DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 11/26/2025. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-2 and 7 have been amended and no claims have been cancelled or newly added. Thus, claims 1-8 are presenting pending in this application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 1/30/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Reference character 330, corresponding to a user interface, is not present in the drawings, and it is not clear whether the user mobile device user interface 178 and the user interface 330 refer to the same structural element, or to two different user interfaces.
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. 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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, lines 11-14 recites “wherein said cardiopulmonary resuscitation force over a surface area that is greater than the surface area of the top surface that directly receives the cardiopulmonary resuscitation force”, which is grammatically incorrect. Furthermore,
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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:
“a compression indicator configured to provide an indication of a compression rhythm for application of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation force” in claim 4, corresponding to a compression indicator such as a flashing light, a sound indication, or a motion indicator such as vibration (Specification, page 6, lines 13-17).
“at least one processing unit configured to: monitor the vital signs measured by the at least one sensor; determine whether the housing is properly positioned on the chest according to the monitoring of the vital signs; generate a notification comprising instructions for administering the cardiopulmonary resuscitation force; and, providing real-time, continuous feedback regarding the treatment administered and condition of the subject” in claim 6, corresponding to a processor such as a general purpose processor or a microprocessor (Specification, page 9, lines 13-21).
“a communication unit configured to communicate and communicate with a mobile device” in claim 7.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 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 recites the limitation "the surface area of the top surface that directly receives the cardiopulmonary resuscitation force" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear if the limitation “the surface area of the top surface that directly receives the cardiopulmonary resuscitation force” refers to a portion of the top surface that directly receives the cardiopulmonary resuscitation force, or whether the entire top surface, as a whole has a surface area configured to directly receive the cardiopulmonary resuscitation force.
Claim limitation “a communication unit configured to connect and communicate with a mobile device” in claim 7 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, as the structure of the communication unit (310) is not disclosed. The specification, page 6, lines 6-12 recites, “Communication unit 310 is configured to connect and communicate, represented by arrow 175, with mobile device 170 of an EMT to notify of the emergency and request assistance. In some embodiments, communication unit 310 is configured to connect and communicate 175 with mobile device 170 of the rescuer, thereby activating an instructional application that demonstrates for the rescuer the proper hand positioning on resuscitation 10 device 100”. However, the specification does not disclose the structure of the communication unit (e.g. whether the communication can be an antenna, software, a processor, etc). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-6 and 8 are rejected for being either directly or indirectly depending from a rejected claim base.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly (5,496,257) in view of Morgan (9,539,172).
PNG
media_image1.png
313
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kelly discloses a resuscitation device to facilitate the administration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation to a subject, the resuscitation device comprising: a housing including a compression region (12) having a top surface (16) (flat, stiff surface) and a bottom surface (14) (bottom surface of compression pad (14)) (col 3, ln 63-col 4, ln 6); wherein the top surface (16) configured to guide a hand position of a rescuer administrating a cardiopulmonary resuscitation to the subject (may include a contoured element (not shown) that is shaped to match the contours of a user’s hand (col 4, ln 33-37) and can be sized to be used for performing CPR on an infant using two fingers (col 5, ln 16-31)); and wherein said bottom surface (14) is configured to facilitate positioning and stabilizing the housing over a sternum of a subject (bottom surface (14) may contain an adhesive or a textured surface to hold the bottom surface (14) in one set position on a patient’s chest (col 4, ln 13-27), and, wherein the housing is configured to transmit a uniform distribution of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation force to the chest of the subject (by applying a force to the top surface (16), the force is transferred to a patient's chest via the bottom surface (14), and since the top surface (16) is relatively stiff, any force applied will be evenly distributed across the bottom surface (14) and onto the patient) (col 4, ln 7-13), wherein the housing is configured to transmit a cardiopulmonary resuscitation force that uniformly distributes to the chest of the subject (compression pad (14) is cushioned so that the forces applied to the compression region (12) are more evenly distributed onto the patient (col 3, ln 65-col 4, ln 4), wherein said cardiopulmonary resuscitation force over a surface area that is greater than the surface area of the top surface (16) that directly receives the cardiopulmonary resuscitation force (as shown in the annotated fig 1 above, bottom surface (14) is shown to be a length L that is larger than a length of an extending portion of top surface (16), and therefore the surface area of the bottom surface would be larger than the surface area of the top surface) (fig 1a, col 5, ln 9-12), thereby facilitating injury and contusion prevention to ribs and the sternum of the subject (as a result, there is less of a chance that the force being applied to the patient will cause internal injuries or external bruising) (col 4, ln 2-4).
Kelly does not disclose said top surface comprises a concave dell configured to guide a hand position of a rescuer administrating a cardiopulmonary resuscitation to the subject.
However, Morgan teaches a device to deliver cardiopulmonary resuscitation to an infant, and in figs 14a-c discloses a top surface of a housing (206) (case) including a pair of concave dells (220) (as shown in fig 14b, finger pads are shown to be concave with respect to the housing (206)) (col 14, ln 48-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Kelly by providing the top surface with a concave dell comprising finger pads configured to guide on the top surface a hand positioning of a rescuer administrating a cardiopulmonary resuscitation to a subject as taught by Morgan in order to allow the device to be used for CPR on an infant by repeated press-release movements using a concave dell disposed on the top surface of the housing (Morgan, abstract) to cause the device to distribute the pressing force substantially evenly to the infant (Morgan, col 14, ln 52-56).
Regarding claim 2, Kelly in fig 1b teaches the housing includes a bottom surface (17) of a compression pad (14), wherein the bottom surface (17) comprises a friction surface configured to prevent the housing from dislocating from its position during administration of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation force (the bottom surface (17) of the compression pad (14) may be textured to increase the coefficient of friction associated with that surface, or may include an adhesive element that contacts the patient) (col 4, ln 13-27).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Kelly’s reference discloses said concave dell (220 of Morgan) comprises a secondary concave dell configured to facilitate administration of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation force to an infant (as shown in fig 1a-c of Morgan, finger pads (220 of Morgan) include two concave dells, and therefore a second of the concave dells would comprise a secondary concave dell to facilitate administration of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation force to an infant) (Morgan, col 14, ln 48-59).
Regarding claim 4, Kelly discloses a compression indicator (30, 32) (visual, audio indicators) configured to provide an indication of a compression rhythm for application of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation force (visual indicator (30) and audible indicator (32) is configured to pace the person administering CPR in the proper compression rate per minute for a given sized patient) (col 6, ln 32-50).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Kelly’s reference discloses a second concave dell configured to facilitate administration of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation force to an infant (as shown in fig 1a-c of Morgan, finger pads (220 of Morgan) include two concave dells, and therefore a second of the concave dells would comprise a second concave dell to facilitate administration of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation force to an infant) (Morgan, col 14, ln 48-59).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly and Morgan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson (2014/0323928).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kelly discloses a resuscitation device.
Modified Kelly does not disclose a tarp operative to facilitate covering the chest of the subject during administration of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation force.
However, Johnson teaches a resuscitation device, and in fig 2 discloses a tarp (electrode assembly) operative to facilitate covering the chest of the subject during administration of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation force and including a sternal electrode (4), an apex electrode (5), and a bridge (6) operable to contain a resuscitation device (7) (chest compression monitor) (para [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of modified Kelly by providing a tarp operative to facilitate covering the chest of the subject during administration of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation force and including electrodes as taught by Johnson in order to allow the device to be used in combination with a defibrillator to apply a shock to a patient is if is determined that a defibrillating shock should be applied (Johnson, para [0005]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly and Morgan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hardig et al (2019/0117499).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kelly discloses at least one sensor (43 of Kelly) (blood flow sensor) configured to measure vital signs of the subject (Kelly, col 7, ln 9-26); and, at least one processing unit (51 of Kelly) (CPU) (Kelly, col 8, ln 18-23) configured to: monitor the vital signs measured by the at least one sensor (43 of Kelly) (sensor (43) intercommunicates with circuitry within the apparatus housing) (Kelly, col 7, ln 18-20); generate a notification comprising instructions for administering the cardiopulmonary resuscitation force (CPU (51 of Kelly) drives the visual indicator (30 of Kelly) and the audible indicator (32 of Kelly) to prompt the rescuer into properly administering CPR) (Kelly, col 8, ln 21-28); and, providing real-time, continuous feedback regarding the treatment administered and condition of the subject (includes gauges (50, 52 of Kelly), which may be electronically produced images, for providing feedback for compression force and blood flow) (Kelly, col 7, ln 52-col 8, ln 3).
Modified Kelly does not disclose the at least one processing unit is configured to determine whether the housing is properly positioned on the chest according to the monitoring of the vital signs.
However, Hardig in fig 1 teaches a resuscitation device including a contact surface (116) configured to make contact with a patient’s chest for performing chest compressions (para [0034]) and a physiological sensor (138) configured to measure vital signs of the subject (sensor can measure a physiological parameter such as Arterial Systolic Blood Pressure (ABSP), a blood oxygen saturation (SpO2), a ventilation measured as End-Tidal CO2 (ETCO2), a temperature, a detected pulse, etc.) (para [0040]), and at least one processing unit (102), wherein the at one processing unit (102) is configured to determine whether the contact surface is properly positioned on the chest according to the monitoring of the vital signs (controller (102) can receive a physiological parameter sensor signal (140) from the physiological parameter sensor (138) and determine whether a first orientation of the contact surface (116) should be adjusted based on the physiological parameter sensor signal (140)) (para [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of modified Kelly so that the at least one processing unit is configured to determine whether the housing is properly positioned on the chest according to the monitoring of the vital signs as taught by Hardig in order to allow the at least one processing unit to determine whether the orientation of the housing should be adjusted so that pressure can be positioned at an intended point on the chest (Hardig, para [0011]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly and Morgan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Freeman et al (2019/0255340).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kelly discloses a resuscitation device.
Modified Kelly does not disclose a communication unit configured to connect and communicate with a mobile device.
However, Freeman teaches a treatment system (100) including a resuscitation device (110) (ACD resuscitation device) (para [0037]), wherein the resuscitation device (200) (which is the same as device (110)) (para [0040]) includes a communication unit configured to communicate with a mobile device (device can include an antenna for wireless communication for communication with external devices such as laptops, wireless networks, wearable electronic devices, smartwatches, servers, tablets, phones, etc) (para [0056]), and wherein the mobile device configured to present the user with user interface and instructional content (mobile phone can be connected to the integrated treatment system (100), in which visual feedback, such as a graphical user interface that displays an ECG trace, compression timing and depth measurements, or other feedback of the ACD Resuscitation treatment, can be provided to the rescuer from a location that is away from the ACD Resuscitation device 110) (para [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of modified Kelly by providing a communication unit configured to communicate with a mobile device, the mobile device configured to present the user with user interface and instructional content as taught by Freeman in order to allow information to be provided to the rescuer from a location that is away from the resuscitation device (Freeman, para [0037]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 5, fourth full paragraph-seventh full paragraph of applicant’s remarks, that the drawings have been amended in accordance with the instructions provided by the examiner. However, the amended drawings do not contain the reference character (330), corresponding to the user interface disclosed in the specification. If the user interface (330) described in page 6, lines 24-35 and page 8, lines 32-33 of the specification and the user interface (178) shown in fig 3 are considered to correspond to the same structural element, it is suggested to amend the specification to change the reference number of the user interface to (178). If the user interface (330) is intended to correspond to a different structural element from user interface (178) it is suggested to amend the drawings so that the user interface (330) is shown.
Applicant argues on page 6, first full paragraph-third full paragraph of applicant’s remarks, that the amendment to claim 7, reciting “a resuscitation device according to claim 1, further comprising a communication unit configured to connect and communicate with a mobile device", as recited on page 6, lines 6-7 of the application as filed is definite. However, the limitation “a communication unit configured to connect and communicate with a mobile device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (which is acknowledged by applicant on page 4 of applicant’s remarks). The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, as the structure of the communication unit (310) is not disclosed. The specification, page 6, lines 6-12 recites, “Communication unit 310 is configured to connect and communicate, represented by arrow 175, with mobile device 170 of an EMT to notify of the emergency and request assistance. In some embodiments, communication unit 310 is configured to connect and communicate 175 with mobile device 170 of the rescuer, thereby activating an instructional application that demonstrates for the rescuer the proper hand positioning on resuscitation 10 device 100”. However, the specification does not disclose the structure of the communication unit (e.g. whether the structural equivalent to the communication unit can be an antenna, software, a processor, etc). Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 6, fourth full paragraph-page 7, second full paragraph of applicant’s remarks, that Morgan does not disclose the limitation "wherein said cardiopulmonary resuscitation force over a surface area that is greater than the surface area of the top surface that directly receives the cardiopulmonary resuscitation force, thereby facilitating injury and contusion prevention to ribs and the sternum of the subject", as Morgan discloses that compression force is evenly distributed by the device by applying force to a flat surface (16), which is transferred to a patient by a compression pad (14). However, as shown in the annotated fig 1 above, bottom surface (14) is shown to have a length L that is larger than a length of an extending portion of top surface (16), and therefore the surface area of the bottom surface would be larger than the surface area of the top surface) (fig 1a, col 5, ln 9-12). Furthermore, Morgan does not sole disclose applying force by via a flat surface, as the device may include a contoured element (not shown) that is shaped to match the contours of a user’s hand (col 4, ln 33-37) and can be sized to be used for performing CPR on an infant using two fingers (col 5, ln 16-31)), and therefore, a contoured surface sized to be used for performing CPR on an infant using two fingers would have a smaller surface area than a chest region of an infant. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 7, fourth full paragraph-sixth full paragraph of applicant’s remarks, that Kelly relies on a pair of legs extending through the case and does not describe that the structure of the device is configured to facilitate positioning and stabilizing the housing over the sternum of the subject. However, the primary reference Morgan discloses that and wherein said bottom surface (14) of the device is configured to facilitate positioning and stabilizing the housing over a sternum of a subject (bottom surface (14) may contain an adhesive or a textured surface to hold the bottom surface (14) in one set position on a patient’s chest (col 4, ln 13-27), and Kelly is relied upon to teach that Morgan’s contoured element can comprise a concave dell. Therefore, because the primary reference Morgan teaches a device configured to facilitate positioning and stabilizing the housing over the sternum of the subject, and Kelly is used as a teaching reference to disclose the feature of the concave dell which was not disclosed in Morgan, the modified Morgan’s device discloses the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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 DOUGLAS YOUNG SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-5260. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Stanis can be reached on 571-272-5139. 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.
/DOUGLAS Y SUL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785