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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner notes that any claims which are cancelled should be present in the amended claim set as, for example,
1. (Cancelled)
2. (Cancelled)
and so on. Examiner suggests listing the previously cancelled Claims 1-5, 8, and 9 as cancelled in the Claims so that their status is clearly indicated.
Examiner suggests amending claim 7 line 14 to “adjusting a free length”.
Examiner suggests amending claim 10 line 3 to “attenuates [[the]an inflammatory response”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7, 10, and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 7, “irradiation in the out-of-contact mode” in line 55 appears to be new matter. Though the specification mentions the optical fiber may be held out-of-contact with the implant surface in para. 037 and 040, the specification does not appear to provide such a description of an "out-of-contact mode". Figure 2I does show laser irradiation of the exterior of the implant site with the laser fibers not in contact with the site, however Figure 2I does not appear to show what an "out-of-contact mode" is. Finally, such was not originally claimed. Thus, the limitation of claim 7 line 55 constitutes new matter.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for their dependence on one or more rejected base and/or intervening claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 10, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "irradiation in the out-of-contact mode" in line 55. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the limitation “an out-of-contact mode” does not exist in claim 7 prior to cline 55. In light of Applicant’s amendments, Examiner will interpret the limitation “the out-of-contact mode” as referring to “holding the optical fiber out-of-contact with the implant surface” in line 47 and suggests Applicant amend to clarify.
Claim 7 is unclear as it recites the limitation “wherein the irradiation of alveolar bone at a base of and surrounding the osteotomy site occurs at the minimum of three measurements to the full depth of the osteotomy site” in lines 39-41. It is unclear if the limitation intends to refer to irradiation taking place at the locations where the minimum of three measurements to the full depth of the osteotomy site occurred at, to the irradiation taking place in the full depth of the osteotomy site, or to another meaning. Further, the limitation refers to “the minimum of three measurements to the full depth of the osteotomy site”, however this limitation is not referred to prior to lines 39-41, though the claim does recite “measuring a full depth of an osteotomy site with a sterile periodontal probe at a minimum of three points” in claim 1 lines 11-12. It is unclear if the three points are the three measurements being referred to, or if the measurement is the combination of at least three points, or if three other measurements are being referred to. For purposes of examination, in light of Specification paragraph [34], Examiner will interpret this limitation as referring to the irradiation occurring in at a location where the minimum of three measurements to the full depth of the osteotomy site occurred and suggests Applicant amend to clarify.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “stimulates bond regeneration” in line 58. This limitation is unclear as it is unclear what bonds are being referred to, such as bonds between cells, bonds between bones, or bonds between bone and the implant. In light of the Specification para. 012, for purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret claim 7 line 58 as referring to “
Claim 22 recites the limitation “lasing with a free-running pulsed Nd:YAG laser device” in line 6. This limitation is unclear as it is unclear what is being lased with the laser device, as the pocket depth, the implant, or both could be being lased with the laser device. In light of the Specification, Examiner will interpret both the pocket and the implant as being lased by the laser device and suggests Applicant amend to clarify.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for their dependence on one or more rejected base and/or intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (Management of an Immediate Implant… https://aap.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/ 10.1902/cap.2017.160093, see PDF, hereinafter “Johnson”) in view of Covani et al (“Clinical Outcome of Implants…”, https://aap.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1902/ jop.2006.040414, see PDF, hereinafter “Covani”) and Gregg, II et al (U.S. 9,597,160 B1, hereinafter “Gregg”) and Namour et al (Q-Switch Nd:YAG Laser-Assisted Decontamination… https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6767/7/4/99, see PDF, hereinafter “Namour”) and Giannelli et al (“Immediate Placement of Ultrashort Implants…”, hereinafter “Giannelli”, see PDF of June 2024) as evidenced by Kohn et al (Guidelines for infection control in dental health-care settings – 2003, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/6743, see attached PDF, hereinafter “Kohn”).
In regard to claim 7, Johnson discloses a free-running pulsed Nd: YAG laser-assisted multi-step dental implant treatment protocol for use before, during, and after implant placement (Abstract) comprising:
separating soft tissue overlying an implant site (Fig. 2);
performing an osteotomy (Fig. 2, p. 176 “Case Management”), wherein the osteotomy is performed with sterile implant drills (Fig. 3 and Fig. 3 caption; as evidenced by Kohn, dental tools used to penetrate soft tissue or bone should be sterilized, p. 22 “Sterilization and Disinfection of Patient-Care Items”);
wherein the fiber is 360 microns in diameter;
wherein a free-running pulsed Nd: YAG laser beam (p. 176, “Case Management” and footnote “PerioLase MVP-7”; as evidenced by Gregg col. 4 lines 42-49, the PerioLase MVP-7 is a free-running pulsed Nd:YAG laser device) according to laser parameters is emitted from a tip of a free length of the optical fiber (p. 176 “Case Management”);
irradiating the osteotomy site and its surroundings with a free-running pulsed Nd: YAG laser device (p. 176, “Case Management”) comprising: an average power of 3.6 Watts, a pulse duration of 550 microseconds; a pulse rate frequency of 20 Hertz; a 1,064-nanometer wavelength (p. 176, “Case Management” and footnote “PerioLase MVP-7”; as evidenced by Gregg para. 0293, the PerioLase MVP-7 has a 1,064-nanometer wavelength);
decontaminating the osteotomy site (p. 176, “Case Management”, p. 178 left column “positive antibacterial effects”);
achieving hemostasis (p. 176, “Case Management”, “formation of a fibrin clot”, p. 177 left column “The Nd:YAG laser is known to support hemostasis”);
performing free-running pulsed Nd: YAG laser biostimulation of an implant recipient site via irradiation (p. 176, “Case Management”, p. 177, right column), wherein the irradiation penetrates through gingival tissues into a peri-implant region (p. 176, “Case Management”, p. 177, right column) from both facial and lingual aspects (Fig. 5, p. 177, Right column, laser was used on surface of graft material, which is shown on both facial and lingual sides of the implant), wherein the irradiation stimulates bone regeneration (p. 177, right column, “stimulate osteoblast proliferation and differentiation”), increases osteoblast activity (p. 177, right column, “stimulate osteoblast proliferation and differentiation”), accelerates mineral deposition (p. 177, right column, “increase osteoblast intracellular calcium”), and increases bone interaction with the dental implants (p. 178, left column, “favorable radiographic bone levels…adjacent to an immediate implant”).
Johnson does not disclose wherein the osteotomy is performed after a previously placed dental implant has been removed; measuring a full depth of an osteotomy site with a sterile periodontal probe at a minimum of three points, adjusting a free length of an optical fiber extending from a laser handpiece and cannula, selecting a set of laser parameters, displayed on a user interface, wherein the beam according to the selected set of at least one laser parameters is emitted from a tip of the free length of the optical fiber, wherein a laser head is controlled in accordance with the selected laser parameters; wherein the device comprises a pulse energy between approximately 150 and 180 milliJoules; wherein the irradiation of alveolar bone at a base of and surrounding the osteotomy site occurs at the minimum of three measurements to the full depth of the osteotomy site; irradiating while holding the optical fiber out-of-contact with the implant surface, via the free-running pulsed Nd: YAG laser device, a dental implant surface to reduce contamination and enhance biocompatible properties before placement of a dental implant; inserting the dental implant in the osteotomy site; that the laser biostimulation is performed in an out-of-contact mode, and that the optical fiber is held out-of-contact with the dental implant and surrounding tissue.
Covani teaches a method of treatment of a dental implant wherein the osteotomy is performed after a previously placed dental implant has been removed (p. 723, right column).
Gregg teaches a method of using a free-running pulsed Nd: YAG laser (Abstract, col. 4 lines 42-49) comprising measuring a full depth of an osteotomy site with a sterile periodontal probe at a minimum of three points (col. 19 lines 38-41, six points; as evidenced by Kohn, dental tools used to penetrate soft tissue or bone should be sterilized, p. 22 “Sterilization and Disinfection of Patient-Care Items”), adjusting a free length of an optical fiber extending from a laser handpiece and cannula (col. 15 lines 8-18), selecting a set of laser parameters, displayed on a user interface (col. 1 line 65- col. 2 line 12), wherein the beam according to the selected set of at least one laser parameters is emitted from a tip of the free length of the optical fiber (col. 1 line 65- col. 2 line 12, col. 6 lines 30-39, col. 7 lines 5-8), wherein a laser head is controlled in accordance with the selected laser parameters (col. 1 line 65- col. 2 line 12); wherein the device comprises a pulse energy of 180 milliJoules (Table of col. 32, column “360 Micron Fiber Preset Procedures”, setting “LANAP Hemostasis 550 µsec, 180mJ, 20Hz), wherein the irradiation of alveolar bone at a base of and surrounding the osteotomy site occurs at the minimum of three measurements to the full depth of the osteotomy site (col. 19 lines 38-41 and col. 20 lines 12-20, in as much as Applicant’s does, see above 112(b) rejection);
Namour teaches irradiating, while holding the optical fiber out-of-contact with the implant surface (p. 4, “2.2 Irradiation and Treatment Protocol”) via an Nd: YAG laser device (Abstract) a dental implant surface to reduce contamination and enhance biocompatible properties (Abstract) before placement of a dental fixture (Abstract, p. 15 “Conclusion”).
Giannelli teaches inserting the dental implant in the osteotomy site after the step of irradiating the osteotomy site (p. 87 “Case Management”); and that the laser biostimulation is performed in an out-of-contact mode (p. 87, Case Management right column, lines 10-14; Table 1 column “Diode 635”, row “Treatment mode”), with the optical fiber held out-of-contact with the dental implant and surrounding tissue (p. 87, Case Management right column, lines 10-14; Table 1 column “Diode 635”, row “Treatment mode”).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental implant treatment protocols.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protocol of Johnson by specifying the step of performing the osteotomy is performed after a previously placed dental implant has been removed as taught by Covani in order to allow for replacement of the failing implant with a new implant while reducing the length of treatment (Covani p. 725 “Discussion” line 18- p.726 line 2).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protocol of Johnson by adding the step of comprising measuring a full depth of an osteotomy site with a periodontal probe at six points as taught by Gregg in order to allow a determination of the full depth of the diseased area (Gregg col. 19 lines 40-41). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protocol of Johnson by the steps of adjusting a free length of an optical fiber extending from a laser handpiece and cannula, and selecting a set of laser parameters, displayed on a user interface, wherein the beam according to the selected set of at least one laser parameters is emitted from a tip of the free length of the optical fiber, wherein a laser head is controlled in accordance with the selected laser parameters as taught by Gregg in order to allow for better access to obscured or difficult to reach parts of the mouth (Gregg col. 15 lines 13-16) and allow for the user to choose a laser parameter for a variety of therapeutic procedures (col. 32 lines 1-3 and Table). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pulse energy of the protocol of Johnson by specifying the pulse energy is 180 milliJoules as taught by Gregg in order to allow for optimum hemostasis (Gregg col. 4 lines 44-49, col. 32 Table “LANAP Hemostasis”). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the step of irradiation of the protocol of Johnson by specifying the irradiation of alveolar bone at a base of and surrounding the osteotomy site occurs at the minimum of three measurements to the full depth of the osteotomy site as taught by Gregg in order to allow for preparation of a new connective tissue surface (Gregg col. 20 lines 15-16).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Johnson to include the step of irradiating, while holding the optical fiber out-of-contact with the implant surface, a dental implant surface to reduce contamination and enhance biocompatible properties before placement of a dental implant as taught by Namour in order to clean the implant surfaces similar to those of sterile implants while remaining safe for periodontal tissue (Namour, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Johnson to have the step of inserting the dental implant in the osteotomy site after the step of irradiating the osteotomy site and specify the step of laser biostimulation is performed in an out-of-contact mode, with the optical fiber held out-of-contact with the dental implant and surrounding tissue as taught by Gianelli in order to allow for reduction of bacteria and to ensure adequate blood supply (Gianelli, p. 87 “Case Management”) and to induce tissue biostimulation and enhance regeneration of bone (p. 87, Case Management right column, lines 10-14).
In regard to claim 10, Johnson in view of Covani and Gregg and Namour and Giannelli discloses the invention of claim 7. Johnson further discloses wherein the free-running pulsed Nd: YAG laser device irradiation promotes hemostasis (p. 177, left column, “known to support hemostasis”), attenuates an inflammatory response (p. 178, left column), upregulates growth factors (p. 177, right column, “growth factor secretion”), stimulates osteoblast proliferation (p. 177, “stimulate osteoblast proliferation”), and shortens the implant healing period (p. 178, left column).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Covani and Gregg and Namour and Giannelli and Lawrence et al (On the correlation between Nd:YAG laser-induced wettability…, https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S025789720500825X, see PDF, hereinafter “Lawrence”).
In regard to claim 19, Johnson in view of Covani and Gregg and Namour and Giannelli discloses the invention of claim 7. Johnson discloses free-running pulsed Nd: YAG laser device irradiation (p. 176, “Case Management” and footnote “PerioLase MVP-7”) but does not disclose wherein the irradiation enhances biocompatible properties and increases wettability of titanium implants.
Lawrence teaches wherein Nd:YAG laser irradiation enhances biocompatible properties and increases wettability of titanium implants (Abstract, p. 5588 right column lines 26- p. 5589 left column lines 1-22).
Lawrence and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of Nd:YAG laser surface treatment protocols.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protocol of Johnson in view of Covani and Gregg and Namour and Giannelli by specifying the Nd:YAG laser irradiation enhances biocompatible properties and increases wettability of titanium implants as taught by Lawrence in order to allow greater osteoblast cell adhesion (Lawrence p. 5589, left column, lines 19-22).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Gregg in view of Passi et al (Newer proposed classification of periimplant defects…https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5343156/, see PDF, hereinafter “Passi”).
In regard to claim 22, Johnson discloses a free-running pulsed Nd: YAG laser-assisted multi-step dental implant maintenance treatment protocol (Abstract) comprising:
inserting a free-running pulsed Nd: YAG laser device (p. 176, “Case Management” and footnote “PerioLase MVP-7”; as evidenced by Gregg para. 0293, the PerioLase MVP-7 is a free-running pulsed Nd:YAG laser device) in six areas around each implant;
lasing with the free-running pulsed Nd: YAG laser device comprising: an optical fiber 360 microns in diameter; an average power of 3.6 Watts; a pulse duration of 550 microseconds; a pulse rate frequency of 20 Hertz; and a 1,064-nanometer wavelength (p. 176, “Case Management” and footnote “PerioLase MVP-7”; as evidenced by Gregg para. 0293, the PerioLase MVP-7 has a 1,064-nanometer wavelength).
Johnson does not disclose that the protocol is periodic, measuring a pocket depth with a periodontal probe, and that the laser device has a pulse energy between approximately 150 and 180 milliJoules, wherein the free-running pulsed Nd:YAG laser-assisted multi-step periodic dental implant maintenance treatment protocol reduces the occurrence of existing peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, wherein the lasing occurs after the measuring of the pocket depth with the periodontal probe in the six areas around the implants, wherein the free-running pulsed Nd:YAG laser-assisted multi-step periodic dental implant maintenance treatment protocol occurs during periodic tissue maintenance recalls of ailing implants.
Gregg teaches a method of using a free-running pulsed Nd: YAG laser (Abstract, col. 4 lines 42-49) comprising measuring a pocket depth with a periodontal probe in six areas around each implant (col. 19 lines 38-41), wherein the laser device has a pulse energy of 180 milliJoules (Table of col. 32, column “360 Micron Fiber Preset Procedures”, setting “LANAP Hemostasis 550 µsec, 180mJ, 20Hz), wherein the protocol reduces the occurrence of existing peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis (col. 2 lines 50-53, col. 18 lines 8-10), wherein the lasing occurs after the measuring of the pocket depth with the periodontal probe in the six areas around the implants (col. 19 lines 38-41 and 46-51, col. 20 line 3),
Passi teaches wherein a periodic laser device protocol occurs during periodic tissue maintenance recalls of ailing implants (p. 59, Left column, “protocol for maintenance of the dental implant” and “Photodynamic therapy”).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental implant treatment protocols.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protocol of Johnson by adding the step of measuring a pocket depth with a periodontal probe in six areas as taught by Gregg in order to allow a determination of the full depth of the diseased area (Gregg col. 19 lines 40-41).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pulse energy of the protocol of Johnson by specifying the pulse energy is 180 milliJoules as taught by Gregg in order to allow for optimum hemostasis (Gregg col. 4 lines 44-49, col. 32 Table “LANAP Hemostasis”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protocol of Johnson by specifying the protocol reduces the occurrence of existing peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, wherein the lasing occurs after the measuring of the pocket depth with the periodontal probe in the six areas around the implants as taught by Gregg in order to allow a determination of the full depth of the diseased area (Gregg col. 19 lines 40-41) and then remove otherwise unremovable pathogens (Gregg col. 20 lines 3-6).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protocol of Johnson in view of Gregg by specifying that the protocol is periodic and step of using the laser to reduce occurrence occurs during periodic tissue maintenance recalls of ailing implants as taught by Passi in order to allow for management of the implant as diseases are detected (Passi p. 59, left column before “Discussion”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that prior art Covani and Gregg II teach away from the current Patent Application, and argues that the claim amendments are not taught nor disclosed in prior art Johnson, Covani, and Gregg II.
Examiner notes that Applicant does not state why Covani and Gregg II teach away from the current Patent Application. Examiner notes that prior art Covani and Gregg II do not teach away from the current Patent Application as Covani, Gregg II, and the current Patent Application are directed to dental implant treatment protocols. Examiner notes that in regard to the claim amendments, Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
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 COURTNEY N HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM (EST) flex, 2nd Friday off.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at (571) 270-7855. 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.
/COURTNEY N HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772