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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the reply filed 01/22/2026. No claims were amended. The amendment was accompanied by Remarks, the contents of which are addressed in the Response to Arguments section of this Office action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17, 52 and 55 are allowed.
Claims 46-51, 54 and 57 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 18, 35 and certain claims depending therefrom recite intended use language in the claims’ preambles, as well as functional language throughout the claims, including (but not limited to) “adapted to”, “connectable”, “rollable” and “sterilizable”. Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
In the rejection below, the Examiner has provided an explanation of the functional language and how the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus, as instructed in Schreiber and MPEP 2114.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 18-24, 27, 29, 30, 33-41, 44, 53 and 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bell et al (U.S. Pat. 6,247,211, hereinafter “Bell”).
Regarding claim 18, Bell discloses a device 2 (see Figs. 4-5) connectable between an IV stand and an IV tube 24 (this limitation “connectable between…” recites intended use; see explanation below) adapted to deliver fluid content contained in an IV bag provided on the IV stand and a patient (this limitation also recites intended use of an unclaimed feature [i.e., the IV tube]; the IV tube disclosed in Bell would be able to deliver fluid content from an IV bag on an IV stand to a patient if such components were present, which is not required by the invention of claim 18), a proximal end of the IV tube connected to the IV bag (this limitation recites the IV tube functionally, i.e., the device should be connectable to an IV tube that is connected to an IV bag, but does not impart structure to the claimed device itself), a distal end of the IV tube connectable to the patient (this limitation recites the IV tube functionally, i.e., the IV tube is able to connect to a patient, but this use does not impart structure to the claimed device itself), the device comprising:
an elastic suspension tether 42 (see Figs. 1-5 and explanation that follows) formed of an elastic fabric strap (see col. 5, lines 2-3, disclosing that the strap 42 shown in Figs. 4-5 is “a plastic or fabric strap tether 42”, and see col. 8, lines 11-16, disclosing that the same tether as that shown in Figs. 4-5 is “formed from a strip of elastic material”, such that the tether 42 is interpreted to be elastic) having a proximal end 40 (see Fig. 5) adapted to connect to the IV stand (the limitation “adapted to connect…” is a functional recitation, and the proximal end 40 includes a clip 4 that is to be clamped to an “article or component to facilitate suspending the medical tubing 24 in a desired orientation relative to the clip 4” [see col. 5, lines 31-35], and this clip is able to be clamped directly to the IV stand or to any component of the IV stand, or even an article of clothing that is connected to the IV stand);
and a distal end 44 (see Figs. 4-5) adapted to connect to the IV tube (the limitation “adapted to connect…” is a functional recitation, and the distal end 44 shown in Fig. 5 has a surface with adhesive 46 [see Figs. 4-5] or a hook-and-loop fastener [see Figs. 6-7], that engages with the exterior surface of the IV tube to facilitate attachment to the tubing [see col. 5, lines 8-25 and lines 52-57]) between the proximal end of the IV tube and the distal end of the IV tube (the elastic fabric strap is able to be adhered to any part of the tube, including between its proximal and distal ends) and adapted to provide elastic tactile feedback to the patient along a longitudinal axis of the elastic suspension tether (the limitation “adapted to…” recites intended use, but the strap would provide the claimed tactile feedback from the restoring force exerted by the strap on the user when pulled in the longitudinal direction).
In an alternative interpretation (hereinafter “Interpretation B”), the elastic suspension tether’s distal end is the end 40 (see Fig. 5) adapted to connect to an IV tube (see col. 3, lines 65-67, disclosing that the distal end 40 has the clip 4 to “facilitate sandwiching a desired component or item therebetween”; the “desired component” could be an IV tube) and its proximal end is the end 44 adapted to be connected to the IV stand (the end 44 could be wrapped around and adhered to an IV stand, or any component thereof, in order to connect the proximal end 44 to the IV stand).
Regarding claim 19, the limitation of the length of the elastic suspension tether being “less than a height of the IV stand and/or approximately half a length of the IV tube” recites the length of the elastic suspension tether in relation to an unclaimed feature, namely, an IV stand or an IV tube. But Bell discloses, applying either Interpretation A or Interpretation B, that the suspension tether 42 has a length of “about 6 inches” (see col. 5, lines 5-7) which is understood to be less than the height of a typical IV stand (such stands are typically 4-6 feet in height).
Regarding claim 20, the limitation of the distal end of the elastic suspension tether being “adapted to connect to the IV tube substantially half way between the distal end of the IV tube and the proximal end of the IV tube” recites a function of the tether in relation to an unclaimed feature, namely the IV tube. Applying either Interpretation A or Interpretation B, the distal end of the elastic suspension tether is understood to be able to connect anywhere along the IV tube including half way between the distal end and the proximal end of the IV tube.
Regarding 21, the limitation of the elastic suspension tether being “adapted to disconnect from the IV tube at a predetermined force” recites a functional limitation of the elastic suspension in relation to an unclaimed feature, namely the IV tube. Applying either Interpretation A or Interpretation B, the elastic suspension tether is understood to be capable of disconnecting from an IV tube at a predetermined force because the tether is attached to the IV tube by adhesive or a hook-and-loop fastener; these fastening means are not indestructible, and will give out under a predetermined pulling or tearing force applied to them.
Regarding claim 22, applying Interpretation B, the distal end 40 has the clip connector 4. The limitation “adapted to releasably connect the elastic suspension tether to the IV tube” is a functional recitation, and the clip 4 is able to be attached directly onto an IV tube.
Regarding claim 23, the limitation of the clip connector being “adapted to release the IV tube in response to a predetermined force” is a functional limitation of the clip connector; applying Interpretation B, the clip connector is able to release the IV tube when a user squeezes the two handles 14 of the clip 4 to open the clamping jaws 12 a sufficient amount (see col. 4, lines 43-48).
Regarding claim 24, Bell shows, in Figs. 4-5, that the clip connector according to Interpretation B has a circular channel that is asserted to be able to receive an IV tube (the limitation “adapted to receive the IV tube” recites a functional limitation of the connector but does not appear to impart structure limiting the size, e.g., diameter, of the channel; IV tubes are known to be manufactured with diameters down to 0.5mm).
Regarding claim 27, the limitation of “the IV stand is arranged as a rollable IV stand” recites a structural characteristic of the IV stand, which is an unclaimed feature. Applying either Interpretation A or Interpretation B, it is understood that the device of Bell is able to be connected to an IV stand regardless of whether it is rollable or not.
Regarding claims 29, 30, 33 and 34, the limitations of the distal end of the elastic suspension tether being “adapted to connect to an attachment device pre- assembled with the IV tube at a predetermined fixed location along a length of the IV tube” (claim 29), “the attachment device includes a channel, the IV tube being received in the channel” (claim 30), “the attachment device includes a first body portion and a second body portion fixed to the first body portion, the IV tube being provided between the first body portion and the second body portion” (claim 33), and “the attachment device includes an aperture adapted to engage a connector provided at the distal end of the elastic suspension tether” (claim 34) recite functional limitations of the elastic suspension tether in relation to an unclaimed feature (i.e., an attachment device pre-assembled with the unclaimed IV tube); in this case, applying either Interpretation A or Interpretation B, either end of the elastic suspension tether is able to be connected to an unclaimed attachment device pre-assembled with an unclaimed IV tube (for example, an attachment device such as a channel is able to be captured by either end of the elastic suspension tether).
Regarding claim 35, Bell discloses an IV fluid delivery system, comprising
an IV tube 24 adapted to deliver fluid content contained in the IV bag to the patient (the limitation of the proximal end of the IV tube connectable to an IV bag provided on an IV stand, and the distal end of the IV tube connectable to a patient recite a functional limitation of the IV tube that does not impart a structural feature since the IV bag and patient are both unclaimed features; the IV tube 24 in Bell can connect on a proximal end to an IV bag on an IV stand and to a patient at the distal end);
an elastic suspension tether 42 (see Figs. 1-5 and explanation that follows) formed of an elastic fabric strap (see col. 5, lines 2-3, disclosing that the strap 42 shown in Figs. 4-5 is “a plastic or fabric strap tether 42”, and see col. 8, lines 11-16, disclosing that the same tether as that shown in Figs. 4-5 is “formed from a strip of elastic material”, such that the tether 42 is interpreted to be elastic) having a proximal end 40 (see Fig. 5) adapted to connect to the IV stand (the limitation “adapted to connect…” is a functional recitation, and the proximal end 40 includes a clip 4 that is to be clamped to an “article or component to facilitate suspending the medical tubing 24 in a desired orientation relative to the clip 4” [see col. 5, lines 31-35], and this clip is able to be clamped directly to the IV stand or to any component of the IV stand, or even an article of clothing that is connected to the IV stand);
and a distal end 44 (see Figs. 4-5) adapted to connect to the IV tube (the limitation “adapted to connect…” is a functional recitation, and the distal end 44 shown in Fig. 5 has a surface with adhesive 46 [see Figs. 4-5] or a hook-and-loop fastener [see Figs. 6-7], that engages with the exterior surface of the IV tube to facilitate attachment to the tubing [see col. 5, lines 8-25 and lines 52-57]) between the proximal end of the IV tube and the distal end of the IV tube (the elastic fabric strap is able to be adhered to any part of the tube, including between its proximal and distal ends) and adapted to provide elastic tactile feedback to the patient along a longitudinal axis of the elastic suspension tether (the limitation “adapted to…” recites intended use, but the strap would provide the claimed tactile feedback from the restoring force exerted by the strap on the user when pulled in the longitudinal direction).
In an alternative interpretation (“Interpretation B”), the elastic suspension tether’s distal end is the end 40 (see Fig. 5) adapted to connect to an IV tube (see col. 3, lines 65-67, disclosing that the distal end 40 has the clip 4 to “facilitate sandwiching a desired component or item therebetween”; the “desired component” could be an IV tube) and its proximal end is the end 44 adapted to be connected to the IV stand (the end 44 could be wrapped around and adhered to an IV stand, or any component thereof, in order to connect the proximal end 44 to the IV stand).
Regarding claim 36, the limitation of the length of the elastic suspension tether being “less than a height of the IV stand and/or approximately half a length of the IV tube” recites the length of the elastic suspension tether in relation to an unclaimed feature, namely, an IV stand or an IV tube. But Bell discloses, applying either Interpretation A or Interpretation B, that the suspension tether 42 has a length of “about 6 inches” (see col. 5, lines 5-7) which is understood to be less than the height of a typical IV stand (such stands are typically 4-6 feet in height).
Regarding claim 37, the limitation of the distal end of the elastic suspension tether being “adapted to connect to the IV tube substantially half way between the distal end of the IV tube and the proximal end of the IV tube” recites a function of the tether in relation to an unclaimed feature, namely the IV tube. Applying either Interpretation A or Interpretation B, the distal end of the elastic suspension tether is understood to be able to connect anywhere along the IV tube including half way between the distal end and the proximal end of the IV tube.
Regarding 38, the limitation of the elastic suspension tether being “adapted to disconnect from the IV tube at a predetermined force” recites a functional limitation of the elastic suspension in relation to an unclaimed feature, namely the IV tube. Applying either Interpretation A or Interpretation B, the elastic suspension tether is understood to be capable of disconnecting from an IV tube at a predetermined force because the tether is attached to the IV tube by adhesive or a hook-and-loop fastener; these fastening means are not indestructible, and will give out under a predetermined pulling or tearing force applied to them.
Regarding claim 39, applying Interpretation B, the distal end 40 has the clip connector 4. The limitation “adapted to releasably connect the elastic suspension tether to the IV tube” is a functional recitation, and the clip 4 is able to be attached directly onto an IV tube.
Regarding claim 40, the limitation of the clip connector being “adapted to release the IV tube in response to a predetermined force” is a functional limitation of the clip connector; in this case, applying Interpretation B, the clip connector is able to release the IV tube when a user squeezes the two handles 14 of the clip 4 to open the clamping jaws 12 a sufficient amount (see col. 4, lines 43-48).
Regarding claim 41, Bell shows, in Figs. 4-5, that the clip connector according to Interpretation B has a circular channel that is asserted to be able to receive an IV tube (the limitation “adapted to receive the IV tube” recites a functional limitation of the connector but does not appear to impart structure limiting the size, e.g., diameter, of the channel; IV tubes are known to be manufactured with diameters down to 0.5mm).
Regarding claim 44, the limitation of “the IV stand is arranged as a rollable IV stand” recites a characteristic of the IV stand, which is an unclaimed feature. In this case, applying either Interpretation A or Interpretation B, it is understood that the device of Bell is able to be connected to an IV stand regardless of whether it is rollable or not.
Regarding claims 53 and 56, the limitation “the distal end of the elastic suspension tether is adapted to connect to an attachment device molded to the IV tube at a predetermined fixed location approximately half way along a length of the IV tube” recites the function of the suspension tether as it relates to an unclaimed feature (the attachment device molded to the unclaimed IV tube); applying either Interpretation A or Interpretation B, it is understood that Bell would allow the tether to connect to a variety of attachment devices, including those which are molded to the IV tube at a predetermined fixed location approximately half way along a length of the tube.
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.
Claims 24, 25, 30, 31 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell in view of Anscher et al (U.S. Pat. 5,884,372, hereinafter “Anscher”).
Regarding claims 25, 30, 31 and 42, it is noted that the Bell does not appear to disclose that, applying Interpretation B, the diameter of the channel of the clip connector substantially corresponds to an outer diameter of the IV tube.
Anscher discloses that it is well-known to provide a clip connector for a tube 100 (Fig. 2) having a channel (defined by interior faces 8; see Fig. 2) in which a diameter of the tube substantially corresponds to an outer diameter of the IV tube (i.e., is the same size or smaller than the tube; as shown in Fig. 2, the tube 100 is inserted into the interior faces 8 and is held in frictional engagement since the tube is the same size or slightly larger than the channel).
A skilled artisan would have found it obvious at the time of the invention to modify the clip connector of Bell in Interpretation B, according to the teaching in Anscher, in order to provide a clip connector of a well-known type that clips tube but still allows fluid to flow therethrough (see Anscher at col. 2, lines 32-46).
Claims 26, 32 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell, in view of Anscher, further in view of Schultz (U.S. Pat. 6,813,814 B1, hereinafter “Schultz”).
Regarding claims 26, 32 and 43, it is noted that the combination of Bell (applying Interpretation B) and Anscher does not appear to disclose a rib provided within the channel and adapted to engage the IV tube.
Schultz discloses a clip in which a portion of the rib that engages the IV tube is provided with a rib, such as on a serrated region 30 (col. 4, lines 49-63).
A skilled artisan would have found it obvious at the time of the invention to modify the clip, as disclosed in the combination of Bell (applying Interpretation B)and Anscher, to be provided with a rib as taught in Schultz, in order to aid gripping of the tube (see Schultz at col. 4, lines 60-63).
Claims 28 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell in view of Mullet et al (U.S. Pat. 8,597,254 B1, hereinafter “Mullet”).
Regarding claims 11, 28 and 45, it is noted that Bell does not appear to disclose, in either Interpretation A or Interpretation B, that the elastic suspension tether is formed of a sterilizable and/or antimicrobial material.
However, Mullet teaches that it was known to provide a cord with a covering that may be formed of a sterilizable and/or antimicrobial material, or a flexible material having such properties. For instance, Mullet teaches a sleeve being wipeable, sterilizable, and anti-microbial (see col. 5, line 62 to col. 6, line 19).
A skilled artisan would have found it obvious at the time of the invention to modify the tether of Bell to be made of a material having the properties disclosed in Mullet, in either Interpretation A or Interpretation B, in order to reduce contamination during use of the tether.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in Remarks on 01/22/2026 (hereinafter "Remarks") have been fully considered.
Rejection of Claims 18 to 24, 27, 29, 30, 33 to 41, 44, 53, and 56 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
Applicant argued that “there is no specific relationship described by Bell between the ‘second embodiment’ shown in Figs. 4 and 5 of Bell and claim 9 of Bell” (see Remarks, pg. 10), asserting that the Office improperly combined “disparate features” of Bell in a manner analogous to an impermissible combination of embodiments that cannot support anticipation (see Remarks, pg. 11). This argument is unpersuasive. The Examiner maintains that claim 9 specifically covers the embodiment shown in Figures 4–5.
Figs. 4–5 disclose all structural features of claim 1 of Bell, upon which claim 9 depends, including a tether with proximal and distal ends, a first attachment mechanism adjacent the proximal end, and a distal end portion having a substantially helically shaped configuration (see Fig. 5, specifically). Although Bell does not expressly illustrate the inherent resiliency of the helical configuration, such resiliency need not be depicted for a person of ordinary skill to understand the invention.
With respect to claim 9, Figs. 4–5 are the only figures that disclose an adhesive layer secured to an inwardly facing surface of an elastic strip to support a medical tube. Figs. 1-3 lack adhesive, Figures 6-9 disclose hook-and-loop fasteners, and Fig. 10 is a generic schematic with a standalone anchor.
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s argument that claim 9 is silent as to whether the entire tether is elastic (see Remarks, pgs. 12-13). However, Bell contains no disclosure or suggestion that its tether is formed from multiple materials such that only the distal end is elastic. In any event, Applicant’s claims do not require elasticity along the entire length of the tether; even if Bell were limited to an elastic distal end (which it is not), Bell would still anticipate the claimed “elastic suspension tether.”
Rejection of Claims 24, 25, 30, 31, and 42 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant argued that claims 24, 25, 30, 31, and 42 are allowable based on their dependence from claims 18 and 35 (see Remarks, pg. 14). Applicant also argued that Anscher is not analogous art (see Remarks, pgs. 14-16). It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor's endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, although Appellant does not describe the particular problem solved by the claimed invention vis-à-vis the clip connector including a channel adapted to receive the tube, the particular problem appears to be the possibility of a clip connector for a tube that cannot reliably remain in place without obstructing fluid flow in the tube.
Applicant argued that the above-identified problem with which the Applicant was concerned, contained "no evidence, substantial or otherwise" cited in support thereof (see Remarks, pg. 16). But Applicant's disclosure states (see pg. 8, line 19 to 29):
As illustrated in Figures 4A to 4D, the inner surfaces of the jaw portions 29 of the clamshell portions 22, 24 include one or more longitudinal channels 30, which are adapted to receive a respective IV tube 4.Channels 30 may be formed with their longitudinal axes parallel to the axis of rotation of the hinge 26 and may be semicircular or semi-elliptical in cross-section. The channels 30 are aligned with channels on the opposing jaw portion 29 of the clamshell release clip 20 so as to form an enclosed channel within the clip 20 to receive the IV tube 4. The diameter of the channels 30 and thus of the enclosed channel may be approximately equal to the outside diameter of the intended IV tubing so as not to reduce the lumen cross section of the tube 4 and thereby impede fluid flow through the tube and to the patient when the jaws of the release clip 20 are closed [emphasis added]. Proper selection of the spring constant of the torsion spring can accommodate oversized tubing without constricting flow through the lumen.
The reference of Anscher is at least reasonably pertinent to this particular problem, because Anscher discloses that it is well-known to provide a clip connector for a tube 100 (Fig. 2) having a channel (defined by interior faces 8; see Fig. 2) in which a diameter of the tube substantially corresponds to an outer diameter of the IV tube (i.e., the same size or smaller than the tube; as shown in Fig. 2, the tube 100 is inserted into the interior faces 8 and is held in frictional engagement since the tube is the same size or slightly larger than the channel). The purpose of such structure is to clip the tube while still allowing fluid flow therethrough (see Anscher at col. 2, lines 32-46).
Rejection of Claims 26, 32, and 43 Under 35 U.S.C. & 103
Applicant argued that claims 26, 32, and 43 are allowable based on their dependence from claims 18 and 35 (see Remarks, pgs. 17-18).
Rejection of Claims 28 and 45 Under 35 U.S.C. & 103
Applicant argued that claims 28 and 45 are allowable based on their dependence from claims 18 and 35 (see Remarks, pg. 18).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SCOTT J MEDWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3656. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at (571) 270-1744. 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.
/SCOTT J MEDWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 02/09/2026