DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
All of the claims are drawn to a flossing device with a flat central portion having at least one through hole and a series of grooves to keep the dental floss fixed or allow its removal from a support region of the flossing device (see claims 1, 28, and 31).
The foreign priority document ESU 201930628 does not provide support for this flat central portion with at least one through hole nor for a releasable coupler, so the pending claims do not receive the priority filing date of 4/18/2019.
The foreign priority document ESU 201931421 does not provide support for a releasable coupler as set forth in the only independent claim, so the pending claims do not receive the priority filing date of 8/29/2019.
The foreign priority document ESU 201930644 has an effective filing date of 4/15/2020 and is the only cited priority document that provides support for these features as set forth in the pending claims. The earliest effective filing date for the pending claims is 4/15/2020.
Drawings
The new drawings are not accepted. The new figures 9-10 is/are objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) for introducing new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Applicant appears to have added two entirely new figures not previously presented, which is improper and new matter. Applicant appears to be attempting to add features to the embodiment of Figure 1, by duplicating Figure 1 and in Figure 9 providing the device of Figure 1 with some kind of groove structure for securing the floss strand and in Figure 10 there is a protrusion with grooves that was added into the disclosure and not previously disclosed. These figures are not accepted and are objected to as new matter. Applicant cannot add information into the disclosure mid-prosecution, this is improper.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The drawings is/are (remain) objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “central portion having a flat surface that includes at least one through hole; wherein the support regions protrude perpendicular relative to the central portion; the two support regions being provided with a groove that holds the dental floss fixed….by press fitting” of claim 1 (currently the embodiment of Figures 1-3 are the only embodiment that illustrates the “support regions protrude perpendicular relative to the central portion”, but this embodiment does not have a “groove” nor “at least one through hole” in the flat central portion; the through-hole and releasable coupling system are only illustrated in the embodiment of Figures 4-8, but the support regions in that embodiment are curved outward and do not extend perpendicular to the central portion, it appears applicant is combining embodiments in the claims without drawing support), the releasable coupling system having “a plurality of grooves arranged in a cross shape” of claim 11, “a safety vent” and “two support regions extending perpendicularly from the central portion” of claim 28 (currently the embodiment of Figures 1-3 are the only embodiment that illustrates the “support regions protrude perpendicular relative to the central portion”, but this embodiment does not have “a safety vent” in the flat central portion; the through-hole and releasable coupling system are only illustrated in the embodiment of Figures 4-8, but the support regions in that embodiment are curved outward and do not extend perpendicular to the central portion, it appears applicant is combining embodiments in the claims without drawing support), “releasable coupling system having grooves” of claim 31 in combination with the perpendicular feature required by claim 28 (as discussed above, applicant is still attempting to combine embodiments in the claims without drawing support) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
37 CFR 1.121(c) requires that any amendment requires a complete claim listing of all claims ever presented, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in parentheses: Original, Currently amended, Canceled, Withdrawn, Withdrawn-currently. In the instant case, applicant asserts that claim 29 is only amended with the removal of “pre-pasted with toothpaste”; however, this is incorrect. Applicant appears to have duplicated previous claim 30 as a new claim 29 without the proper line throughs or markups (see annotations). The claim will be treated as currently presented; however, this amendment was improper and any new rejection of claim 29 below is due to applicant’s improper amendment of this claim so the action is still FINAL.
PNG
media_image1.png
371
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 1-31 is/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.
Claim 1: recites “the main body having two separate support regions…wherein the support regions protrude perpendicular relative to the central portion” and “a groove that holds the dental floss…by press-fitting the dental floss into the groove with a widened portion at the ends of the dental floss”; however, there is not support in applicant’s originally filed disclosure for this combination of features in the claims. There is no support for the support portions to protrude perpendicular and the support regions including grooves and widened portions at the ends of the dental floss and at least one through hole as applicant is now attempting to claim. This is a new matter rejection. Previously, this was simply presented as a drawing objection, giving applicant the opportunity to amend the claims to fix this issue; instead applicant attempted to present entirely new drawings, making it clear applicant is intentionally attempting to combine embodiments without support in the original disclosure and requiring now a new matter rejection.
Claim 28: recites “two support regions extending perpendicular from the central portion” and “a safety vent”; however, there is not support in applicant’s originally filed disclosure for this combination of features in the claims. This is a new matter rejection.
Claim 30: this claim requires “a plurality of bristles with toothpaste”; however, while applicant’s disclosure provides support for “the core of the main body has…a toothpaste”, there is no support for the “bristles” to have toothpaste as applicant is now attempting to claim. This is a new matter rejection.
Claim 31: this claim requires a series of grooves, however, there is no support for this combination of features in combination with the vent hole and the perpendicular support regions required by claim 28. This is a new matter rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-31 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1: the first lines of the claim were amended to recite “with dimensions that allow the device to be completely inserted into a mouth of a user with the mouth closed and manipulated by tongue and facial muscles without manipulation by a finger”; however, the limitation “dimensions that allow the device to be completely inserted into a mouth of a user with the mouth closed” is confusing because how can anything be inserted into a mouth of a user when the user’s mouth is closed? The language “and manipulated by tongue and facial muscles” is unclear because if the device is already sized “with dimensions that allow the device to be completely inserted into the mouth area of a user”, then what additional structure does the language “and manipulated by tongue and facial muscles” require, if any? In line 7, this claim recites “a piece of dental floss”, then in the next lines, it recites “said piece of floss”, and then two lines down it recites “the dental floss” and again in the last lines “the dental floss”; is the “piece of dental floss” the same as “the dental floss”? If this is referring to the “piece of dental floss”, it should recite “said piece of dental floss”; applicant is respectfully reminded that a single term should be consistently used throughout the claims to refer to a single feature in order to avoid confusion. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “said piece of dental floss” at every occurrence after the first. This claim also recites “in case it is”, but as previously discussed the term “it” is improper for a claim and makes the metes and bounds of the claims unclear. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 28: the first lines of the claim recite “with dimensions that allow the device to be completely inserted into the mouth area of a user and manipulated by tongue and facial muscles”; however, the limitation “and manipulated by tongue and facial muscles” is unclear because if the device is already sized “with dimensions that allow the device to be completely inserted into the mouth area of a user”, then what additional structure does the language “and manipulated by tongue and facial muscles” require, if any? The last lines of this claim recite “and wherein the main body is configured to enable simultaneous dental cleaning while performing other tasks without using hands”; however, this language is entirely unclear. How is the device configured to “perform other tasks”? This language does not appear to make sense and it is unclear what structure it is supposed to imply. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10, 12-14, 18-20, 26, 28, and 31, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Othman (US 20210137659).
Claim 1: Othman discloses an oral hygiene device (10, Fig 5) comprising a main body (12+18) that allows the device to be completely inserted into a user’s mouth and which as best understood constitutes it having “dimensions that allow the device to be manipulated by tongue and facial muscles without manipulation by a finger” at least because a user could put the device in their mouth and use their tongue to move the device around if so desired, so this is essentially intended use (see Fig 4). The main body (12) supports a piece of dental floss (34) defining a cleaning zone (see Fig 5), the main body having two separate support regions (18) configured to support the ends (38) of the piece of dental floss (see Fig 5). The support regions are in the form of protruding projections (18) that extend away from a central portion (12) of the main body with the main body being formed as a single piece (see Fig 5). The central portion has a flat top and bottom surface (see Fig 5) with a single through hole (center of the tube 12) extending through the flat top and bottom surfaces. This hole is capable of acting as a safety means in case a user swallows the device since it would allow air to pass therethrough. The support regions protrude substantially perpendicular to the central portion (12, see Figs 2-3); the two support regions are provided with a pair of grooves/slots (32) that hold the piece of dental floss by press-fitting the floss into the grooves with the piece of floss having widened end portions (36, Fig 5).
Claim 2: the main body is not provided with sharp edges (see Fig 5).
Claim 3: each of the support regions has a termination with a curved shape [0020] (see Fig 5).
Claims 4 and 13-14: the main body can be made of plastic [0019] (see claim 8).
Claim 10: the releasable coupling system includes a groove (32) made in the top of the projection portion of each support region (see Fig 5) and the floss is press fit into the groove with ends of the floss including a widened portion (36, see Fig 5).
Claims 12, 18-20, and 26: the support members of the main body can be metal (see claim 8).
Claim 28: Othman discloses an oral hygiene device (10, Fig 5) comprising a main body (12+18) that allows the device to be completely inserted into a user’s mouth and which as best understood constitutes it having “dimensions that allow the device to be manipulated by tongue and facial muscles without requiring finger insertion or manipulation” because a user could put the device in their mouth and use their tongue to manipulate it if so desired, because this is essentially intended use (see Fig 4). The main body (12) comprises a central portion having a flat top and a flat bottom surface (see Fig 5) with a single through hole (center of the tube 12) extending through the flat top and bottom surfaces. This hole is capable of acting as a safety means in case a user swallows the device since it would allow air to pass therethrough. The main body supports a piece of dental floss (34) defining a cleaning zone (see Fig 5), the main body has two support regions (18) extending from the central portion, each support region is configured to support an end (38) of the piece of dental floss (see Fig 5). The support regions protrude substantially perpendicular to the central portion (12); the two support regions are provided with a releasable coupler (32) in the form of slots for keeping and allowing removal of the piece of dental floss from the support regions (see Fig 5). The device is “configured to enable dental cleaning” and since it can fit in a person’s mouth the person could do this hands-free which as best understood is what is meant by “while performing other tasks without using hands”.
Claim 31: the support regions each include a releasable coupling system including grooves (32) configured to removably secure the piece of dental floss in a press-fit manner (see Fig 5) and ends of the piece of dental floss include widened portions (36) to prevent release from the grooves in use (see Fig 5).
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 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) 5, 15-17, 21, and 29-30 as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Othman (US 20210137659) in view of Miles (US 20110290274).
Claims 5 and 15-17: Othman discloses the invention of claims 1-4 as outlined above and discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for a plurality of bristles extending externally from at least one of the flat surfaces of the main body.
Miles, however, teaches a flossing device (300) including a pair of support regions (13 & 14) projecting outwardly from a central flat region of the main body (16+51) and teaches an embodiment that comprises a plurality of bristles (53) protruding externally from the flat surface of the main body (see Fig 6). In another embodiment Miles teaches the flosser having no bristles (see Figs 5 & 7). In other words, Miles teaches it to be an obvious matter of design choice to provide the flat body with a plurality of bristles protruding externally therefrom on a flossing device in order to provide additional versatility by providing the device with a secondary cleaning function. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the flossing device of Othman by providing the flat surface of the main body with a plurality of bristles protruding externally therefrom in view of Miles since Miles teaches this to be an obvious matter of design choice in flossing devices.
Claim 21: modified Othman discloses the invention of claim 5 and Othman further discloses the support regions of the main body can be metal (see claim 8).
Claims 29-30: Othman discloses the invention of claim 28 as outlined above and discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for a plurality of bristles carrying toothpaste protruding externally from at least one of the flat surfaces of the main body.
Miles, however, teaches a flossing device (300) including a pair of support regions (13 & 14) projecting outwardly from a central flat region of the main body (16+51) and teaches an embodiment that comprises a plurality of bristles (53) protruding externally from the flat surface of the main body (see Fig 6). In another embodiment Miles teaches the flosser having no bristles (see Figs 5 & 7) and Miles states that the device and its components can comprise a fluoride-containing component typically found in toothpaste, which the office interprets as “toothpaste” [0042 & 0051]. In other words, Miles teaches it to be an obvious matter of design choice to provide the flat body with a plurality of bristles protruding externally therefrom on a flossing device in order to provide additional versatility by providing the device with a secondary cleaning function and embedding toothpaste ingredients in the device to streamline cleaning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the flossing device of Othman by providing the flat surface of the main body with a plurality of bristles and with a toothpaste in/on the device in view of Miles in order to streamline the cleaning process during use.
Claim(s) 6-9, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Othman (US 20210137659) in view of Momose (US 20050025863) and Homan (US 2106097).
Claims 6-9: Othman discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the flossing device being formed of an edible material.
Momose, however, teaches making flossing devices (12) of edible material because it makes the devices more environmentally friendly and edible after use [0049 & 0059-0060]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the flossing device of Othman by providing the device to be made of edible material in view of Momose in order to make the items more biodegradable and edible after use if so desired.
Modified Othman discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the edible material being an edible gum base material coated with a layer of edible hard candy and gum constitutes an “active nutritional type ingredient” since it is food. Homan, however, teaches making non-edible items like whistles (see Fig 1) out of hard candy-coated gum (Col 4, 55-70) for the common-sense reason that it allows a person to eat the item after use if so desired. In other words, Homan teaches making non-edible items out of candy-coated gum thereby making the items into novelty candy toys in order to make the items more appealing to children (a known quality of candy) and to allow a user to eat the item after use if so desired. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the flossing device modified Othman by providing the flossing device of a gum core coated in candy in view of Homan in order to make the flossers more appealing to children and/or edible after use.
Claim(s) 22-25, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Othman (US 20210137659) in view of Momose (US 20050025863) and Homan (US 2106097) as applied to claims 6-9 above and further in view of Valentinovna (WO 2015009196).
Claims 22-25: modified Othman discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the edible material including a metal. Valentinovna, however, teaches coating candy in an edible silver encased in a confectionary glaze layer (see abstract) in order to provide an edible wrapper coating to the candy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the edible candy flosser of modified Othman, by providing it with a layer of edible silver on the main body as taught by Valentinovna in order to provide a fancy or sparkling appearance and provide an edible wrapper appearance.
Claim(s) 11 and 27, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Othman (US 20210137659).
Claims 11 and 27: Othman discloses the support regions can be metal (see claim 8) and the releasable coupling system includes a plurality of grooves (32) made in the top of the projection portion of each support region (see Fig 5) and the floss is press fit into the groove with ends of the floss including a widened portion (36, see Fig 5). Othman discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the coupling system including a pair of grooves in a cross-shape instead of a single groove.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the flosser of Othman by providing the coupling as a pair of perpendicular grooves and the ends of the floss being cross-shaped instead of spherical, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Othman.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Othman fails to disclose a device with “dimensions that allow the device to be completely inserted into the mouth area of a user”. At the outset, no evidence is provided by applicant to support this argument and instead this argument appears to directly conflict with the illustrations and disclosure of Othman. Othman illustrates this limitation in Figure 4 by showing the size of the device relative to a fingertip (the device is smaller than the distal fingertip of a user in the figure) so it is capable of fitting in a user’s mouth. It is well-known in human anatomy that the distal fingertip can fit entirely into a person’s mouth (see any physiologically average infant). The device of Othman is capable of being manipulated inside a user’s mouth without a finger, it is capable of fitting fully inside a user’s mouth, and is capable of being “manipulated by a user’s tongue” if so desired.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Othman failed to disclose individually, or suggest in combination, “dimensions that allow the device to be completely inserted into the mouth with the mouth closed and used without being manipulated by a finger” the applicant is respectfully advised that, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In this case, as already outlined above, the device of Othman is capable of all of these functional recitations and so meets the claims.
It is also noted that applicant still presents no evidence that Othman cannot be used in the fashion claimed by applicant and simply argues that applicant’s device can be used in this fashion. Applicant has provided no evidence to establish an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art, but rather has merely argued such alleged difference. Mere arguments cannot take the place of evidence.
Applicant then argues the support regions do not “protrude perpendicular” to the central portion. At the outset, as discussed at length in the prior office action and again above, applicant has zero support in the disclosure for the combination of features claimed including specifically this “perpendicular” limitation. The only embodiment applicant discloses that includes any type of grooves and a through hole in the main body as applicant sets forth in all of the pending claims, is the embodiment of Figure 7 and the support regions of this embodiment are not perpendicular, they are curved and at best they are “substantially perpendicular”. Othman teaches the same type of “substantially perpendicular” arrangement. So Othman teaches this limitation in as much as applicant discloses it and the argument is not persuasive because applicant’s own projections are also curved.
Applicant then reiterates arguments regarding the intended use of the device, which at the outset, has no bearing on patentability in these device claims and secondly, the device of Othman is capable of being used without a person’s fingers. the applicant is advised that a prior art structure does not become patentable upon the discovery of a new use, function or previously unknown property, which is inherently present in the prior art structure. In considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Gill whose telephone number is (571)270-1797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER GILL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772