DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Remarks received on October 7, 2025. Claims 1-22 are pending with no claims canceled, claims 1, 5-6, 10, 12-13, and 19-20 currently amended, and claims 21-22 newly presented.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-10, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention as disclosed in Stone [GB2506862A].
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Stone discloses:
An interactive paper-based book (Stone, Abstract, “A book 1 comprises…”) comprising
(a) a back cover (Stone, Abstract, “…front and back covers 2, 3…”) comprising a plurality of touch sensors (Stone, Abstract, “…the book includes capacitive touch elements 9 disposed on the inside of the back cover 3…”) and an audio module (Stone, Abstract, “The book also includes at least one output device... The output device may be a speaker which may output audio signals such as a word or a sentence.” and Stone, p. 5, lines 29-32, “Referring in particular to Figure 2, a playback device 6 (which may also be referred to as a "feedback device" or "rendering device") is housed in the back cover 3 for providing audio and/or visual content via an output device 7 in the form of a piezoelectric speaker.”); and
(b) a plurality of paper pages (Stone, Abstract, “…a plurality of pages 5…”) that are stacked together on top of each other (Stone, Fig 1 and Stone, p. 5, lines 26-27, “The book 1 contains a plurality of leaves (or "pages") 5 bound between the covers 2, 3.”),
wherein each of the pages comprises a grid array of images associated with a plurality of written words (Stone, p. 11, lines 4-6, “The book 1 may include pictures and touching a picture can result in the output of a sound. For example, the book 1 may include a picture of dog and touching the picture can cause output of the word "dog" or the sound of a dog bark.” and Stone, Figs 5-7),
wherein the grid array of images on the plurality of pages are aligned with the plurality of touch sensors on the back cover (Stone, p. 2, “The capacitive touch elements may be arranged in an array. The array of capacitive touch elements may provide a capacitive touch pad.” and Stone, p. 10, lines 23-24, “Finally, text on different pages 5 may be located in different positions. Thus, each word (or image) is uniquely locatable using capacitive touch elements 9.”),
wherein each of the pages and a set of audio files for each page are configured to be activated using a page button corresponding to the respective page (Stone, p. 9, lines 15-18, “By placing capacitive touch elements in the back and/or front covers 2, 3 and embedding a playback device 6 in the book 1, the book 1 can become interactive. For example, when the user touches a page, the book 1 can respond by uttering a word or sentence, or making a sound.”),
wherein the page buttons are located on one or more portions of the each page (Stone, p. 9, lines 34-35, “Each page may carry a conductive pad, strip or pattern 29 which is located in a unique position with respect to the capacitive touch elements 9.”), and
wherein the audio module is configured to play one or more sounds associated with an image on an activated page when the user touches the image on the activated page (Stone, p. 11, lines 4-6, “The book 1 may include pictures and touching a picture can result in the output of a sound. For example, the book 1 may include a picture of dog and touching the picture can cause output of the word "dog" or the sound of a dog bark.”).
Regarding claim 2 (Previously Presented), Stone discloses:
The interactive paper-based book of claim 1, wherein the plurality of touch sensors are disposed on a touch sensor substrate (Stone, p. 7, lines 23-25, “Referring to Figure 3, the capacitive touch elements 9 may be protected by placing the sheet 11 face down onto the back cover 3. This can also help facilitate connection of the capacitive touch elements 9 to the playback device 6 (Figure 4)…”).
Regarding claim 3 (Previously Presented), Stone discloses:
The interactive paper-based book of claim 1, wherein the plurality of touch sensors are in electrical communication with the audio module (Stone, Fig 4 displays a diagram illustrating the connection of the Elements 9 (i.e., touch sensors) connected to the playback device 6 (i.e., audio module) via the Microcontroller 18.).
Regarding claim 4 (Previously Presented), Stone discloses:
The interactive paper-based book of claim 3, wherein the plurality of touch sensors are in electrical communication with the audio module using conductive ink (Stone, p. 8, lines 24-31, “The components 7, 18, 19 may be mounted onto a printed circuit board (not shown). Wires or flex connector board (not shown) may connect the printed circuit board (not shown) to the capacitive touch elements 9, 13…Landing pads and conductive tracks may be formed of conductive ink or foil. Conductive glue or conductive tape may be used to mount the components to the pads and tracks.”).
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Stone discloses:
The interactive paper-based book of claim 4, wherein the conductive ink comprises a metallic-based ink (Stone, p. 7, lines 6-10, “The capacitive touch elements 8 and connecting tracks (not shown) may comprise conductive ink, such as a silver-based conductive ink printed on a sheet…Other forms of conductive ink can be used, such as a copper-based conductive ink or some other metallic-based conductive ink, or a carbon-based conductive ink.”).
Regarding claim 6 (Currently Amended), Stone discloses:
The interactive paper-based book of claim 4, wherein the conductive ink comprises silver-based conductive ink, copper-based ink, or a carbon-based ink (Stone, p. 7, lines 6-10, “The capacitive touch elements 8 and connecting tracks (not shown) may comprise conductive ink, such as a silver-based conductive ink printed on a sheet…Other forms of conductive ink can be used, such as a copper-based conductive ink or some other metallic-based conductive ink, or a carbon-based conductive ink.”).
Regarding claim 7 (Previously Presented), Stone discloses:
The interactive paper-based book of claim 1, wherein one or more touch sensors of the plurality of touch sensors comprises a capacitive touch element (Stone, Abstract, “…the book includes capacitive touch elements 9 disposed on the inside of the back cover 3…”).
Regarding claim 8 (Previously Presented), Stone discloses:
The interactive paper-based book of claim 1, wherein the audio module comprises a printed circuit board (PCB) or a flexible circuit board (Stone, p. 8, line 24, “The components 7, 18, 19 may be mounted onto a printed circuit board (not shown).” The element 7 (i.e., output device) is comprised within the audio module (i.e., playback device 6). See Fig 4 for reference.).
Regarding claim 9 (Previously Presented), Stone discloses:
The interactive paper-based book of claim 1, wherein the audio module (Stone, Fig 4, Playback device 6) comprises a memory module (Stone, Fig 4, Volatile memory 21 and Non-volatile memory 22) and processor (Stone, Fig 4, Processor 20).
Regarding claim 10 (Currently Amended), Stone discloses:
The interactive paper-based book of claim 1, wherein the audio module is configured to play the one or more sounds using a speaker disposed within the back cover or one or more sides or edges of the interactive paper-based book (Stone, p. 5, lines 29-32, “Referring in particular to Figure 2, a playback device 6 (which may also be referred to as a "feedback device" or "rendering device") is housed in the back cover 3 for providing audio and/or visual content via an output device 7 in the form of a piezoelectric speaker.”).
Regarding claim 14 (Original), Stone discloses:
The interactive paper-based book of claim 1, wherein each page button corresponds to a touch sensor (Stone, Fig 5, page number 30 and Stone, p. 10, lines 12-15, “Another way to detect the page may involve user input. The user (after turning a page and before starting to read) can touch a page number 30 which is located in a unique position, i.e. page number one is located in one position, page two is located in another different position and so on.”).
Regarding claim 16 (Previously Presented), Stone discloses:
The interactive paper-based book of claim 1, wherein the grid array comprises an "m" x "n" format, wherein "m" represents a predetermined number of rows, and "n" represents a predetermined number of columns (Stone, p. 6, lines 16-17, “The array 8 may comprise, for example, an array of (m x n) elements 9…”).
Regarding claim 17 (Previously Presented), Stone discloses:
The interactive paper-based book of claim 16, wherein the grid array comprises a square grid array, wherein the number of rows is equal to the number of columns (Stone, lines 16-17, “The array 8 may comprise, for example, an array of (m x n) elements 9, for example where 2 ≤ m ≤ 20 and 2 ≤ n ≤ 20.” In other words, m and n could be the same number.).
Regarding claim 18 (Previously Presented), Stone discloses:
The interactive paper-based book of claim 16, wherein the grid array comprises a rectangular grid array, wherein the number of rows is different from the number of columns (Stone, p. 6, lines 19-20, “The elements 8 are shown as being rectangular.”).
Regarding claim 19 (Currently Amended), Stone discloses:
The interactive paper-based book of claim 1, wherein the grid array comprises from 5 rows to 20 rows, and from 4 columns to 16 columns (Stone, lines 16-17, “The array 8 may comprise, for example, an array of (m x n) elements 9, for example where 2 ≤ m ≤ 20 and 2 ≤ n ≤ 20.”).
Regarding claim 20 (Currently Amended), Stone discloses:
The interactive paper-based book of claim 1, wherein the plurality of paper pages comprises at least 5 paper pages (Stone, p. 9, lines 1-8, “The total thickness, T, of the pages 5 is preferably no more than 10 mm and more preferably no more than 5 mm. Thus, if the pages 5 comprise paper having a weight of 80 gm-2 (corresponding to a thickness of about 100 μm), then N is preferably no more than 100 and more preferably no more than 50. If the pages 5 comprise card having a weight of 240 gm-2 (corresponding to a thickness of 300 μm), then N is preferably no more than 33 and more preferably no more than 16. In the case of board books whose pages may have a thickness of about 1 mm, the book may have less than 10 pages and may even have less than 5 pages.”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stone and Kin-Lung [US6021208A].
Regarding claim 11 (Previously Presented), Stone discloses a back cover wherein a speaker may be housed, which implicitly necessitates holes to allow the sound to propagate from the speaker to the user’s ears through the casing, but Stone does not explicitly disclose the back cover comprising one or more speaker holes.
Kin-Lung, however, discloses:
The back cover comprises one or more speaker holes (Kin-Lung, col 1, lines 36-40, “Furthermore, there are more than one insertion holes through the chamber cover for the insertion of Sound tubes that Serve as the only medium interface channel between the Sealed Sound chamber and the air outside.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include speaker holes as taught by Kin-Lung in the interactive book taught by Stone since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include speaker holes in the enclosure housing the speaker to allow clear audio emission for the customer to hear a higher quality audio transmission relative to a sealed enclosure housing a speaker that results in distorted audio.
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended), Stone/Kin-Lung discloses:
The interactive paper-based book of claim 11, wherein at least one speaker hole of the one or more speaker holes is not externally visible from the back cover (Kin-Lung, claim 1, “…said speaker is positioned inside said sound chamber and said chamber cover is securely sealed onto an opening of said sound chamber, thereby enabling said speaker to be concealed within said sound chamber…”).
Regarding claim 13 (Currently Amended), Stone/Kin-Lung discloses:
The interactive paper-based book of claim 12, wherein the at least one speaker hole that is not visible is configured to provide diaphragmatic resonance of the one or more sounds (Kin-Lung, Abstract, “Since the speaker is positioned inside a small sealed space, driven under maximum efficiency conditions, the speaker can be matched with sound tubes of different widths and lengths to convey and produce high transmitted frequencies and, furthermore, call filter the original physical audio spectrum of the speaker.”).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stone and Waszczyszyn [US20100169552A1].
Regarding claim 15 (Previously Presented), Stone discloses an interactive paper-based book capable of emitting sound via a speaker, but Stone does not explicitly mention the sounds being audio mastered.
Waszczyszyn, however, discloses:
The one or more sounds are audio mastered (Waszczyszyn, [0053], “FIG. 3 illustrates a system 100 for the use of one or more Removable Memory Devices with a specified data organization to allow for the commercial distribution multimedia/software/commercial digital data files. As is seen, music is performed and recorded 12′. Thereafter the audio files created by recording the music are edited and mastered 14′.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have processed the audio files in the interactive book of Stone through an audio mastering process as disclosed by Waszczyszyn with the motivation of providing customers with a higher quality audio format, whereby a more aesthetically appealing device would predictably prevail.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stone and Wood [US20050037327A1].
Regarding claim 21 (New), Stone discloses the interactive paper-based book of claim 1 with the ability to play sound from various audio devices, such as a headset (Stone, p. 3, lines 11-12, “Thus, sound or image can be transmitted to a remote device, such as headset…”), but Stone does not explicitly disclose using a headphone jack coupled to the interactive paper-based book.
Wood, however, discloses:
A headphone jack to couple the interactive paper-based book to a headset or earbuds worn by the user (Wood, Fig 9A-1, Stereojack).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in a headset compatible device as disclosed by Stone the ability to connect a headset via a headphone jack as taught by Wood since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 22 (New), Stone discloses the interactive paper-based book of claim 1 with the ability to play sounds based on the selection of specific images or words as cited above, but Stone does not disclose utilizing the interactive paper-based book to play a matching game.
The interactive paper-based book of claim 1,
wherein each of the pages comprise one or more game buttons configured to control a game, wherein at least one of the one or more game buttons are configured to randomly play the one or more sounds associated with an image on an activated page and to react to a user's correct or incorrect touching of an image on the activated page, wherein a correct touching comprises a match between the played one or more sounds and the image on the activated page and an incorrect touching comprises a mismatch between the played one or more sounds and the image on the activated page (Wood, [0063], “In this game, children learn to recognize and remember complex sets of colors, shapes, numbers, and letters. Children also lean about the position of objects in relation to one another. In a first level, players match colors, shapes, numbers (1-10) and letters; numbers to quantities; and letters to their sounds. In a second level, players match combinations of colors and shapes; numbers (10-50); capital to lowercase letters; and sounds. In a third level, players match musical instruments to their sounds; animals to their sounds; initial letters and sounds to words; rhyming words; and opposites.”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Wood to Stone would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. It would have been recognized that including the ability to play a matching game to the teachings of Stone would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems and methods. Further, introducing elements of game play to Stone with interactive text/picture elements would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would increase interactivity and user engagement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of the Remarks, filed October 7, 2025, with respect to amendments to the Drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of Figs 9, 11B, 12A-D, 13, and 27 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of the Remarks, filed October 7, 2025, with respect to the objections to claims 5 and 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 5 and 6 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed October 7, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 12-13 and 19-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 12-13 and 19-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-9, filed October 7, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-10, 14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that, “Stone fails to disclose "wherein each of the pages comprises a grid array of images associated with a plurality of written words" as in claim 1” (Remarks, page 7), the Examiner respectfully submits that, as cited above, Stone discloses a grid array associated with text and images. Please refer to the corresponding section above for further details.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that, “Stone only discloses having pictures or words on a page, but not both, and as such fails to disclose "a grid array of images associated with a plurality of written words" as in claim 1” (Remarks, page 8), the Examiner respectfully submits that stone recites, “The book may include (static) images, such as line art, colour pictures and/or photos. The book may include a significant number of images and few words, i.e. be a picture book” (Stone, p. 13, lines 28-30) followed by, “The book need not include words. For example, the book may include pictures. Thus, touching a picture may cause the book to output a corresponding sound” (Stone, p. 13, lines 35-36); therefore, Stone’s recitation of, “The book may include a significant number of images and few words” is a disclosure that words and images are intended to co-exist on a page.
Furthermore, the Applicant argues:
Stone fails to meet "wherein the grid array of images on the plurality of pages are aligned with the plurality of touch sensors on the back cover" as in claim 1. As discussed above, Stone fails to disclose a "grid array of images" and thus does not disclose those images "aligned with the plurality of touch sensors on the back cover" as in claim 1. Stone actually shows the opposite in FIG. 5, as the words are overlapping between multiple grid touch sensors (Remarks, page 8).
The Examiner respectfully submits the Cambridge English Dictionary defines “align” as a verb that means “to put two or more things into a straight line, or to form a straight line”. As referenced by the Applicant, Stone depicts the alignment of words with the grid array in Fig 5 of the disclosure. Although, Fig 5 of Stone does not depict images in the alignment, the various citations above indicate that images and text are interchangeable within the disclosure of Stone.
Moreover, the Applicant argues:
Furthermore, Stone fails to disclose "wherein each of the pages and a set of audio files for each page are configured to be activated using a page button corresponding to the respective page, wherein the page buttons are located on one or more portions of the each page" as in claim 1. Stone does not disclose or show any page buttons that indicate a page to the audio module. Stone explicitly discloses a different method to determine the page, specifically by "identifying the page, for example, by measuring signal strength" through the strength of the press on a page (Stone at [0018]). "For example, touching the first page 5 (furthest from the back cover 3) will result in a weaker signal at the back cover 3 than touching the last page 5 (closest to the back cover 3)" (Stone at [0061]) (Remarks, page 8).
The Examiner respectfully submits the Cambridge English Dictionary defines “button” as a noun that represents, “a small … object that you press to operate a device or a machine…”. As disclosed in Stone, each page provides an area for a user to press to operate the device in a way that results in an audio output (see various citations above); therefore, Stone meets the claim.
Furthermore, the Applicant argues:
Stone acknowledges the downsides of this type of identification, as "the book 1 may instruct the user to touch different pages before using the book in order to calibrate signal strengths." If the user suddenly presses lighter or harder than they have been pressing, the page determination may be incorrect. Likewise, Stone's book may require frequent calibration and may be inappropriate for usage in places with many potential users that would have different touch strengths, such as a children's learning center (Remarks, page 8).
The Examiner respectfully submits the Applicant is referencing only a single implementation taught via the disclosure of Stone. Stone also teaches:
When all the pages 5 are stacked, the capacitive touch elements 9 are coupled via an aggregate pattern of conductive regions and so detect the pattern. After the top page 5 is turned (thereby leaving a smaller stack of pages 5), the capacitive touch elements 9 detect another, different pattern (i.e. less one region which was provided by the top page). After the next page 5 is turned, the capacitive touch elements 9 detect yet another different pattern and so on. Thus, if there are N pages, then N patterns can be used to encode N pages (Stone, p. 10, lines 4-10).
In the alternative implementation quoted immediately above, Stone does not require frequent calibration. Furthermore, Applicant’s argument fails to distinguish the instant application from the prior art as the argument simply relates to purported demerits of the prior art and not to features recited within the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-11, filed October 7, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 11-13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Kin-Lung and Waszczyszyn do not remedy alleged deficiencies of Stone. The Examiner respectfully submits, as noted above, those alleged deficiencies are found within Stone; therefore, the claims rejected based on combinations of references remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 ZACHARY JOSEPH POLLOCK whose telephone number is (703)756-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-8:00pm ET.
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, XUAN THAI can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/Z.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715