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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1-12 and 16-22 remain rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ducker WO 2018/112229, Mu KR 20220042362, and Turner et al. US 2004/0131820. Applicant argues Ducker, Mu, and Turner fail to disclose or suggest the specific combination of features recited in claim 1. For example, Ducker, Mu, and Turner fail to disclose or suggest an absorbent article having “a liquid-permeable nonwoven topsheet…basis weight of at least 50 gsm, wherein the topsheet is not a laminate and is not apertures” as in claim 1. Applicant argues Turner describes webs, e.g. nonwoven webs, useful as topsheets, where the web have a basis weight from 10 gsm to 500 gsm but include discontinuities 16, or apertures, on a second web surface 14 opposite deformations 6. Applicant recreated Figures 1 and 2 for support of the arguments. Applicant further argues the Office alleges that Turner’s discontinuities ‘may be’ or ‘appear as’ apertures (this wording is actually used in Turner in para. 0051) but that “Turner does not teach the method of making web 1 requires openings, slits, cuts, or apertures.” Applicant argues this is expressly contradicted by at least Turner’s para. 0044. Applicant emphasizes the passage in para. 0044 that reads “it is recognized that a certain percentage of fibers urged out of the plane of the first surface 12 of the precursor web 20 will not form a loop, but instead will break and form loose ends”. Such fibers are referred to herein as “loose” or “broken” fibers 18 as shown in Fig. 3 (Applicant also reproduced Fig. 3 in the remarks for support). Applicant argues the ‘loose’ or ‘broken’ fibers 18 constitute apertures or openings that extend through Turner’s web 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument that the loose fibers 18 constitute apertures. In Fig. 3 of Turner, the loose fibers 18 are shown , but the discontinuities 16 also comprise looped fibers 8 which form a closed loop as shown in Figures 3, 5, and 6). Turner teaches the loose fibers end 18 can also be the result of forming deformations 6 from nonwoven web consisting of or containing cut staple fibers. Loose fiber ends 18 are not necessarily undesirable for the present invention, but it is believed that web 1 can retain its bulky and soft character more readily when deformation 6 comprises primarily looped fibers 8 (para. 0044). There is no teaching or suggestion of the loose fiber ends creating apertures in the discontinuities 16.
Applicant argues that Turner also explains at para. 0059-0060 that the teeth of the apparatus used to manufacture Turner’s web “push, or ‘punch’ through” the web “as opposed to, in essence embossing the web.” Accordingly, Turner’s discontinuities 16 do not merely “appear as” apertures – at least a portion of discontinuities 16 do not form a loop and instead form broken fibers corresponding to apertures in the web 1. The paragraphs 0059-0060 of Turner teach the apparatus 100 results in a web having “tunnel-like” deformations 6 of looped, aligned fibers 8, unlike the “tent-like” rib-like elements of prior art SELF webs which each have continuous side wall associated therewith, i.e., a “continuous ‘transition zone”. It is believed that the distinctive “tunnel-like” tufted deformations 6 of the web 1 (of Turner) contribute to the superior fluid handling properties of web 1 by permitting fluid entry into and through web 1 via void region 10 of deformations 6. Turner does teach the teeth 110 of roll 104 in the apparatus 100 enter grooves 108 of roll 102 and simultaneously urge fibers out of the plane of precursor web 20 to form second regions 2, including deformations 6 and discontinuities 16. Turner teaches in effect, teeth 110 “push” or “punch” through precursor web 20. Turner teaches as the tip of teeth 110 push through precursor web 20, the portions of fibers that are oriented predominantly in the CD and across teeth 110 are urged by the teeth 110 out of the plane of precursor web 20 and are stretched, pulled, and/or plastically deformed in the Z-direction, resulting in formation of second region 4, including the looped fibers 8 of deformation 6 of web 1 (Turner para. 0059-0060). There is no teaching or suggestion that the process that creates the deformations necessarily also creates apertures in the precursor web.
Applicant further argues that the openings of Turner’s discontinuities 16 on second surface 14 of web 1 would also be considered “apertures” when this term is given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Applicant argues that as previously explained, the term “aperture” means any “opening or space”, Merriam-Webster. com Dictionary, Merriam-Wester, https://www.merriam-wester.com /dictionary/aperture. Accessed 28 Apr 2025. Applicant argues openings, i.e. gaps in a surface that allow access, can be partial, such as recesses, indentations, or cavities that do not traverse a surface, or complete, such as perforations or passages through a surface. In other words, an opening need not fully perforate or penetrate a surface for the surface to be considered apertured so long as the opening permits access. Applicant further argues the recesses, indentations, or cavities of Turner’s web 1 that extend from discontinuity 16 through void area 10 of each deformation 6 function as apertures that allow fluid to access and freely flow through Turner’s web 1. Applicant again cites para. 0059, particularly the passage “permitting fluid entry into and through web 1 via void regions 10 of deformations 6. Applicant argues therefore, Turner’s discontinuities 16 on second surface 14 that do not traverse Turner’s web 1, but that permit the entry and transport fluid through Turner’s web 1 are physically and functionally apertures. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The interpretation of ‘apertures’ as defined by Webster above would also apply to the present invention where gathers are shown in the slidable region 164 of multi-layered topsheet 108 (published application 2020/0237581 Fig. 6B, 6C;para 0074). The gathers represent indentations, which would allow access for fluids in use. Additionally, the argument that the discontinuities are physically and functionally apertures is not persuasive. The deformations 6 are primarily to provide a soft look and feel to the web (Turner para. 0051, 0055). While Turner teaches the deformations 6 do promote fluid handling, the deformations appear to function more as temporary fluid storage which allows fluid to flow into the void areas 10 and then into the absorbent core as compared to an aperture where fluid would just pass through to the underlying core.
Turner does teach the deformations 6 permit fluid entry into and through web 1 via void regions 10 (para. 0059). Turner teaches the web has superior fluid handling properties due to the “tunnel-like” tufted deformations 6 by permitting fluid entry into and through the web via void regions 10 of the deformations. Turner teaches the rapid fluid transport is further increased due to the ability of fluid to enter the web 1 via the voids 10 created by deformations 6. This “lateral entry” capability and/or capillary action, and/or the hydrophilicity gradient afforded by the structure of web 1 makes web 1 an ideal material for optimal fluid handling for disposable absorbent articles (para. 0083). Apertures in topsheets generally do not provide a ‘lateral entry’ capability, but rather a longitudinally oriented fluid entry into underlying layers. To further iterate the web 1 does not function as an apertured web, Turner also teaches the web can be used as a fecal material storage element, when disposed under an apertured web or film to accept and hold low viscosity material away from a wearer’s skin. Turner teaches the total three-dimensional volume within the web or between the deformations 6 generally provide a greater capacity for storage of low viscosity material (para. 0093).
Applicant repeats the argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would not be motivated to modify Ducker’s or Mu’s topsheet in view of Turner to have a basis weight of at least 50 gsm without discontinuities 16. Applicant again argues the Office has not articulated any basis for providing an absorbent article having a liquid-permeable nonwoven topsheet having a basis weight of at least 50 gsm when the topsheet of the absorbent article does not include apertures. Thus, the Office has not established a prima facie case of obviousness an absorbent article having “a liquid-permeable nonwoven topsheet having …a basis weight of at least 50 gsm, wherein the topsheet is not apertured” as in claim 1. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Applicant argues a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would not be motivated to modify Ducker’s or Mu’s topsheet in view of Turner to have a basis weight of at least 50 gsm without discontinuities 16. As discussed above, the presence of the discontinuities 16 does not require the presence of apertures. Thus, the prior art references can be combined for the reasons discussed below and still provide a topsheet that is not apertured and not laminated.
With respect to claim 13, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the reasons cited above.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1- 12 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/112229. Ducker et al. in view of Mu et al. KR 20220042362 and further in view of Turner et al. US Patent Application Publication 2004/0131820.
As to claims 1, 8, and 10, Ducker teaches an absorbent article (Figure 1A) comprising:
a liquid-permeable nonwoven topsheet 12. Ducker does not teach the topsheet having a bulk greater than or equal to 10 cubic centimeters per gram (cm3/g). KR 20220042362 teaches a preferred embodiment topsheet has a specific volume of 4.57 cm3/g or more and 22.8 cm3/g or less. Mu teaches when the specific volume of the topsheet is 4.57 cm3/g or more, an appropriate gap is formed between the fibers of the topsheet so that hook members easily enters, and the hook member hardly comes out; and therefore, it becomes easy to maintain the articles in a fastened state (Mu KR 20220042362 page 4, paragraph 4 of translated text). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the topsheet of Ducker with the high bulk topsheet for the benefits taught in Mu.
Ducker/Mu do not teach the topsheet has a basis weight of at least 50 grams per square meter (gsm). Turner teaches a web 1 that can be used as a topsheet (paragraph 0091) in an absorbent article. Turner teaches the basis weight of the precursor web 20 can range from 10 gsm to 500 gsm depending on the ultimate use of the web (Turner paragraph 0036). Turner teaches the web 1 is a 70 gsm spunbond nonwoven web (paragraphs 0049, 0063). Specifically, Turner teaches a web 1 having a precursor web 20 can be comprised of relatively soft fibers, provide a softness benefit, and produce a web having terry cloth-like characteristics (paragraph 0075), which provides softness for the skin of the user. Turner teaches that the rapid fluid transport is further increased due to the ability of fluid to enter the web 1 via voids 10 created by deformations 6. This “lateral entry” capability and/or capillary action afforded by the structure of web 1 makes web 1 an ideal material for optimal fluid handling for disposable absorbent articles (paragraph 0083). Turner further teaches the topsheet for use in baby diapers and adult incontinence articles (Turner paragraph 0083). Turner further teaches a terry cloth-like nonwoven fabric web 1 useful as a component of a disposable absorbent article comprising a spunbond nonwoven having a basis weight of about 80 gsm (Turner paragraph 0087). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the topsheet of Ducker/Mu with a topsheet as taught in Turner having the claimed basis weight for the benefits taught in Turner.
Turner teaches a nonwoven topsheet that is not apertured –Turner teaches discontinuities 16 are characterized by a generally linear indentation defined by formerly random fibers of the second surface 14 having been urged directionally (i.e., “the Z-direction” as is commonly understood in the nonwoven art to indicate an “out-of-plane” direction orthogonal to the MD-CD planes as shown in Figures 1 and 3) into deformation 6 by the teeth of the forming structure. Turner teaches the discontinuities 16 can provide a look and feel of terry cloth on a fist side and relatively smooth on a second side and the discontinuities 16 can appear as apertures. Turner further teaches the discontinuities may be apertures via the ends of the tunnel-like deformations 6, however the process of making the web of Turner does not necessarily result in an apertured web, but rather a three-dimensional web with tufted deformations 6 and having void regions 10 of the deformations (Turner paragraphs 0058-0059).
Turner teaches a nonwoven topsheet that is not a laminate – where Turner teaches the web 1 is disclosed in preferred embodiments as a single layer web from a single layer precursor web 20 (Turner paragraph 0079).
Ducker/Mu/Turner further teaches a backsheet 18 ; and
one or more absorbent laminates 100, each disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet (Ducker paragraph 0028; Figure 1A)
and comprising one or more absorbent laminae 104,108 (paragraph 0062) and one or more substrate laminae 112 (Ducker paragraph 062),
wherein:
each of the absorbent laminae 104,108 comprises superabsorbent polymer (SAP) particles and an adhesive (Ducker paragraphs 0025, 0062); and
each of the substrate laminae 112 comprises a nonwoven or a tissue (Ducker paragraphs 0025,0032,0033,0036,0037) .
As to claim 2, for each of the laminate(s):
the one or more absorbent laminae comprise two or more absorbent laminae 104,108 (Ducker paragraphs 0062-0063; Figures 2, 3,4C, 4D, and 12);
the SAP particles in each of the two or more absorbent laminae have a basis weight between 20 and 130 grams per square meter (gsm) (Ducker paragraphs 0062-0063, 0071); and
a first 112 one of the one or more substrate lamina(e) comprises a nonwoven – where Ducker teaches the layer is spunlace nonwoven (paragraph 0061) and is disposed between a first one 104 of the two or more absorbent laminae and a second 108 one of the two or more absorbent laminae (Ducker Figures 2 and 3).
As to claim 3, Ducker/Mu/Turner teaches the nonwoven of the first substrate lamina 112 comprises viscose fibers and, optionally, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) fibers (Ducker paragraph 0061).
As to claim 4, for each of the laminate(s):
the one or more substrate laminae comprise three or more substrate laminae 124,112,128
the first one 104 of the two or more absorbent lamina 104, 108 is disposed between a first 112 one of the three or more substrate lamina and a second 124 one of the three or more substrate laminae; and
the second one 108 of the two or more absorbent lamina is disposed between the first 112 one of the three or more substrate laminae and a third 128 one of the three or more substrate laminae (Ducker Figure 3, paragraph 0069).
As to claim 5, at least one of the second 124 and third 128 substrate laminae comprises a tissue (Ducker paragraphs 0069, 0070).
As to claim 6, for at least one of the laminate(s), the second substrate lamina 124 is disposed on the topsheet such that the second substrate lamina 124 is disposed closer to the topsheet than is the third substrate lamina 128 as Ducker teaches the layers 124 and 128 are the outer layers of the absorbent core (Ducker Figure 3; paragraph 0076).
As to claim 7, the second substrate lamina 124 comprises a nonwoven and the third substrate lamina 128 comprises a tissue (Ducker paragraphs 0069, 0070).
As to claim 9, the second substrate lamina comprises a tissue and the third substrate lamina comprises a nonwoven – where Ducker teaches the layers can be a combination of tissue and/or nonwoven layers (Ducker paragraph 0070).
As to claims 11, 17, and 19 the nonwoven of the first substrate lamina 112 has a basis weight between 20 and 40 gsm (Ducker paragraphs 0025, 0061); and
for each of the second 124 and third 128 substrate laminae, if the substrate lamina comprises a nonwoven, where Ducker teaches the outer sublayers 124, 128 comprise a nonwoven (paragraph 0069, lines 16-17). Ducker does not teach these nonwoven sublayers have a basis weight between 40 and 60 gsm. Ducker teaches a nonwoven substrate layer can have a basis weight of from 20-80 gsm (paragraph 0061). Ducker further teaches the substrate layers can be spunbond nonwoven layers (paragraphs 0069, 0070). Ducker teaches the spunbond nonwoven substrate can have a basis weight of about 6-40 gsm (paragraph 0061, line 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was originally filed to choose from a finite number of predictable nonwovens and tissues. That fact that the prior art teaches a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious particularly since the prior art composition and the claimed composition are intended to be used in the same environment and for the same purpose.
As to claim 12, Ducker/Mu/Turner teaches the height of the web 1 can be varied depending on the end use of the web. Turner teaches the height H can be from 0.1mm to about 10mm or more (Turner paragraph 0088), which has values in the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.5 mm.
As to claim 16, for each of the laminate(s):
the one or more substrate laminae comprise three or more substrate laminae 124,112,128;
the first 104 one of the two or more absorbent lamina is disposed between a first 112 one of the three or more substrate lamina and a second 124 one of the three or more substrate laminae; and
the second 108 one of the two or more absorbent laminae is disposed between the first 112 one of the three or more substrate lamina and a third 128 one of the three or more substrate laminae (Ducker Figure 3, paragraph 0069).
As to claims 18 and 20 the nonwoven of the first substrate lamina 112 has a basis weight between 20 and 40 gsm (Ducker paragraphs 0025, 0061); and
for each of the second 124 and third 128 substrate laminae, if the substrate lamina comprises a nonwoven, where Ducker teaches the outer sublayers 124, 128 comprise a nonwoven (Ducker paragraph 0069, lines 16-17). Ducker does not teach these nonwoven sublayers have a basis weight between 40 and 60 gsm. Ducker teaches a nonwoven substrate layer can have a basis weight of from 20-80 gsm (Ducker paragraph 0061). Ducker further teaches the substrate layers can be spunbond nonwoven layers (paragraphs 0069, 0070). Ducker teaches the spunbond nonwoven substrate can have a basis weight of about 6-40 gsm (Ducker paragraph 0061, line 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was originally filed to choose from a finite number of predictable nonwovens and tissues. That fact that the prior art teaches a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious particularly since the prior art composition and the claimed composition are intended to be used in the same environment and for the same purpose.
As to claim 21, Ducker/Mu/Turner teaches the absorbent article is an underpad (Ducker paragraphs 0022-0023 ; Figures 1-12).
As to claim 22, Ducker/Mu/Turner teaches the absorbent article is an underpad (Ducker paragraphs 0022-0023 ; Figures 1-12). Turner teaches a web 1 that can be used as a topsheet (paragraph 0091) in an absorbent article. Turner teaches the basis weight of the precursor web 20 can range from 10 gsm to 500 gsm depending on the ultimate use of the web (Turner paragraph 0036). Turner teaches the web 1 is a 70 gsm spunbond nonwoven web (paragraphs 0049, 0063). Turner teaches a web 1 that can be used as a topsheet (paragraph 0091) in an absorbent article. Turner teaches the basis weight of the precursor web 20 can range from 10 gsm to 500 gsm depending on the ultimate use of the web (Turner paragraph 0036). Turner teaches the web 1 is a 70 gsm spunbond nonwoven web (paragraphs 0049, 0063). Turner teaches a web 1 having a precursor web 20 can be comprised of relatively soft fibers, provide a softness benefit, and produce a web having terry cloth-like characteristics (paragraph 0075), which provides softness for the skin of the user. Turner teaches that the rapid fluid transport is further increased due to the ability of fluid to enter the web 1 via voids 10 created by deformations 6. This “lateral entry” capability and/or capillary action afforded by the structure of web 1 makes web 1 an ideal material for optimal fluid handling for disposable absorbent articles (paragraph 0083). Turner further teaches the topsheet for use in baby diapers and adult incontinence articles (Turner paragraph 0083). Turner further teaches a terry cloth-like nonwoven fabric web 1 useful as a component of a disposable absorbent article comprising a spunbond nonwoven having a basis weight of about 80 gsm (Turner paragraph 0087). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the topsheet of Ducker/Mu with a topsheet as taught in Turner having the claimed basis weight for the benefits taught in Turner.
Ducker/Mu/Turner teaches the height of the web 1 can be varied depending on the end use of the web. Turner teaches the height H can be from 0.1mm to about 10mm or more (Turner paragraph 0088), which has values in the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.5 mm.
8. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/112229. Ducker et al. in view of Mu et al. KR 20220042362 in view of Turner US Patent Application Publication 2004/0131820 and further in view of Bianchi et al. US Patent Application Publication 2017/0312145.
As to claim 13, Ducker/Mu/Turner teaches the present invention substantially as claimed. Ducker teaches the absorbent article has a backsheet (Ducker paragraph 0028, Figure 1A), but is silent as to the composition of the backsheet. Bianchi teaches an absorbent article having a backsheet comprising a nonwoven web. Bianchi teaches nonwovens, coated nonwovens, and nonwoven composites (spunbond and meltblown laminates) are suitable backsheet materials as they provide breathable materials which permit vapors to escape from the absorbent article while still preventing , or at least inhibiting exudates from passing through the backsheet. The backsheet also provides softness to the outer layer (Bianchi paragraphs 0111, 0114). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was originally filed to provide the backsheet of Ducker/Mu/Turner with a nonwoven backsheet for the benefits taught in Bianchi.
Conclusion
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUELINE F STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-4937. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 571-272-7159. 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.
/JACQUELINE F STEPHENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781