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 .
An indication of dependent Claims 17-19 being free of prior art is below.
Applicant amended Claims 1 and 9. Support for the amendments is found in the original filing. No new matter is presented.
Response to Amendment
Responsive to communications filed on 12/22/2025 amendments to the claims have been acknowledged.
The rejections over Katsumata JP 2009287085 A are maintained under additional grounds as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “mechanism for” in Claim 10. The words “mechanism for” as used to describe the action of “controlling a displacement of the system with the walls from one position to the other may be achieved by means including but not limited to a pully, a cylinder, a reel, or by hand. The claim term “mechanism for” fails to recite sufficiently definite structure. The instant Specification details e.g., at [40] motors as an exemplary “mechanism for” controlling a displacement of the system with the walls from one position to the other. As such mechanism is not recited as a sufficiently definite structure, the term “mechanism for” will continue to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites “each port receives a pin of a tab among the tabs” in Line 9. It is unclear from this language whether “among the tabs” is extraneous wordage. While it is clear that each port ”receives a pin” it is not clear how such reception is achieved “among the tabs” and whether this is mean to indicate a location, position, or some other meaning entirely. Appropriate correction or explanation is required.
Claims 18-19 are rejected for their dependency on a rejected claim.
Upon any amendment, Examiner recommends Applicant point out support in the original disclosure.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 9 recites “the walls are vertically mobile parallel to said axis of circular symmetry in an axial direction of the chamber which is cylindrical.” Claim 1 recites “comprising four walls that are mobile in a direction parallel to said axis of circular symmetry.” This “axial direction” in Claim 9 does not differ from the direction recited in Claim 1, on which Claim 9 depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsumata JP 2009287085 A in view of Wang CN 107988474 A.
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, Katsumata ‘085 teaches a gas cooling chamber [0006] (meeting the limitation for a gas cooling cell) having a cylindrical shape [0015] and a door (14) for opening and closing an opening of access to a treatment space (22) for a workpiece (meeting the limitation for a load) [0004] internal to the chamber [0026].
Regarding the cylinder shape and axes, Katsumata ‘084 teaches the doors (13, 15) (meeting the limitation for walls) to its treatment space, move vertically, and the shape of its vessel body is shaped so in order to accommodate the specific workpiece [0027].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to construct the cylindrical shape of the chamber of Katsumata ‘084 as a vertically standing cylinder in order to save space within a manufacturing environment or otherwise to accommodate the dimension of the workpiece based on the teachings of Katsumata ‘084 at [0027]. Modified with a vertical cylinder shape, the gas cooling chamber of Katsumata ‘085 meets the heretofore addressed limitations of the instant Claims.
Katsumata ‘085 teaches the limitations set forth above but does not expressly teach four walls arranged to form a frame around the treatment space.
However, Wang ‘474 teaches a gas cooling furnace having four doors (5) with air guide hatches (7) surrounding a heating zone (4) [0014-0015] (Fig. 2). The doors (meeting the limitations for walls) surround a workpiece (meeting the limitation for a load) [0016], meeting the limitations for the instant Claims for a first one of said walls forming a screen between the at least one opening and the treatment space surrounding a load. The door hatches of Wang ‘474 can be raised and lowered individually or simultaneously to exchange air within the heating zone for a workpiece (meeting the limitation for a load) [0015-0016], meeting the limitation for a first wall clearing access to the treatment space from the at least one opening.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include four mobile walls around the treatment area of Katsumata ‘085 in order to further control the homogeneity or uniformity of the flow of gas on a workpiece and reduce quenching time based on the teachings of Wang ‘474 at [0016].
Additionally, and alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to duplicate parts and provide mobile walls on the sides of the treatment space of Katsumata ‘085 in order to provide additional access to the treatment space (22) based on the teachings of Katsumata ‘085 that the doors (meeting the limitation for walls) are designed for intake and outtake within the treatment space [0024]. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. “Duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” Modified with a simple duplication of doors (meeting the limitation for walls), the gas cooling chamber of Katsumata ‘085 meets the limitation of the instant Claims.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Katsumata ‘085 teaches the limitations set forth above. Katsumata ‘085 teaches its heat insulating door (21a) (meeting the limitation for the mobile wall) channels gas flow towards the treatment space [0027]. Wang ‘474 further teaches its doors (meeting the limitation for walls) can be raised and lowered individually or simultaneously to exchange air within the heating zone [0015], meeting the limitation for the walls channeling gas flow towards the treatment space.
Regarding Claims 3-4, Katsumata ‘085 modified with the addition of four doors (meeting the limitation for walls) as taught in Wang ‘474, teaches a gas cooling cell heating chamber having two mobile doors, front and rear with openings to a treatment space internal to the chamber (Katsumata ‘085 [0024-0025]) and comprising a one wall between each opening and the treatment space (Wang ‘474 [0015]), meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Katsumata ‘085 teaches the limitations set forth above. Katsumata ‘085 teaches, in Figs. 1-3 that gas circulation (indicated by curved arrows) is performed in a closed circuit [0027] in a first direction in the central portion of the chamber including the treatment space (22) and in a second direction at the periphery of the chamber (Fig. 3), meeting the limitation of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Katsumata ‘085 teaches the limitations set forth above. Katsumata ‘085 teaches the limitations set forth above but does not expressly teach deflector elements.
However, Wang ‘474 teaches its doors (meeting the limitations for walls) comprise baffles (meeting the limitation for deflector elements) at the level of their lower edges with respect to the flow of air from the turbine (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form baffles at the lower edges of the walls forming a frame around the treatment space in a gas cooling cell in order to refine the control of gas flow and reduce quenching time based on the teachings of Wang ‘474 at [0015-0016].
Regarding Claim 9, modified Katsumata ‘085 teaches the limitations set forth above. Katsumata ‘085 teaches, the walls move vertically from a first position to a second position (outlined in Fig. 1)(13, 14, 21a). Regarding the limitation that the walls are vertically mobile in an axial direction of the chamber, notwithstanding the 112(d) rejection above, the cylinder shape of the chamber of Katsumata ‘085 is formed horizontally, and not vertically.
However, as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to construct the cylindrical shape of the chamber of Katsumata ‘084 as a vertically standing cylinder in order to save space within a manufacturing environment or otherwise to accommodate the dimension of the workpiece based on the teachings of Katsumata ‘084 at [0027].
Generally, changes in shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such shape is critical. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Katsumata ‘085 teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(f) rejections above, Katsumata ‘085 teaches, door lifting and elevating devices [0025-0026] configured by a cylinder (Fig. 1)(33, 34, 35) capable of controlling displacement of the system, with mobile wall(s) from one position to the other, meeting the limitation for the Claim.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Katsumata ‘085 teaches the limitations set forth above. Katsumata ‘085 teaches at [0008, 0029] (Fig. 3) its treatment space includes a table for mounting the object to be processed (meeting the limitation for a load support).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsumata JP 2009287085 A in view of Wang CN 107988474 A as applied to Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 13 above further in view of Hull US 6116580 A.
Regarding Claims 11-12, modified Katsumata ‘085 teaches the limitations set forth above. Katsumata ‘085 teaches, a hoist with a wheel (Fig.1) [0026] (meeting the limitation for a rotating shaft). The hoist pulls the door up and down, meeting the limitation for rotating along an axis perpendicular to the direction of motion of the mobile wall.
Katsumata ‘085 does not expressly teach an arm for converting a rotating motion of the shaft into a translational motion of the mobile walls. However, Katsumata ‘085 does expressly teach that the door lifting mechanisms are not limited to hoists and that other drive mechanisms may be used [0026].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify the hoist of Katsumata ‘085 to include at least one arm for converting a rotating motion of the shaft into a translational motion of the mobile wall in order to ease and facilitate lifting of the mobile walls.
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention would have been motivated by a desire to ease the lifting and lowering of the wall of Katsumata ‘085 to include for example a known reel handle or pulling winch in the hoist system, meeting the limitation of Claim 11. See Hull US 6116580 A (Fig. 3). An external reel handle or lever in the hoist system further meets the limitation for rotation of the shaft being caused from the outside of the chamber by a connecting rod mechanism converting a translational motion of a cylinder into a rotating motion of the shaft, meeting the limitation of Claim 12.
41. Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsumata JP 2009287085 A in view of Wang CN 107988474 A as applied to Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 13 above further in view of Welzig et al. EP 0483596 A1.
Regarding Claims 14-15, modified Katsumata ‘085 teaches the limitations set forth above. Katsumata ‘085 further teaches at [0030] a rotationally driven cooling fan (24a) (meeting the limitation for a turbine comprising a fan internal to the chamber (Fig. 1). Katsumata ‘085 does not expressly teach the turbine is arranged vertically in line with the load support atop the load support.
However, Welzig et al. ‘596 teaches a generally cylindrical gas cooling cell comprising a turbine arranged vertically in line with the load support atop the load support, the turbine comprising a fan internal to the chamber (Abstract), an actuator (17, 18, 40) external to the chamber (Page 8, Translation), and additionally the fan is inside a common frame and opens to a duct (12)(Page 9, Translation)(meeting the limitation for inside of a duct for guiding gas to the treatment space) (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to rearrange the position of the turbine of Katsumata ‘085 in order increase homogeneity of a workpiece cooled from atop as opposed to laterally and improve quenching quality and workpiece machinability. See MPEP 2144.04VI C.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Katsumata ‘085 teaches the limitations set forth above. Katsumata ‘085 and Welzig et al. ‘596 teach the limitations set forth above. Welzig et al. ‘596 further teaches in (Fig. 1) walls (6) continue all or part of duct (12), meeting the limitation of the instant claim.
Claims 17-19 Free of Prior Art
Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, Claims 17-19 are presently free of prior art. The prior art does not teach or suggest a mechanism that controls displacement of the system comprising the four walls comprising a shaft that rotates along an axis of rotation perpendicular to a direction of the motion of the walls, two curved arms coupled to the shaft, and the frame being suspended by two curved arms.
The closest prior art is Wang CN 107988474 A which teaches a gas cooling furnace having four doors (7) around a heating zone (4) [0014-0015] (Fig. 2). The doors (meeting the limitations for walls) surround a workpiece (meeting the limitation for a load) [0016] and the doors of Wang ‘474 can be raised and lowered individually or simultaneously to exchange air within the heating zone for a workpiece (meeting the limitation for a load) [0015-0016]. However, Wang ‘474 does not teach or suggest the displacement mechanism comprising two curved arms coupled to a shaft as set forth in Claims 17-19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(f) rejection, Claim 10 continues to be examined under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “mechanism for controlling a displacement of the system with the walls from one position to the other.” The drawings in this case do not limit the multiple means by which displacement of the walls may be performed. This is in part due to the fact that in practice, the walls move in unison, and this is not set forth in the claim language. The claim language fails to recite sufficiently definite structure. A pulley system, for example, could be a means by which the walls move by way of a cylinder, string, by hand, or other indefinite means. Claim 11 recites “a shaft that rotates along an axis of rotation perpendicular to a direction of the motion of the walls.” However, Claim 10, depends on Claim 1 which broadly recites that the walls are mobile. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “mechanism for controlling a displacement of the system with the walls from one position to the other” in Claim 10 is maintained.
Applicant’s amendment regarding an axis of circular symmetry is accepted. However, it remains that Katsumata ‘085 expressly teaches two mobile doors (13,14) to its treatments space and Wang ‘474 provides motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to duplicate the doors to form a frame around the treatment space and make the workpiece accessible from four sides.
Applicant argues there has been provided “absolutely no specifics about how any walls of Wang would be incorporated into the double treatment space installation of Katsumata.” That Katsumata ‘085 differs in ways from the instantly claimed gas cooling cell and teaches multiple treatment spaces does not negate its teaching of a treatment space internal to the chamber. Katsumata ‘085 modified by Wang ‘474, which teaches four walls surrounding a treatments space in a gas cooling cell, continues to render the instant claims obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention because it would have been obvious to add a door on each of the opposing sides of a treatment space in Katsumata to make the treatment space accessible from four sides as opposed to two sides. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. “Duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” Simple and obvious modifications to the primary prior art continue to render the instant claims obvious.
Further, as set forth above, based on the teachings of Wang ‘474 at [0016], it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include four mobile walls around the treatment area of Katsumata ‘085 in order to further control the homogeneity or uniformity of the flow of gas on a workpiece and reduce quenching time.
Regarding the movement of the doors parallel to an axis of circular symmetry, such a change in orientation does not amount to a patentable distinction. As set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to alter the shape or orientation of the gas cooling cell in order to save space in a manufacturing environment or otherwise accommodate the shape of a workpiece. Generally, changes in shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such shape is critical. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
It remains that the claims as instantly presented do not distinguish over the prior art because the walls of the chamber in the prior art move vertically either individually or simultaneously and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to orient the cylindrical shape of the chambers to stand vertically. At the instant Specification [67], Applicant sets forth that the frame makes a “vertical translation motion.” This means that all four walls move in concert in an up and down direction within the chamber having the shape of a cylinder. However, this is not set forth in the claims as presently written. Because the walls of the prior art treatment spaces move up and down, the disclosures and teachings of the prior art render obvious the claims as presently drafted. Applicant is encouraged to carefully review how the systems of the prior art render the presently claimed gas cooling cell obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
JP 4709955 B2 teaches a vertical, cylindrical gas cooling cell.
FR 2713322 A1 teaches a compact vertical furnace for heat treatment under vacuum.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733