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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 9, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 9 and 17-19 are pending and under examination. Claims 8 and 10-16 are cancelled. Any objections or rejections not repeated below have been withdrawn.
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, 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMorris US 6889628, in view of Doerr US 20140363537, Townsend US 20120160180 and Koo et al. US 20110290197.
Regarding claim 1, McMorris teaches a pet chew (animal chew toy, C1 line 31) comprising: a corn cob composed of lignocellulosic material with additives infused and impregnated in said lignocellulosic material of said corn cob (a corn cob soaked in a liquid medium containing additives including flavoring agent, salt and/or vitamins, and other nutrients; C1 line 39-43). Regarding the recitation of “lignocellulosic material” in lines 1-2, and again in lines 2-3, as noted in the specification, pg. 2 Line:11, corn cobs are a lignocellulosic material. The pet chew of McMorris is a corn cob and corn cobs are made of lignocellulosic material, so it is considered to meet the claimed limitation of “lignocellulosic material” absent evidence to the contrary. Additionally, the soaked corn cob, which is composed of lignocellulosic material, is infused and impregnated with the additives as the corn cob is soaked in the liquid medium. Therefore, the additives are infused and impregnated in said lignocellulosic material of said corn cob.
However, McMorris does not teach the corn cob containing one or more digestive enzymes within said lignocellulosic material of said corn cob, such as adding one or more digestive enzymes as an additive.
Doerr teaches a pet chew ([0005]) containing one or more digestive enzymes (amylase in the filling material of the pet chew; [0007], [0013]), where the amylase is added to provide a softer pet chew product, to maintain chewiness, and not compromise durability ([0007], [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McMorris by Doerr by adding at least one digestive enzyme as an additive to be infused and impregnated in the lignocellulosic material of the corn cob. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so because Doerr recognizes adding an enzyme to soften a pet chew product.
McMorris does not teach the corn cob includes a plurality of pre-weakening features which upon chewing by an animal, the corn cob breaks apart into one or a plurality of relative smaller pieces.
Townsend teaches an edible pet chew ([0004]) that includes a plurality of pre-weakening features which upon chewing by an animal, the pet chew breaks apart into one or a plurality of relative smaller pieces (with one or more lines of weakness formed along the body of the pet chew to serve as pre-determined fracture lines along which the pet chew will break into smaller pieces; [0010]), to provide a size of breakaway pieces of the pet chew that can be more easily controlled and present less risk of choking or intestinal blockage to the pet [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McMorris in view of Doerr to incorporate the teachings of Townsend by adding pre-weakening features/pre-determined fracture lines to the corn cob of modified McMorris because this provides a size of breakaway pieces of the pet chew that can be more easily controlled and present less risk of choking or intestinal blockage to the pet, as recognized by Townsend [0011].
McMorris speaks to the corn cob (a shelled corn cob, C2 lines 5-10). The corn cob composition of McMorris does not state that it is cylindrical, but does state it has a diameter and can be left entirely in its original size (C1 lines 34-40). Thus, the reference would have necessarily taught a cylindrical corn cob, which would have the shape of a corn cob and a diameter. See MPEP 2112. "In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art." Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990).
McMorris teaches the corn cob has a length, a cross-section perpendicular to said length, and a corn cob center running along said length through a center of the cross-section (the cob retains its full cross section and can be left entirely in its original size or cut to predetermined lengths, C1 lines 34-40).
McMorris in view of Doerr and Townsend teach that the corn cob has a plurality pre-weakening features, as shown in the rejection above. However, modified McMorris does not teach the plurality of pre-weakening features run along said length of the corn cob and extend radially inward towards the corn cob center but not completely through said corn cob center.
Koo teaches a pet chew product (Abstract) that has a plurality of pre-weakening features (core units, Fig. 1 Character 21). Koo discloses the plurality of pre-weakening features run along the length of the chew (core units 21, run along the upper body and lower body 10, Fig. 1 Characters 10 and 21) and extend radially inward towards the center but not completely through the center (each core unit 21, includes a groove 22 and a protrusion hill 23, Fig. 1 Characters 21, 22 and 23). As shown in Annotated Figure 1 of Koo below, the grooves 22 and protrusion hills 23 of the core units run along the length and extend radially inward towards the center of the chew “C” (the center is also noted by a dashed line running through the center of the chew), but not completely through the center. Koo teaches the structure of the pet chew, with the pre-weakening features running along the length of the chew (core units 21), allows the pet to destroy the chew and ingested the chew little by little without leaving debris [0046].
PNG
media_image1.png
554
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McMorris in view of Doerr and Townsend to incorporate the teachings of Koo to have added one or more pre-weakening features along the length of the cob and extend radially inwardly towards the center but not through the center, because the structure of the pet chew would be destroyed or broken apart and ingested little by little without leaving debris, as recognized by Koo [0046].
Regarding claim 2, Doerr speaks to one or more digestive enzymes being present in the filling material, as discussed above in claim 1, with amylase being between 0.10% and 0.45% ([0015]), which falls completely within the claimed range of 0.1-50.0% by weight of said corn cob.
Regarding claim 3, Doerr speaks to the pet chew ([0005]) wherein one or more digestive enzymes are present, as discussed above in claim 1, where the enzymes are selected from the group consisting of cellulase, amylase, lipase or protease (amylase being present in the filling material; [0007] [0013]).
Regarding claim 4, McMorris as modified by Doerr, Townsend and Koo, teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Doerr speaks to the pet chew ([0005]) wherein said one or more digestive enzymes comprises a mixture of at least two different digestive enzymes selected from one of a cellulase, one of an amylase, one of a lipase or one of a protease (one or more digestive enzymes, amylase and protease, being present in the filling material [0012], [0019]). Doerr recognizes adding enzymes to soften the pet chew product [0013], [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified McMorris to incorporate the teachings of Doerr by adding at least two digestive enzymes as an additive resulting in the corn cob pet chew of McMorris containing two or more digestive enzymes infused in the lignocellulosic material, specifically with amylase and protease, as taught by Doerr, because Doerr recognizes adding an enzyme to soften a pet chew product [0013], [0019].
Regarding claim 7, McMorris teaches the pet chew further includes one or more flavorants, oils, attractants, minerals or vitamins (flavoring agent, salt, vitamins, and other nutrients are added to the corn cob; C1 line 31-43).
Regarding claim 17, McMorris as modified by Doerr, Townsend and Koo, teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1, where Townsend speaks to pre-weakening features (lines of weakness) on the pet chew. Townsend specifically teaches six pre-weakening features (lines of weakness) on the pet chew (Figs. 4-6, Characters: 124a, 124b, 124c, 124d, 124e, 124f; [0027]), which falls completely within the claimed range of 2-25 pre-weakening features.
Claims 5, 6, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMorris US 6889628, in view of Doerr US 20140363537, Townsend US 20120160180 and Koo et al. US 20110290197, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bowser US 20110142993.
Regarding claim 5, McMorris does not teach one or more digestive enzymes comprises a mixture of at least three different digestive enzymes selected from one of a cellulase, one of an amylase, and one of a lipase or one of a protease.
Bowser teaches an edible pet chew (Claim 1; [0023]), where digestive enzymes have been infused into the pet chew (Claims 1 and 5-7; [0024]). Bowser states the pet chew comprises digestive enzymes and the “arbitrary enzymes” include one of a cellulase, one of an amylase, and one of a lipase or one of a protease which can be a combination ([0024], [0025]). Bowser recognizes that a mixture of enzymes helps aid in the digestibility of the pet chew chunks or pieces that have been swallowed un-chewed, broken off or under-chewed [0023].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McMorris in view of Doerr, Townsend and Koo to incorporate the teachings of Bowser by adding at least three of the four following digestive enzymes: cellulase, amylase, lipase and protease as an additive for infusion in the corn cob pet chew because this helps aid in the digestibility of the pet chew chunks or pieces that have been swallowed un-chewed, broken off or under-chewed, as disclosed by Bowser [0023].
Regarding claim 6, McMorris does not teach one or more digestive enzymes comprises the following four different enzymes: a cellulase enzyme, an amylase enzyme, a lipase enzyme and a protease enzyme.
Bowser teaches an edible pet chew (Claim 1; [0023]), where digestive enzymes have been infused into the pet chew (Claims 1 and 5-7; [0024]). Bowser states the pet chew comprises digestive enzymes and the “arbitrary enzymes” include cellulase, amylase, lipase and protease, which can be a combination [0025]. Bowser recognizes that a mixture of enzymes helps aid in the digestibility of the pet chew chunks or pieces that have been swallowed un-chewed, broken off or under-chewed [0023].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McMorris in view of Doerr, Townsend and Koo, to incorporate the teachings of Bowser by adding the following digestive enzymes: cellulase, amylase, lipase and protease as an additive for infusion in the corn cob pet chew because this helps aid in the digestibility of the pet chew chunks or pieces that have been swallowed un-chewed, broken off or under-chewed, as disclosed by Bowser [0023].
Regarding claim 18, McMorris does not teach one or more digestive enzymes comprises cellulase.
Bowser teaches an edible pet chew (Claim 1; [0023]), where digestive enzymes have been infused into the pet chew (Claims 1 and 5-7; [0024]). Bowser states the pet chew comprises digestive enzymes and the “arbitrary enzymes” which include cellulase [0025]. Bowser recognizes that a mixture of enzymes helps aid in the digestibility of the pet chew chunks or pieces that have been swallowed un-chewed, broken off or under-chewed [0023].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McMorris in view of Doerr, Townsend and Koo, to incorporate the teachings of Bowser by adding the digestive enzyme cellulase as an additive for infusion in the corn cob pet chew because this helps aid in the digestibility of the pet chew chunks or pieces that have been swallowed un-chewed, broken off or under-chewed, as disclosed by Bowser [0023].
Regarding claim 19, McMorris does not teach cellulase accounts for at least 50% or more of the enzymes present in the pet chew.
Bowser teaches an edible pet chew (Claim 1; [0023]), where digestive enzymes have been infused into the pet chew (Claims 1 and 5-7; [0024]). Bowser does not expressly state the pet chew comprises cellulase wherein the cellulase accounts for at least 50% or more of the enzymes present in the pet chew.
However, Bowser does disclose the pet chew can contain a single digestive enzyme and the enzyme can be cellulase [0025]. Therefore, the pet chew with one enzyme, cellulase, would contain 100% cellulase of the enzymes present in the pet chew. This is within the claimed range of at least 50% or more of the enzymes present in said pet chew.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McMorris in view of Doerr, Townsend and Koo, to incorporate the teachings of Bowser by adding the digestive enzyme cellulase as 100% of the enzyme present, which would be an additive for infusion in the corn cob pet because the digestive enzyme cellulase would aid in the digestibility of the pet chew chunks or pieces that have been swallowed un-chewed, broken off or under-chewed, as disclosed by Bowser [0023].
Also, the amount of digestive enzymes can be adjusted to meet the needs at hand. Noting, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMorris US 6889628, in view of Doerr US 20140363537, Townsend US 20120160180 and Koo et al. US 20110290197, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen US 20180279652.
Regarding claim 9, McMorris does not teach the corn cob having a surface that includes dried meat.
Chen teaches an edible pet chew ([0005]) wherein the surface includes dried meat (with a meat pulp material stuck to an outside surface of the base part of the pet chew; [0006-0008]), where adding meat makes the pet chew desirable to dogs [0005].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McMorris in view of Doerr, Townsend and Koo to incorporate the teachings of Chen by adding meat pulp material stuck to the outside surface of the pet chew base because it would make the pet chew desirable to dogs, as recognized by Chen [0005].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pg. 5 of their remarks, that McMorris states their corn cob “preferably retains its full cross section” (C1 lines 34-35) and introducing pre-weakening features that run along the length of the corn cob and extend radially inward towards said corn cob center would require alterations to the cross section. Applicant states because of this alteration to the cross section, McMorris would be considered as not retaining its full cross section. Applicant argues that not only does McMorris not teach the pre-weakening features, but also specifically teaches against the alteration of the cross section by preferring the corn cob retains its full cross section. However, the Office disagrees for the following reasons.
McMorris would not be seen as altering its cross-section by incorporating the teachings of Townsend by adding lines of weakness along the body of the pet chew to serve as pre-determined fracture lines, as taught by Townsend [0010]. The whole corn cob cross section would still be present if lines of weakness are added since no cob is being removed or taken away from the cross section. Additionally, viewing the full sentence the Applicant is quoting from, McMorris states, “The corn cob is contemplated to be at least one centimeter in diameter, but preferably retains its full cross section, and is cut to a predetermined length” (C1 Lines 34-36). Thus, while it is preferred that the corn cob retains its full cross section, McMorris does contemplate altering that cross section and Townsend provides motivation to add lines to the cross section, which is still considered as not removing any of the cross section but having the complete cross section with added lines of weakness.
Moreover, a prior art reference that teaches against or "teaches away" from the claimed invention is a significant factor to be considered in determining obviousness; however, "the nature of the teaching is highly relevant and must be weighed in substance. A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) MPEP 2145(X)(D)(1).
Applicant argues, on pgs. 5 and 7 of their remarks, that Koo discloses an oblong pet chew and not a cylindrical pet chew. Applicant states applying the limitations of amended claim 1, the corn cob center of Koo would not provide a plurality of any sort of pre-weakening features that all collectively extend radially inward towards the corn cob center marked by a “red dot” on annotated Koo Fig. 2, pg. 7 of Applicant’s remarks. However, the Office disagrees for the following reasons.
As shown by the rejection above, the Koo reference is not relied on to teach that the pet chew is cylindrical in shape, but the McMorris reference is used to teach this limitation. Additionally, the pre-weakening features of Koo do extend radially inward. As shown by annotated Fig. 1 above, the core units 20, 21, extend radially inward (i.e. toward the annotated longitudinal axis “C”) along the length of the chew. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify McMorris with the teachings of Koo discussed above, e.g., to allow the pet to destroy the chew and ingested the chew little by little without leaving debris, as recognized by Koo [0046]. Thus, the claimed pet chew is made obvious in view of McMorris as modified by Doerr, Townsend and Koo.
Regarding the argument that the core units (20, 21) do not provide “any sort of preweakening features that all collectively extend radially inward towards the corn cob center” on pg. 5 of Applicant’s remarks, “all collectively” extend radially inward is not a limitation in the claims. Furthermore, when the teachings of Koo are applied to modified McMorris, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand, based on the cylindrical shape of the McMorris chew, the pre-weakening features would all collectively extend radially inward towards the corn cob center.
Applicant argues, on pgs. 6-7 of their remarks, that core units (20, 21) are not configured to cause pre-weakening of the pet chew to break apart with the chewing but are capable of removing plaque from teeth. Applicant states that the Office omitted an important part from its quote from Koo when showing support for the core units being pre-weakening features. Koo paragraph [0046] recites, “the pet dental chew is destroyed along the air holes upon mastication, so that the pet can ingest it little by little without leaving debris.” Applicant argues that this indicates the features relied upon by Koo to provide locations along which the dental chew may be broken are the air holes (30) and not the upper and lower core units (20, 21). However, the Office disagrees for the following reasons.
The Office still asserts that the core units (20, 21) of Koo creates a space from the outer surface of the pet chew and moves inward towards the center of the pet chew, causing a pre-weakening of the pet chew. The breaking apart of the pet chew is envisioned by Koo as being along the upper and lower core units (20, 21) and also being along the air holes. While Koo does specifically point out the breakage as being along the air holes in paragraph [0046] of Koo, Fig. 4 of Koo also shows that the breakage is occurring along the upper and lower core units (20, 21). See circled portions of Annotated Fig. 4 below. In [0050] of Koo, it states “Fig. 4. Is a perspective view that depicts a part separated from a pet dental chew after a pet performs masticatory exercise with the pet dental chew for awhile.” Therefore, Koo does show that the upper and lower core units, which the teeth of the pet are entering and exiting multiple times [0059], is where the breakage of the pet chew is occurring. Thus, the core units of Koo can be viewed as pre-weakening features of the pet chew that allow the pet to break apart the chew when they are inserting their teeth for cleaning into the chew.
PNG
media_image2.png
428
501
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
Applicant argues, on pgs. 7-8 of their remarks, that the combined teachings of McMorris and Bowser would not have suggested using the enzymes of Bowser to alter the digestibility of the corn cob of McMorris. Applicant states that the corn cob fractions of McMorris are not digested by the animal when consumed and that this is seen as an intentional benefit disclosed by McMorris, so a person of ordinary skill would not combine enzymes from Bowser to use in the pet chew of McMorris to help aid in the digestion of the corn cob fractions. Applicant continues, stating that if a person was seeking a way to improve the digestibility of corn cob fractions, they would likely not rely on a reference like Bowser, since Bowser teaches the use of enzymes to aid in the digestion of a base comprising raw ingredients that have filth and unwanted portions like leaves, stems, seeds, etc. However, the Office disagrees for the following reasons.
As stated in the office action above, a person of ordinary skill would modify the corn cob of McMorris by adding digestive enzymes of Bowser because they would aid in the digestibility of the pet chew chunks or pieces that have been swallowed un-chewed, broken off or under-chewed, as disclosed by Bowser [0023]. The Applicant cites column 1, lines 20-25 in McMorris, which discusses the corn cob fractions not being digested but increasing the roughage and bulk so as to assist the pet in the digestion of food. However, this citation is directed towards the prior art discussion at the beginning of the disclosure, specifically in the discussion of prior art reference Simone et al. McMorris discusses the Simone reference stating, “Other products utilize corn cobs in animal chew toys, but only after grinding the cob into small particles. For example Simone… describes an edible chew containing… corn cobs. The corn cob fractions (of Simone) are not digested, but increase roughage and bulk so as to assist the pet in the digestion of food.” The advantage mentioned by McMorris is directed towards the invention of Simone and not to the invention of McMorris. Thus, adding the digestive enzymes of Bowser would not take away from any advantage of McMorris, since McMorris doesn’t state increasing roughage as a specific advantage of their own invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the digestive enzymes of Bowser to modify McMorris for the reasons stated above. Additionally, even if McMorris saw increased roughage as an advantage of their corn cob pet chew, this does not teach away from adding digestive enzymes to the pet chew of McMorris.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would rely on a reference such as Bowser for the digestibility of corn cob fractions, since Bowser teaches a pet chew product that has ingredients from plant sources (Abstract) and uses enzymes to aid in the digestion of these plant sources, like leaves, stems, and seeds. McMorris also teaches a pet chew from a plant source (corn cob). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would view McMorris, Bowser and the claimed invention as being analogous to each other, since all teach a pet chew from plant sources.
Moreover, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, McMorris and Bowser are both in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, which is a pet chew. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would rely on a reference such as Bowser to modify McMorris.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE GERLA whose telephone number is (571)270-0904. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Wed. and Fri. 7-12 pm; Th. 7-2pm.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/S.R.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791