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
The response filed on October 22, 2025 is acknowledged. Five pages of amended claims were received on 10/22/2025. Claim 1 has been amended. The claims have been amended to overcome previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the non-final rejection mailed 7/23/2025, however Claims 1-2 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention Group I (a centrifugal atomization device), Centrifugal Atomization Disc Species I (Figs. 1-2), Drive Device Species IV (Figs. 15-16), and Connecting Piece Sub-Species II (Figs. 11 and 14-15) in the reply filed on 5/15/2023 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 3/21/2023 is acknowledged. Claims 17-19 and 21-23 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 5-12 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 (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 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-201983595-U to Zhao et al. (“Zhao”) in view of US Patent 4,458,844 to Mitsui (“Mitsui”), US PGPUB 2017/0239632 A1 to Ito et al. (“Ito”), and US Patent 5,279,708 to Wood et al. (“Wood”).
As to Claim 1, Zhao discloses a centrifugal atomization structure (See Fig. 2 and See the embodiment of Fig. 6), comprising a centrifugal atomization disc (See CAD in Annotated Fig. 6 and See Translation of Abstract disclosing “an inner scattered impeller”), wherein the centrifugal atomization disc is provided with a plurality of flow guide grooves (See FGG in Annotated Fig. 6) and each flow guide groove extends from a central position (See CP in Annotated Fig. 6, which is a position approaching a center of the centrifugal atomization structure) to an edge of the centrifugal atomization disc (See E in Annotated Fig. 6, which is an outer edge of the centrifugal atomization disc), wherein:
an annular body is arranged on an outer side of the centrifugal atomization disc (See AB in Annotated Fig. 6 and See Translation of Abstract disclosing “an outer scattered impeller”), a plurality of teeth are arranged on the annular body at intervals along a circumferential direction of the annular body (See T in Annotated Fig. 6), and the teeth are radially arranged outwards relative to a center of the annular body (See Annotated Fig. 6, the teeth T are arranged outwards relative to a center point of the annular body at C); and
the annular body and the centrifugal atomization disc are coaxially arranged (See Annotated Fig. 6, the annular body and the centrifugal atomization disc share a center point at C. Also See Translation of Abstract which states “the drive shalt consists of an inner scattered impeller shaft and an outer scattered impeller shaft; the outer scattered impeller shaft is embedded in the inner scattered impeller shaft and stretches out from the front end of the inner scattered impeller shaft, the inner scattered impeller is embedded in the outer scattered impeller”), and a space is arranged between the annular body and the centrifugal atomization disc in a radial direction thereof (See S in Annotated Fig. 6. Also see Fig. 4 and See Machine Translation of Abstract which states “the outer edge of the inner scattered impeller is close to the inner edge of the outer scattered impeller”), and the annular body and the centrifugal atomization disc are oppositely arranged in a rotational direction (See Translation of Abstract which states “the two impellers which are mutually embedded and rotate oppositely”).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhao does not disclose wherein a circumferential distance between adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth is greater than or equal to 2 mm (See Annotated Fig. 6, a specific distance D dimension between the teeth is not specifically disclosed.).
However, Mitsui discloses, in the same field of endeavor of rotary atomization (See Col. 1 Lines 9-12), a centrifugal atomization structure (See Fig. 4 and See the embodiment in Fig. 7B) comprising an annular body (#39) that is arranged on an outer side of a centrifugal atomization disc (#33), wherein a plurality of teeth are arranged on the annular body at intervals along a circumferential direction of the annular body (See teeth in Fig. 7B that surround grooves #46), and the teeth are radially arranged outwards relative to a center of the annular body (See Fig. 4 and Fig. 7B), wherein a circumferential distance between adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth is greater than 2 mm (See Col. 8 Lines 40-46 disclosing a pitch P of 0.2 mm to 3 mm, which is equivalent to a circumferential distance between adjacent teeth. The maximum disclosed pitch of 3 mm is greater than 2mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the centrifugal atomization structure such that a circumferential distance between adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth is greater than or equal to 2 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is a circumferential distance between adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth, which achieves the recognized result of dispersing fluid at a desired size (See Mitsui Col. 5 Lines 1-5 and Col. 8 Lines 40-46. Changing a space between the teeth changes an overall size of fluid dispersed from the centrifugal atomization structure), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). No criticality is apparent for the claimed range (See Paragraph 0042 of Applicant’s Specification which states “Preferably, the circumferential distance between two adjacent teeth is greater than 2 mm, preferably greater than 3 mm, more preferably greater than 4 mm, to prevent surface tension on the teeth from generating a liquid film and thereby causing the droplets to accumulate on the tooth surfaces” and See Paragraph 0088 of Applicant’s Specification which states “The space 3 may be 2 mm”, thus based on the disclosure as a whole, the claimed range is merely a preferred range.).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the centrifugal atomization structure of Zhao in view of Mitsui as applied to Claim 1 above, Zhao does not specifically disclose wherein a length of each tooth of the plurality of teeth is 2-4 mm (See Annotated Fig. 6, a length L of each tooth in a radial direction is not defined).
However, Ito discloses, in the same field of endeavor of rotary atomization (See Paragraph 0001), a centrifugal atomization structure (See Fig. 8) comprising a plurality of teeth (See grooves #46 in Fig. 8. Teeth surround each groove #46), wherein a length of each tooth of the plurality of teeth is .05-5 mm (See Paragraph 0079 disclosing that each groove #46 has a constant depth similar to grooves #20. Per Paragraph 0041, each groove #20 has a depth of more than .05 mm and less than 5 mm. A groove depth of .05 mm to 5 mm is equivalent to a tooth length of 0.05 to 5 mm)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the centrifugal atomization structure such that a length of each tooth of the plurality of teeth is 2-4 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is a length of each tooth of the plurality of teeth, which achieves the recognized result of dispersing material with a desired particle size and uniformity (See Ito Paragraphs 0040-0041. Changing a depth of each groove, which is equivalent to a length of each tooth, correlates to particles size of dispersed material per Paragraph 0040 which impacts uniformity per Paragraph 0041), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). No criticality is apparent for the claimed range (See Paragraph 0043 of Applicant’s Specification which states “Preferably, the tooth has a dimension of 2-4 mm in the radial direction” and See Paragraph 0089 of Applicant’s Specification which states “The length of the tooth 21 may be 3 mm”, thus based on the disclosure as a whole, the claimed range is merely a preferred range.).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the centrifugal atomization structure of Zhao in view of Mitsui and Ito as applied to Claim 1 above, Zhao does not specifically disclose wherein the space between the annular body and the centrifugal atomization disc in the radial direction thereof is 2-15 mm (See Annotated Fig. 6, a specific dimension of S is not disclosed. Machine Translation of Abstract states that “the outer edge of the inner scattered impeller is close to the inner edge of the outer scattered impeller” but no dimension between the edges is provided).
However, Wood discloses, in the same field of endeavor of rotary atomization (See Col. 1 Lines 25-50), a centrifugal atomization structure (See Fig. 1) wherein a space between an annular body (See the “spinning member” #18) and a centrifugal atomization disc (See the “insert” disclosed in Col. 7 Lines 43-50) in a radial direction thereof is no more than 5 mm (See Col. 6 Lines 44-47 stating that the annular gap between the spinning member and the insert is “relatively small” and “no more than about 5 mm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the centrifugal atomization structure such the space between the annular body and the centrifugal atomization disc in the radial direction thereof is 2-15 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the size of the space between the annular body and the centrifugal atomization disc in the radial direction thereof, which achieves the recognized result of minimizing boundary layer pumping effects (See Wood Col. 6 Lines 40-47. Having an annular gap that is small and less than 5 mm helps avoid boundary layer pumping effects), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). No criticality is apparent for the claimed range (See Paragraph 0011 of Applicant’s Specification which states “According to the above disclosure, the space between the annular body and the centrifugal atomization disc is 1-20 mm, preferably 1.5-15 mm” and See Paragraph 0109 of Applicant’s Specification which states “The space 3 between the annular body 2 and the centrifugal atomization disc 1 in the radial direction thereof is 1-20 mm, preferably 5-15 mm”, thus based on the disclosure as a whole, the claimed range is merely a preferred range.).
Regarding Claim 2, in reference to the centrifugal atomization structure of Zhao in view of Mitsui, Ito, and Wood as applied to Claim 1 above, Zhao does not specifically disclose wherein the annular body is externally coated with an electroplated polytetrafluoroethylene layer.
However, Ito discloses, in the same field of endeavor of rotary atomization (See Paragraph 0001), a centrifugal atomization structure (See Fig. 14) wherein a surface of the centrifugal atomization structure (#14) is externally coated with a polytetrafluoroethylene layer (See Paragraph 0087 disclosing an electroless polytetrafluoroethylene layer).
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the centrifugal atomization structure of Zhao in view of Mitsui, Ito, and Wood as applied to Claim 1 above such that the annular body is externally coated with a polytetrafluoroethylene layer, since doing so would yield the predictable result of improving water repellency, mold release properties, and slipping properties (See Ito Paragraph 0087) on the annular body. Ito discloses wherein the polytetrafluoroethylene layer is electroless, however utilizing a polytetrafluoroethylene layer that is electroplated would yield similar predictable results along with improving abrasion resistance (See Ito Paragraph 0087).
PNG
media_image1.png
652
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/22/2025 with respect to the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, which is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Matsui, Ito, and Wood, applicant argues that based on Paragraph 0023 of Zhao, in order to minimize the space between the annular body and the centrifugal atomization disc in the radial direction as much as possible, the term “close to” is used, and that the inner scattered impeller 5 and the outer scattered impeller 6 of Zhao are as close to each other as possible while still satisfying the requirement for rotation, thus "the space between the annular body and the centrifugal atomization disc in the radial direction thereof is 2-15 mm" as recited in the amended Claim 1 are not disclosed by Zhao.
This argument is not found persuasive. The claimed invention need not be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the applied references, taken as a whole, would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) and In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). As to the desirability of the modification, the proper inquiry is “whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the combination,’ not whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest that the combination is the most desirable combination available.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Zhao does not specifically disclose wherein the space between the annular body and the centrifugal atomization disc in the radial direction thereof is 2-15 mm. As shown in Annotated Fig. 6, a specific dimension of S is not disclosed and Machine Translation of Abstract states that “the outer edge of the inner scattered impeller is close to the inner edge of the outer scattered impeller” but no dimension between the edges is provided. However, Wood discloses, in the same field of endeavor of rotary atomization, a centrifugal atomization structure shown in Fig. 1 wherein a space between an annular body #18 and a centrifugal atomization disc that is the “insert” disclosed in Col. 7 Lines 43-50 in a radial direction thereof is no more than 5 mm as disclosed in Col. 6 Lines 44-47, which states “The annular gap between the spinning member and the insert is relatively small and, to avoid boundary layer pumping effects, is generally not more than about 5 mm”. The “relatively small” gap of Wood is equivalent to the gap that is made by the annular body and the centrifugal atomization disc being “close to” each other. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the centrifugal atomization structure such the space between the annular body and the centrifugal atomization disc in the radial direction thereof is 2-15 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the size of the space between the annular body and the centrifugal atomization disc in the radial direction thereof, which achieves the recognized result of minimizing boundary layer pumping effects as disclosed in Wood Col. 6 Lines 40-47, thus one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It is further noted that no criticality is apparent for the claimed range based on Paragraphs 0011 and 0109 of Applicant’s Specification which disclose preferable ranges.
Regarding Claim 1, applicant also argues that none of the references disclose a length of each tooth of the plurality of teeth being 2-4 mm.
This argument is not found persuasive. Zhao does not specifically disclose wherein a length of each tooth of the plurality of teeth is 2-4 mm, the length L shown in Annotated Fig. 6 is not explicitly defined by Zhao. However, Ito discloses, in the same field of endeavor of rotary atomization, a centrifugal atomization structure shown in Fig. 7 comprising a plurality of teeth surrounding grooves #46, wherein a length of each tooth of the plurality of teeth is .05-5 mm per Paragraph 0041. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the centrifugal atomization structure such that a length of each tooth of the plurality of teeth is 2-4 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is a length of each tooth of the plurality of teeth, which achieves the recognized result of dispersing material with a desired particle size and uniformity per Ito Paragraphs 0040-0041, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It is further noted that no criticality is apparent for the claimed range based on Paragraphs 0043 and 0089 of Applicant’s Specification which disclose preferable ranges.
Regarding Claim 1, applicant further argues that that the teeth in the paint atomization bell of Mitsui are not used for collision, and Mitsui does not concern a collision situation to minimize the air contained in the droplets. Applicant argues that Matsui forms grooves on the circumferential wall surface of the internal cavity of the bell type atomizer and extends them towards the outermost edge with the grooves gradually deepening, such that solution flows towards the opening of the paint atomization bell due to the centrifugal force and is flung out from the outermost edge under the guidance of the grooves. Applicant additionally argues that the paint atomization bell of Mitsui is an integral atomization disk structure, which only corresponds to the centrifugal atomization disc of the present invention and does not correspond to the annular body of the present invention, thus Mitsui is not suitable for evaluating the teeth structure on the annular body of the present invention.
This argument is not found persuasive. A prima facie case of obviousness is established by presenting evidence indicating that the reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having those teachings before him to make the proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore, it has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969). Zhao does not specifically disclose wherein a circumferential distance between adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth is greater than or equal to 2 mm, as the specific distance D shown in Annotated Fig. 6 is not explicitly disclosed. However, Mitsui discloses, in the same field of endeavor of rotary atomization, a centrifugal atomization structure shown in Fig. 4 with a correlating embodiment shown in Fig. 7B comprising an annular body #39 that is arranged on an outer side of a centrifugal atomization disc #33, wherein a plurality of teeth that surround grooves #46 are arranged on the annular body at intervals along a circumferential direction of the annular body, and the teeth are radially arranged outwards relative to a center of the annular body as shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 7, wherein a circumferential distance between adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth is 0.2 mm to 3 mm as disclosed in Col. 8 Lines 40-46. Regardless of the specific application of the centrifugal atomization structure of Mitsui, Mitsui teaches annular teeth that are in a similar position to the teeth of Zhao being used to dispense fluid at a desired size. While Mitsui may teach an “integral atomization disk structure”, such a structure still has an annular body and a centrifugal atomization disc as noted above, regardless of other differences between the centrifugal atomization structure of Mitsui, Zhao, and the claimed invention. In response to Applicant's piecemeal analysis of the references, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the centrifugal atomization structure such that a circumferential distance between adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth is greater than or equal to 2 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is a circumferential distance between adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth, which achieves the recognized result of dispersing fluid at a desired size as disclosed in Mitsui Col. 5 Lines 1-5 and Col. 8 Lines 40-46, thus, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It is further noted that no criticality is apparent for the claimed range based on Paragraphs 0042 and 0088 of Applicant’s Specification which disclose preferable ranges.
Furthermore, applicant’s arguments with regard to Claim 1 do not overcome the rejections applied thereto, since applicant has not provide any convincing showing that these are nothing more than optimum or workable values as asserted by the examiner. Applicant has not provided any showing that such limitations are “critical”. In re Cole, 140 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1964); In re Kuhle, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); In re Davies, 177 USPQ 381 (CCPA 1973). Mere arguments by counsel cannot take the place of evidence. In re Cole, 236 F.2d 769, 773, 140 USPQ 230, 233 (CCPA 1964); In re Walters, 168 f.2d 79, 80, 77 USPQ 609, 610 (CCPA 1948); et al.
Conclusion
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 KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached on (571)-270-1814. 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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 December 11, 2025