, 11, 453-463) teaches (page 454, right column, second paragraph) that many organic acids are effective as feed preservatives, and are used for their antimicrobial activity in animal feed (page 454, right column, third paragraph).
Dibner teaches (page 454, left column, under Introduction) that organic acids associated with specific antimicrobial activity are short-chain (C1-C7) acids, and are monocarboxylic acids such as, for example, butyric acid, or are carboxylic acids bearing a hydroxyl group (such as, for example, lactic acid). Dibner teaches (page 454, left column, first paragraph under Introduction, last 4 lines) that most organic acids with antimicrobial activity have a pKa between 3 and 5 (specific examples in Table 1, page 455).
Dibener teaches (page 461, first paragraph) that reductions in bacteria are associated with feeding organic acids, which are particularly effective against acid-intolerant species such as E. coli, Salmonella or Campylobacter.
Koyuncu et al. (BMC Veterinary Research 2013, 9 (81), 1-9) teaches organic acids for control of Salmonella in different feed materials. Koyuncu teaches (page 2, left column, second paragraph) that short-chain organic acids have been found to be effective against Salmonella in feed. Koyuncu establishes a protocol to test a number of organic acids (formic, propionic, and salts thereof) for their effectiveness in controlling different strains of Salmonella (Figure 3) in different types of feed (pelleted feed, rape seed meal, soybean meal, Figure 1, Figure 2).
Koyuncu teaches (Figure 2) that a significant effect of acid concentration was observed on Salmonella survival in animal feed materials. Koyuncu tests (Figure 2) formic and propionic acids at 0.9% and 1.5% concentration, respectively, which is the very concentration range in the instant claims, and finds better antimicrobial effect against Salmonella with the more concentrated acid solutions (1.5%).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Nissen and Dibner to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to evaluate CaHMB for its ability to reduce microbial growth/reduce a microbial contaminant in the feed compositions for domestic animals, which include pet food, taught by Nissen, because Dibner teaches that organic acids associated with specific antimicrobial activity are short-chain (C1-C7) acids, monocarboxylic and/or bearing a hydroxyl group, and Dibner also teaches that most organic acids with antimicrobial activity have a pKa between 3 and 5. Thus, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have evaluated b-hydroxy-b-methylbutyric acid (HMB), a short chain carboxylic acid that has a pKa between 3 and 5, and is structurally similar to butyric acid and lactic acid (both of which are known to have antimicrobial properties), for antimicrobial activity in animal feed, foodstuff, or pet food, with the expectation that HMB or its water soluble salt CaHMB is effective in reducing microbial growth in animal feed, foodstuff, or pet food.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have tested the antimicrobial properties of HMB in pet food, or would have tested it in foodstuff/pet food kibble coated with CaHMB, as in the instant claims (coated kibble in instant claims 8, 13), because adding CaHMB to pet food, or adding CaHMB as a coating (as opposed to mixing it with other ingredients) on the foodstuff/pet food, are obvious variants of preparing feed formulations of CaHMB.
With respect to claims 6, 19, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to evaluate b-hydroxy-b-methylbutyric acid (HMB) or its Ca salt as antimicrobial against Salmonella in animal feed/foodstuff/pet food, because Dibner teaches that short-chain (C1-C7) carboxylic acids have antimicrobial activity, and Koyuncu teaches short-chain organic acids for control of Salmonella in different feed materials. Thus, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have evaluated b-hydroxy-b-methylbutyric acid (HMB), which is a short-chain carboxylic acid, for antimicrobial activity against Salmonella in animal feed such as livestock feed or poultry feed, with the expectation that HMB is effective in mitigating Salmonella in foodstuff.
Further, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have explored different concentrations of HMB or its Ca salt in the animal feed within the concentrations taught by Koyuncu 0.9% to 1.5%, in a method of preventing or reducing microbial contamination such as Salmonella contamination, with the expectation that the higher concentration of HMB or its Ca salt will result in better antimicrobial activity against Salmonella.
Further, determining the amount of the antimicrobial HMB on the foodstuff and optimizing the time of contact of the antimicrobial with the foodstuff, in order to achieve elimination of microbial growth as 100% reduction of microbes/Salmonella or as killing of all the microbes/killing of the microbes below the level of detection, is part of a routine optimization and is within the skill of the artisan.
As such, claims 5-8, 11-13, 19 are rejected as prima facie obvious.
Claims 5-8, 11-13, 19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nissen (U.S. 5,087,472 of 11 February 1992, cited in IDS), in view of Westermarck et al. (US 6,203,835 of 20 March 2001, cited in PTO-892), Dibner et al. (J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2002, 11, 453-463, cited in PTO-892 of 20 February 2018) and Koyuncu et al. (BMC Veterinary Research 2013, 9 (81), 1-9, cited in PTO-892 of 20 February 2018).
Nissen (U.S. 5,087,472) teaches feed compositions for domestic animals (Title) comprising b-hydroxy-b-methylbutyric acid (HMB).
Nissen defines HMB to be HMB acid or the preferred edible water-soluble Ca-HMB salt (column 3, lines 12-41), which is CaHMB of the instant claims. Nissen explains (column 3, lines 28-41) that Ca-HMB is particularly desirable because it is dry, non-sticky and finely divided (thus powder, as in instant claim 5) for blending with feed materials. Thus, Nissen teaches that CaHMB powder is an additive to animal feed, as in the instant claims.
While Nissen does not specifically teach CaHMB as additive to pet food, as in the instant claims, the genus of feed compositions for domestic animals taught by Nissen includes pet food.
Nissen teaches mixing the b-hydroxy-b-methylbutyric acid (HMB) salt with the dry feed ingredients to a predetermined concentration (column 3, lines 61-65, column 4, lines 46-50). Nissen teaches that the amount of HMB in the feed composition is 0.001 to 0.5% (column 4, lines 10-15). Nissen exemplifies animal feed containing 0.5% CaHMB (Example 3), and teaches (column 4, line 30-31) that greater concentration of MHB in animal feed may be required.
Nissen teaches that HMB is mixed into the foodstuff (column 3, lines 61-67); the feed material can be converted into pellets (column 3, lines 65-67)/ dry kibble, as in instant claims 7, 12.
Nissen teaches adding b-hydroxy-b-methylbutyric acid (HMB) as CaHMB to the foodstuff, wherein the foodstuff is livestock feed or poultry feed (feed material given to cattle, sheep, chickens, turkeys, column 4, lines 48-49).
Nissen does not teach a method of eliminating and/or preventing microbial growth in pet food with additive CaHMB present at 0.9% to 1.5% of the pet food, as in instant claims 5-8, nor does he teach a method of preventing and/or eliminating a microbial contaminant of pet food, as in the instant claims, wherein such contaminant is Salmonella, as in instant claims 6, 19, nor does he teach the method, wherein challenge of the animal feed with a microbial contaminant results in the reduction of the microbial contaminant to below detectable limits within at least fourteen days from the challenge with the microbial contaminant, as in the instant claims.
Nissen does not teach that the CaHMB is adhered to the dry feed/kibble (feed pellet) to form coated feed/coated kibble, as in instant claims (coated kibble in instant claims 8, 13).
Westermarck (US 6,203,835) teaches 2-hydroxy-3-methyl butyric acid has antimicrobial activity: it inhibits the growth of E. coli and S. aureus (column 4, lines 14-17), and it inhibits the growth of a number of bacteria strains (column 4, lines 18-29).
2-hydroxy-3-methyl butyric acid is an isomer 2-OH vs. 3-OH of 3-hydroxy-3-methyl butyric acid of the instant application.
Westermarck teaches (Example 5, column 5, lines 63-67, column 6, lines 1-17) that 2-hydroxy-3-methyl butyric acid (HMB) at 0.03, 0.1 and 0.3% inhibits the growth of Salmonella infantis bacterium (representing the genus of Salmonella).
Westermarck teaches (Example 5, column 6, lines 8-17) that 2-hydroxy-3-methyl butyric acid (HMB) clearly inhibits the growth of Salmonella infantis bacterium at as low a level as 0.1% hydroxyl acid concentration. Westermarck teaches that the results prove that the hydroxyl acid used in this example and other acids of comparable structure are feasible alternatives as Salmonella contaminations inhibiting additives in animal feeds (column 6, lines 13-17).
Westermarck teaches that 2-hydroxy-3-methyl butyric acid has pKa = 3.80 (column 3, lines 48-51).
Dibner and Koyuncu are as above.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Nissen and Westermarck to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to evaluate b-hydroxy-b-methylbutyric acid (HMB, alternative name 3-hydroxy-3-methyl butyric acid) for its ability to reduce microbial growth/reduce a microbial contaminant in the feed compositions for domestic animals, which include pet food, taught by Nissen, because Westermarck teaches 2-hydroxy-3-methyl butyric acid, which is a positional isomer 2-OH vs. 3-OH of instant HMB, has antimicrobial properties against E. coli, S. aureus and Salmonella infantis bacteria and is useful to inhibit contaminations in animal feeds. Thus, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have tested HMB or its calcium salt CaHMB for antimicrobial activity, with the expectation of seeing therapeutic effect.
Further, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to evaluate b-hydroxy-b-methylbutyric acid for its ability to reduce microbial growth/reduce a microbial contaminant in pet food, because Nissen teaches CaHMB as an additive to animal feed, which includes pet food, Dibner teaches that organic acids associated with specific antimicrobial activity are short-chain (C1-C7) acids, monocarboxylic and/or bearing a hydroxyl group, and have a pKa between 3 and 5, and Westermarck teaches that 2-hydroxy-3-methyl butyric acid, which is a positional isomer 2-OH vs. 3-OH of instant HMB, has antimicrobial properties and has a pKa = 3.8. Thus, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have evaluated b-hydroxy-b-methylbutyric acid (HMB), a short chain carboxylic acid that has a pKa around 3.8, and is a positional isomer 3-OH vs. 2-OH of antimicrobial 2-hydroxy-3-methyl butyric acid, for antimicrobial activity in animal feed, or foodstuff, with the expectation that HMB is effective in reducing microbial growth in animal feed, or foodstuff.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have tested the antimicrobial properties of HMB in pet food, or would have tested it in foodstuff/pet food/kibble coated with CaHMB, as in the instant claims, because adding HMB as CaHMB to pet food, or adding CaHMB as a coating (as opposed to mixing it with other ingredients) on the foodstuff/pet food/kibble, are obvious variants of preparing feed formulations of HMB.
With respect to claims 6, 19, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to evaluate b-hydroxy-b-methylbutyric acid (HMB) or its Ca salt as antimicrobial against Salmonella in animal feed/foodstuff/pet food, because Dibner teaches that short-chain (C1-C7) carboxylic acids have antimicrobial activity, and Koyuncu teaches short-chain organic acids for control of Salmonella in different feed materials. Thus, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have evaluated b-hydroxy-b-methylbutyric acid (HMB), which is a short-chain carboxylic acid, for antimicrobial activity against Salmonella in animal feed, with the expectation that HMB is effective in mitigating Salmonella in foodstuff.
Further, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have explored different concentrations of HMB or its Ca salt in the animal feed within the concentrations taught by Koyuncu 0.9% to 1.5%, in a method of preventing or reducing microbial contamination such as Salmonella contamination, with the expectation that the higher concentration of HMB or its Ca salt will result in better antimicrobial activity against Salmonella.
Further, determining the amount of the antimicrobial HMB on the foodstuff and optimizing the time of contact of the antimicrobial with the foodstuff, in order to achieve elimination of microbial growth as 100% reduction of microbes/Salmonella or as killing of all the microbes/killing of the microbes below the level of detection, is part of a routine optimization and is within the skill of the artisan.
The compound of the instant application and the compound taught by Westermarck are related to each other as positional isomers. Positional isomers having 2-OH (in Westermarck) and 3-OH (in instant application) substituents on 3-methyl butyric acid are prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results. See In re Norris, 179 F.2d 970, 84 U.S.P.Q. 458 (C.C.P.A. 1970). In the absence of unexpected results, stereoisomers are considered obvious variants of each other. "Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties". In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977).
As such, claims 5-8, 11-13, 19 are rejected as prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
Claims 5-8, 11-13, 19 are rejected.
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 IRINA NEAGU whose telephone number is (571)270-5908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, JEFFREY S. LUNDGREN can be reached on (571) 272-5541. 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.
/IRINA NEAGU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1629