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
Applicant amendment filed 06/23/2025 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 26-47 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claim 38 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.
Applicant written description contains no recitation or support for “the matrix is cement”. There is no recitation of cement as a matrix material. [0047] discusses concrete but does not include the above subject matter. The examiner notes that while concrete is explicitly recited, it is well known in the art that “cementless” concrete and the use of and is neither inherent nor implied by a recitation of concrete.
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.
Claim(s) 26-32, 34, and 45-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weyant et al. (US2011/0301287 of record) hereinafter Weyant in view of Hachin et al. (US 2009/0200212 of record) hereinafter Hachin, Mark et al. (US 2016/0311165 of record) hereinafter Mark, and Hirai et al. (US 5227238 of record) hereinafter Hirai.
Regarding claim 26, Weyant teaches:
A method of manufacturing a feedstock for subsequent manufacturing for a downstream application ([0033]), comprising:
obtaining a composite part to be recycled, the composite part having fibers embedded in a matrix formed of a matrix material ([0026]);
grinding the composite part comprising the fibers into particles having ground fibers, at least a portion of the ground fibers being at least partially covered with a residue of the matrix material ([0029]);
mixing the particles with a thermoplastic material to obtain a fiber-reinforced intermediate ([0029, 0033, 0035]), the fiber-reinforced intermediate comprising the ground fibers, the residue of the matrix material and the thermoplastic material ([0026, 0029, 0035]); and
forming the feedstock from the fiber-reinforced intermediate ([0033]).
Weyant does not teach sorting the particles into a first fraction of particles, the ground fibers of the first fraction of particles having a first size appropriate for a critical fiber length of the downstream application. and at least a second fraction of particles, the ground fibers of the second fraction of particles having a second size too large for the downstream application, the second size being greater than the first size;
selecting one of the first fraction of particles and the second fraction of particles
mixing the selected one of the first fraction of particles and the second fraction of particles with a thermoplastic material to obtain a fiber-reinforced intermediate.
In the same field of endeavor regarding recycling, Hachin teaches sorting the particles into a first fraction of particles having a first size and at least a second fraction of particles having a second size, the second size greater than the first size and selecting one of the first fraction of particles and the second fraction of particles (Fig 3: particles 17, 18, sorter 16; [0084-0087]) for the motivation of automating sorting of scrap from different materials for use in recycling ([0002-0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Weyant to include a sorting step as taught by Hachin in order to automate sorting scrap from different materials for use in recycling.
Weyant in view of Hachin does not teach the fiber-reinforced intermediate including filaments for the downstream application, wherein at least a portion of the ground fibers are aligned along a length of the filament.
In the same field of endeavor regarding composite material, Mark teaches fiber-reinforced intermediate including filaments for a downstream application, wherein at least a portion of the ground fibers are aligned along a length of the filament for the motivation of anisotropically improving properties of the finished part ([0005, 0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the feed stock as taught by Weyant in view of Hachin with the fiber reinforced intermediate having aligned fibers as taught by Mark in order to anisotropically improve properties of the finished part.
Weyant in view of Hachin and Mark does not teach the ground fibers having shapes that are heterogeneous and generally cylindrical.
In the same field of endeavor regarding composite materials, Hirai teaches composite molding material comprising fibers shapes that are heterogeneous and generally cylindrical for the motivation of allowing smooth feeding in an apparatus (col 5, ln 12-28; col 6, ln 61-63; abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ground fibers as taught by Weyant in view of Hachin and Mark to be heterogeneous and generally cylindrical as taught by Hirai in order to allow smooth feeding in an apparatus.
Regarding claim 27, Weyant in view of Hachin, Mark, and Hirai teaches the method of claim 26.
Hachin further teaches wherein the sorting of the particles includes performing a first separation step using a separator by retaining the second fraction of particles and allowing the first fraction of particles to pass therethrough ([0084-0087]).
Regarding claim 28, Weyant in view of Hachin, Mark, and Hirai teaches the method of claim 27.
Hachin further teaches wherein the sorting of the particles further comprises performing a second separation step by passing the second fraction of particles retained after the first separation step through the separator ([0084-0087]).
Regarding claim 29, Weyant in view of Hachin, Mark, and Hirai teaches the method of claim 28.
Hachin further teaches wherein the separator is a sieve ([0085]), the second separation step is performed using the sieve having openings sized to allow the first fraction of particles to pass therethrough (inherent in the operation of a sieve).
Regarding claim 30, Weyant in view of Hachin, Mark, and Hirai teaches the method of claim 28.
Hachin further teaches grinding the particles retained after the first separation step to obtain twice ground particles (Fig 3; [0084-0087]).
Regarding claim 31, Weyant in view of Hachin, Mark, and Hirai teaches the method of claim 30.
Hachin further teaches sorting the twice ground particles into the first fraction and the second fraction ([0084-0087]).
Regarding claim 32 Weyant in view of Hachin, Mark, and Hirai teaches the method of claim 27.
Hachin further teaches wherein the first size of the first fraction of particles is less than a size threshold and the second size of the second fraction of particles is equal to or greater than the size threshold ([0084-0087]).
Regarding claim 34 Weyant in view of Hachin, Mark, and Hirai teaches the method of claim 26.
Weyant in view of Hachin, Mark, and Hirai does not explicitly recite wherein the first size, appropriate for the critical fiber length of the downstream application, is between 0.57 mm and 1.14 mm.
However, Mark teaches a range of values for the fiber length that overlaps with the claimed range ([0009]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the fiber length as taught by Mark that overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 45 Weyant in view of Hachin, Mark, and Hirai teaches the method of claim 34.
Hachin teaches the selected one of the first fraction of particles and the second fraction of particles.
Weyant further teaches wherein the mixing of the particles with the thermoplastic material includes mixing the particles with the thermoplastic material and one or more of at least one filler and at least one additive ([0037-0038]).
Regarding claim 46 Weyant in view of Hachin, Mark, and Hirai teaches the method of claim 45.
Weyant further teaches wherein the at least one filler includes one or more of silica, silicon carbide, magnesium hydroxide, aluminum oxide, zinc oxide, wood, and rocks ([0037]).
Regarding claim 47 Weyant in view of Hachin, Mark, and Hirai teaches the method of claim 45.
Weyant further teaches wherein the at least one additive includes one or more of a pigment, a colorant, a fire retardant, a fire suppressant, an ultraviolet inhibitor or stabilizer, an electrically conductive additive, and a thermally conductive additive ([0037]; magnesium oxide is a fire retardant).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weyant in view of Hachin, Mark, and Hirai as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US2018/0237627 of record) hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 33, Weyant in view of Hachin, Mark, and Hirai teaches the method of claim 32.
Weyant in view of Hachin, Mark, and Hirai does not teach wherein the size threshold corresponds to a diameter of an opening of a three-dimensional printer.
In the same field of endeavor regarding composite materials, Liu teaches controlling the size of fibers in the feedstock for the motivation of minimizing clogging of the nozzle in a 3d printer ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the size sorting as taught by Weyant in view of Hachin, Mark, and Hirai to control for fiber size as taught by Liu in order to minimize clogging of the nozzle in a 3d printer.
Claim(s) 35, and 37-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weyant in view of Hachin and Hirai.
Regarding claim 35, Weyant teaches:
A method of manufacturing a feedstock for subsequent manufacturing for a specific downstream application ([0033]), comprising:
obtaining a composite part to be recycled, the composite part having fibers embedded in a legacy matrix formed of a legacy matrix material ([0026]);
grinding the composite part comprising the fibers and the legacy matrix into ground particles ([0029]), the ground particles including:
ground fiber particles, at least a portion of ground fibers of the ground fiber particles being at least partially covered with a residue of the legacy matrix material ([0029]); and
legacy matrix material particles ([0029]);
mixing the ground particles with a compatible matrix material to obtain a fiber-reinforced intermediate ([0029, 0033, 0035]), the fiber-reinforced intermediate comprising the ground fiber particles, the legacy matrix material particles and the compatible matrix material, thus forming the feedstock ([0026, 0029, 0033, 0035]).
Weyant does not teach sorting the ground particles into a first fraction of particles, the ground fibers of the first fraction of particles having a first size appropriate for a critical fiber length of the downstream application, and at least a second fraction of particles, the ground fibers of the second fraction of particles having a second size too large for the downstream application, the second size being greater than the first size; and
mixing a selected one of the first fraction of particles and the second fraction of particles with a compatible matrix material to obtain a fiber-reinforced intermediate.
In the same field of endeavor regarding recycling, Hachin teaches sorting particles into a first fraction of particles having a first size and at least a second fraction of particles having a second size, the second size greater than the first size and selecting one of the first fraction of particles and the second fraction of particles (Fig 3: particles 17, 18, sorter 16; [0084-0087]) for the motivation of automating sorting of scrap from different materials for use in recycling ([0002-0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Weyant to include a sorting step as taught by Hachin in order to automate sorting scrap from different materials for use in recycling.
Weyant in view of Hachin does not teach the ground fibers having shapes that are heterogeneous and generally cylindrical.
In the same field of endeavor regarding composite materials, Hirai teaches composite molding material comprising fibers shapes that are heterogeneous and generally cylindrical for the motivation of allowing smooth feeding in an apparatus (col 5, ln 12-28; col 6, ln 61-63; abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ground fibers as taught by Weyant in view of Hachin to be heterogeneous and generally cylindrical as taught by Hirai in order to allow smooth feeding in an apparatus.
Regarding claim 37, Weyant in view of Hachin and Hirai teaches the method of claim 35.
Weyant further teaches wherein the downstream application is compression molding, injection molding, or large-format pellet extrusion 3D printing, wherein the compatible matrix is a compatible thermoplastic, and wherein the fiber-reinforced intermediate comprises fiber particles and legacy resin particles and the compatible thermoplastic, each selected to provide desired material properties ([0036]).
Regarding claim 38, Weyant in view of Hachin and Hirai teaches the method of claim 35.
Weyant further teaches wherein the downstream application is concrete fill, and the matrix is cement, the resulting concrete comprising the ground particles ([0006, 0037]).
Regarding claim 39, Weyant in view of Hachin and Hirai teaches the method of claim 35.
Hachin teaches the selected one of the first fraction of particles and the second fraction of particles.
Hirai further teaches wherein the mixing of the particles with the compatible matrix material includes mixing the particles with a thermoplastic matrix material including one or more of polylactic acid, polypropylene, polystyrene, polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, polyether ether ketone, polyamides, and bioplastic (col 4, ln 7-28).
Regarding claim 40, Weyant in view of Hachin and Hirai teaches the method of claim 39.
Hachin teaches the selected one of the first fraction of particles and the second fraction of particles.
Hirai further teaches wherein the mixing of the particles with the thermoplastic matrix material includes feeding the particles and feeding pellets and the thermoplastic matrix material to an extruder to obtain the fiber-reinforced intermediate (col 1, ln 33-43).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weyant in view of Hachin and Hirai as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Mark.
Regarding claim 36, Weyant in view of Hachin and Hirai teaches the method of claim 35.
Weyant teaches the ground particles.
Hirai further teaches reducing the potential for clogging in a downstream apparatus (col 5, ln 12-28).
Weyant in view of Hachin and Hirai does not teach wherein the downstream application is filament for fused filament fabrication (FFF) additive manufacturing, wherein the compatible matrix material is a compatible thermoplastic, and wherein the ground particles and the thermoplastic of the fiber-reinforced intermediate are selected and arranged such that at least a portion of the fibers are substantially aligned along the length of the resulting filament, the combination of said selection and alignment providing desired material properties and reducing the potential for clogging of the 3D printer nozzle.
In the same field of endeavor regarding composite material, Mark teaches wherein the downstream application is filament for fused filament fabrication (FFF) additive manufacturing, wherein the compatible matrix material is a compatible thermoplastic, and wherein resin and fiber and the thermoplastic of the fiber-reinforced intermediate are selected and arranged such that at least a portion of the fibers are substantially aligned along the length of the resulting filament, the combination of said selection and alignment providing desired material properties for the motivation of anisotropically improving properties of the finished part in 3D printing ([0005, 0009]; abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the downstream application as taught by Weyant in view of Hachin and Hira with the 3D printing using fiber reinforced intermediate having aligned fibers as taught by Mark in order to anisotropically improve properties of the finished part in 3D printing.
Claim(s) 41-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weyant in view of Hachin and Hirai as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Guinaldo Fernandez et al. (US 2022/0184857 of record) hereinafter GF.
Regarding claim 41, Weyant in view of Hachin and Hirai teaches the method of claim 40.
Weyant in view of Hachin and Hirai does not teach wherein the forming of the feedstock from the fiber-reinforced intermediate includes feeding the fiber-reinforced intermediate to a pelletizer to obtain fiber-reinforced pellets.
In the same field of endeavor regarding composite materials, GF teaches forming of a feedstock from fiber-reinforced intermediates includes feeding the fiber-reinforced intermediate to a pelletizer to obtain fiber-reinforced pellets for the motivation of forming filaments from recycled material ([0002, 0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method as taught by Weyant in view of Hachin and Hirai to pelletize the material in order to form filaments from recycled material.
Regarding claim 42, Weyant in view of Hachin, Hirai, and GF teaches the method of claim 41.
GF further teaches melting the fiber-reinforced pellets to obtain a molten intermediate and feeding the molten intermediate to: an extruder; a compression molder; and/or an injection molder ([0072, 0076]).
Regarding claim 43, Weyant in view of Hachin, Hirai, and GF teaches the method of claim 41.
GF further teaches melting the fiber-reinforced pellets to obtain a molten intermediate and feeding the molten intermediate to an extruder to obtain a fiber-reinforced filament ([0072, 0076]).
Regarding claim 44, Weyant in view of Hachin, Hirai, and GF teaches the method of claim 42.
GF further teaches dehydrating the fiber-reinforced pellets before the feeding of the fiber-reinforced pellets to the extruder (claim 21).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Hachin cannot be combined with Weyant because Hachin teaches recycling a multiplicity of parts produced from different materials while Weyant and the claimed invention teaches “obtaining a composite part to be recycled, the composite part having fibers embedded in a matrix formed of a matrix material.” Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would only refer to Hachin for dealing with complex objects having many parts. However, this alone cannot be considered a teaching away from the combination of Weyant and Hachin. Applicant appears to be using a metric of multiplicity of parts and the material composition of the recycled material in an attempt to show a distinction between the complexity of the recycled materials of Weyant as compared to Hachin, However, applicant has not provided any evidence outside of subjective attorney arguments above that the recycled material of Weyant is not complex enough to benefit from the combination of Hachin. Hachin teaches that “electronic equipment or even motor cars” as examples of the complex parts suitable for recycling ([0004]). Weyant teaches the recycled material can be sourced from parts including “large finished products, such as boat hulls, aircraft parts and composite windmill blades” ([0015]). It is well known that aircraft parts generally include electronic aviation components that are at least as complex as the electronic equipment of Hachin. The examiner further submits that the aircraft parts are at least as complex as the motor car parts of Hachin. Therefore, Hachin’s teaching of sorting and recycling of complex objects as asserted by applicant does not teach away from Weyant.
Applicant further argues that Hachin teaches sorting and recycling of parts made of different materials, while Weyant and the claimed invention teaches a composite part having fibers embedded in a matrix formed of matrix material. Applicant appears to be implying that the composite part of Weyant and the claimed invention does not constitute a multiplicity of materials. However, applicant’s own description of the claimed subject matter contradicts the characterization above. “Composite part” by definition requires a multiplicity of materials. Applicant then lists the composite part comprising 1) fibers and 2) matrix material, i.e., a multiplicity of materials. Furthermore, Weyant teaches separating resin pieces from fiber pieces ([0013]), i.e., articles comprising different materials that require separation for recycling. Therefore, Hachin’s teaching of sorting and recycling a multiplicity of materials as asserted by applicant does not teach away from either Weyant or the claimed invention.
Given the above evidence, it would be clear to one of ordinary skill that Weyant would benefit from the recycling of complex parts made from different materials as taught by Hachin for the motivation of automating sorting of scrap from different materials for use in recycling as cited in the art rejection and the combination of prior art references is proper.
Applicant argues that there is no reason to combine the prior art references with Mark because the motivation cited in the art rejection for the combination is not relevant to the modification being made. Applicant argues that a matrix embedding fibers aligned along the lengthwise direction of the filament as recited in [0009] of Mark does not impart the anisotropic properties espoused by Mark. Applicant implies instead that the features of [0010] are solely responsible for the above benefits. However, Mark contains no teaching that the features of [0010] are solely responsible for the anisotropic properties of Mark. Applicant argument falls apart from a facial examination of Mark [0215] and Fig 11h and [0329] and Fig 24a-d, which shows anisotropic properties arising from the alignment of reinforcement fibers in the matrix material as described in [0009]. Furthermore, as well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art of composite materials, the alignment of fibers in a fiber matrix composite has significant effects on the resulting physical properties, and when aligned in a specific orientation as described in Mark, will display different physical characteristics along the axis of alignment as compared to say, along a transverse axis.
Applicant argues that Hirai cannot be combined with the prior art because the motivation of providing smooth feeding as taught by Hirai is applied specifically to a hopper. However, the examiner notes that the actual recitation of Hirai col 5, ln 12-28 includes “smooth feeding in an apparatus (e.g., hopper).” A hopper is provided only as an example by Hirai, but the benefit is disclosed as applying to apparatus in general. Hirai further provides the example of steady feeding to an extruder (col 5, ln 12-28). Weyant teaches extrusion ([0036]). Mark teaches extrusion as well ([0089]). Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 26 relies upon four references and hindsight reasoning. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
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 ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm EST.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741