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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/16/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-7 remain pending and are being examined on their merits in this U.S. Patent Application. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “the humic mineral blend, the fulvic mineral blend, and the ground coffee beans together”. Support for this amendment can be found in the particular embodiment described in paragraph 0014 of the instant Specification. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 10/17/25.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0014, line 5, “is thermally enhance”, seems it should read “is thermally enhanced”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 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 1 recites the limitation "the brewing process" in line 7, element (ii). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no brewing process previously mentioned.
Claims 2-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a base rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkie et al. [US 20200015501 A1], hereinafter Wilkie, in view of Brucker et al. [US 20050031761 A1], hereinafter Brucker, and Carrington et al. [US 20200000136 A1], hereinafter Carrington.
Regarding claim 1, Wilkie teaches humic and fulvic mineral extract for creating one or more beverage product for human consumption using said humic and fulvic ingredients [Wilkie, Title, Abstract, 0001]. The invention disclose humic and fulvic ingredients are combined with other additive ingredients (2120, Wilkie, Fig.21) to create a wide range of products including beverages [Wilkie, 0080, 0085, Fig.4, Fig.21].
Wilkie does not explicitly teach combining the humic/fulvic mineral blend with ground coffee beans, and brewing the humic mineral blend, the fulvic mineral blend, and the ground coffee beans together.
Brucker teaches a functionalized coffee composition comprising one or more minerals [Brucker, 0005], wherein the coffee may be ground coffee beans [Brucker, 0006, 0095], said coffee with minerals and/or with functional additives (functional additives include additives containing minerals [Brucker, 0005, 0074]) composition being suitable for brewing into beverage to provide health benefits to the consumer [Brucker, 0010, 0105]. The minerals and/or functional additives are added to coffee grounds prior to brewing [Brucker, 0010-0011, 0032, 0095, 0097]. The invention provides for the formation of a dispersion (brewed coffee is a dispersion of coffee solids and other components/substances (i.e., volatile aroma components and non-volatile components such as sugars all dispersed in the extracting solvent/solution)) that provides a brewed beverage obtained by extraction comprising the functional additives, (equivalent to upon brewing the humic mineral blend, the fulvic mineral blend, and the ground coffee beans together) since the functional additives in combination with the coffee grounds are extracted to provide the brewed beverage comprising the functional additives as taught by Brucker [Brucker, 0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed ground coffee beans ingredient, into the invention of Wilkie, in view of Brucker, since both are directed to methods of making beverage and/or drink compositions comprising beneficial components such as minerals and coffee material. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the beverage of Wilkie to be the coffee of Brucker by including ground coffee beans into the invention of Wilkie in order to provide a humic and fulvic mineral blend coffee composition comprising ground coffee beans for making a beverage, as this is merely using or selection of a known material for a known purpose and as such is prima facie obviousness. Doing so would provide methods and compositions for beverages comprising ground coffee beans [Brucker, 0006, 0095] that is suitable for providing beneficial qualities to brewed coffee, caffeinated beverages or drinks as well as health benefits to the consumer [Brucker, 0010], and allows for the ready preparation of a healthy caffeinated beverage or drink which can be used to deliver functional additives to a subject suffering from any number of ailments [Brucker, 0011].
Regarding the limitation in claim 1 of the composition being configured to provide detoxification of mycotoxins and other toxic and biologically detrimental compounds via the inclusion of the humic mineral blend.
Modified Wilkie does not explicitly disclose that the composition is configured to provide detoxification of mycotoxins and other toxic and biologically detrimental compounds via the inclusion of the humic mineral blend and fulvic mineral blend in a coffee beverage during the/a brewing process thereby fortifying the coffee beverage; and wherein the composition forms a dispersion upon brewing and is thermally enhanced. However, given that the composition comprising humic and fulvic mineral blends and process of preparing said composition comprising a coffee additive ingredient and humic and fulvic minerals based on the disclosure in Wilkie combined with the teachings in Brucker is substantially similar to that in the instant claims, it is the examiner's position that the ground coffee beans with humic/fulvic mineral composition of Wilkie in view of Brucker would inherently have the instantly claimed provision of detoxification of mycotoxins and other toxic and biologically detrimental compounds via the inclusion of the humic mineral blend and/or fulvic mineral blend in a coffee beverage during the/a brewing process thereby fortifying the coffee beverage; and wherein the composition forms a dispersion upon brewing and is thermally enhanced. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) .
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Further, Carrington teaches supplemental food formulations comprising humic mineral and fulvic mineral blends (humic-fulvic acids with multi-minerals) [Carrington, Abstract, 0013] suitable for combining with coffee [Carrington, 0076, 0216, 0240], and where the compositions are suitable for drinks [Carrington, 0083] and beverages [Carrington, 0086], where humic and fulvic containing compositions are useful for reduction and/or elimination of substances that are toxic to humans [Carrington, 0014], and where the composition is a mixture of selected substances including humic-fulvic acids with multi-minerals that are beneficial to a consumer as supplement, since the components of the mixture or mixed composition are sufficiently similar in chemical and physical properties to be handled together (also equivalent to the claimed the humic mineral blend, the fulvic mineral blend, and the ground coffee beans together that is already taught by Brucker [Brucker, 0016] as explained above) in the manufacturing process [Carrington, 0111, 0108, Table 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed composition being configured to provide detoxification of mycotoxins and other toxic and biologically detrimental compounds via the inclusion of the humic mineral blend and fulvic mineral blend in a coffee beverage prior to and during the/a brewing process thereby fortifying the coffee beverage, into the invention of modified Wilkie, in view of Carrington, since all are directed to methods of making beverage and/or drink compositions comprising beneficial components such as minerals and coffee material and/or humic mineral and fulvic mineral blends, because Carrington teach the composition would additionally provide for the detoxification of mycotoxins and other toxic and biologically detrimental compounds via the inclusion of the humic mineral blend and fulvic mineral blend in a food that is supplemented with the composition of his invention, thereby fortifying the coffee beverage since Carrington evidence that humic and fulvic containing compositions are useful for reduction and/or elimination of substances that are toxic to humans, thus prompting a skilled artisan to use and/or recognize the composition being configured to provide detoxification as claimed.
Regarding art recognized suitability for an intended purpose, MPEP 2144.07 states:
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.)
See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed order of mixing ingredients (inclusion of the humic mineral blend and fulvic mineral blend in a coffee beverage prior to and during the/a brewing process) in the invention of Wilkie, since Wilkie already disclosed mixing the humic and fulvic mineral blend with additives prior to and during a beverage preparation process, but simply did not mention brewing, which is nonetheless taught by Brucker, and since the claimed order of mixing ingredients would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as the preparation methods of the coffee or brewed beverage, ratios of the various ingredients, the desired final taste characteristics of the final beverage product, and/or the particular health benefit being targeted or of interest to the consumer in the method of modified Wilkie.
Regarding the order of mixing ingredients, MPEP 2144.04 states:
Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Regarding claim 2, Wilkie teach the humic/fulvic mineral composition but does not explicitly recites the claimed percent by weight of the humic/fulvic mineral blend and/or the claimed percent by weight of the ground coffee beans (mineral/coffee ratio). However, modified Wilkie in view of Brucker teach the functionalized humic/fulvic mineral coffee composition discussed above in claim 1, comprising a functional additive mineral [Brucker, 0003], and ground coffee beans [Brucker, 0006, 0095], wherein the functional/mineral additive may be in amounts of about 0.01% to 20% by weight with ground coffee (therefore, the composition would be 80% to 99.99% by weight of ground coffee since the composition may be comprised of only the functional additives (minerals) at 0.01% to 20% by weight and the rest (i.e., 80% to 99.99%) would be ground coffee) [Brucker, 0012, 0105], which are ranges that overlap with the claimed ranges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed percent by weight of the humic and/or fulvic mineral blend and the percent by weight of ground coffee beans, into the invention of Wilkie, in view of Brucker, since the substitution of one known element (i.e. percent by weight amount of humic/fulvic mineral and additional ingredients of Wilkie [Wilkie, 0080, 0085]) for another (i.e. percent by weight amount of functional/mineral additive and ground coffee bean of Brucker [Brucker, 0012, 0105] would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, and since Wilkie already teach that quantities of additive ingredients and selecting some of the ingredients can be varied to target specific benefits and taste in the products for human consumption [Wilkie, 0080, 0085], since the claimed percent by weight of materials would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as the ratios of the various ingredients, the desired final taste characteristics and/or the desired health benefit to impart to the consumer in the method of modified Wilkie. Doing so would provide healthy beverages/drinks suitable for delivering functional additives to a subject through beverages and drinks [Brucker, 0011].
Regarding claim 3, Wilkie teach the humic/fulvic mineral composition but does not teach the composition is a powdered composition. However, modified Wilkie in view of Brucker teach the humic/fulvic mineral coffee composition discussed above in claim 1, wherein the ground coffee and mineral additive blended composition may be in powdered form [Brucker, 0093, 0095-0096].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed composition in powdered form into the invention of Wilkie, in view of Brucker. Doing so would provide powdered coffee with powdered functional additives (i.e., minerals) in a substantially homogeneous powdered coffee blend, where the functional additives are mixed right after the coffee beans are ground to take advantage of the ground coffee's natural oils which may act to bind the coffee grounds and powdered additives, and in addition, the oils upon heating assist in the chemical availability of some functional additives assisting the body’s ability to assimilate the functional additive in a way that speeds the desired effect and enhances the net available effect of the active ingredients [Brucker, 0095].
Regarding claim 4, Wilkie teach the humic/fulvic mineral composition for creating one or more beverage product for human consumption using said humic and fulvic ingredients [Wilkie, Title, Abstract, 0001] but does not explicitly recite a beverage made by brewing the composition. However, modified Wilkie in view of Brucker teach the humic/fulvic mineral coffee composition discussed above in claim 1, wherein a beverage is made by brewing the mineral/coffee composition and obtain brewed beverages [Brucker, 0105-0106].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed beverage made by brewing, into the invention of Wilkie, in view of Brucker, since both express interest in delivering functional additives through beverages to a subject. Doing so would provide for simple and convenient preparation methods of functional coffee beverages where a consumer may select the desired functional additive from a menu, the desired type of ground coffee and an employee would prepare the functionalized coffee composition by combining the selected ingredients, the appropriate amount of functional additive and the coffee grounds to provide a substantially homogenous mixture to obtain a functionalized coffee composition [Brucker, 0105].
Regarding claims 5-6, modified Wilkie in view of Brucker teach the beverage made by brewing as discussed in claim 4 rejection above, where said beverages further comprise an additive such as flavoring agents [Wilkie, Abstract-0079, Fig.21 (2120)].
Regarding claim 7, modified Wilkie in view of Brucker teach the beverage made by brewing as discussed in claim 4 rejection above, where the final beverage product is a bottled (equivalent to sealed container) beverage product [Wilkie, 0090].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 3-5 of the Remarks, Applicant urges that Wilkie in view of Brucker does not disclose or suggests the limitations of previously presented independent claim 1 because Wilkie is directed to bottling of alcoholic beverages and the addition of further ingredients including fulvic and humic acids in water into said beverages.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art armed with the teachings of Wilkie and Brucker would immediately envisage the inclusion of humic and fulvic mineral blends in any beverage for consumption by an individual including but not limited to coffee compositions or even in any other beverage that requires brewing (i.e., tea beverages) because neither Wilkie or Brucker teaches away from brewed coffee compositions.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the reference being relied upon for the teaching of a coffee composition, particularly a functionalized coffee composition comprising one or more minerals, wherein the coffee may be ground coffee beans is the reference of Brucker and the rejection is based on a combination of references (Wilkie with Brucker) particularly the modification of the beverage of Wilkie to be the coffee of Brucker by including ground coffee beans into the invention of Wilkie in order to provide a humic and fulvic mineral blend coffee composition comprising ground coffee beans for making a beverage, which would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
On page 4 of the Remarks, Applicant urges that Wilkie only teaches producing beverages from water containing humic and fulvic acids which requires a storage under suitable pH conditions, and not a coffee containing humic and fulvic mineral blends.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, as similarly explained above, the rejection is based on a combination of references where the teaching of a coffee material comprising a mineral blend is taught by Brucker and Wilkie is relied upon for the teaching of using fulvic and humic substances in beverages, since Brucker explicitly teach the ground coffee comprising mineral blends and other additives that are of benefit to the consumer, and Wilkie teach the humic and fulvic substances are also beneficial in the production of beverages, but simply uses these substances in the water that is used for said beverages.
On page 4 of the Remarks, Applicant urges that the proposed modification (Wilkie in view of Brucker) would render the prior art unsatisfactory because Wilkie teach that heat separates the humic and fulvic substances which teaches away from the claimed invention since the brewing of the humic-fulvic mineral containing coffee of the instant invention requires brewing with water at increased temperatures. This argument is not persuasive because while Wilkie does teach humic and fulvic substances separation using controlled pH and temperatures, the process in which this occurs in Wilkie’s invention is during the actual extraction of the humic and fulvic substances from the humic and fulvic sources (which requires an activated carbon bed), where the separation of humic and fulvic acid caused by controlled temperature and pH refers to the separation of the humic and fulvic materials from the activated carbon bed surface (separation of humic-fulvic material from activated carbon bed that has adsorbed the humic-fulvic material in order to obtain the desired humic-fulvic material to further concentrate and use in beverages, and not separation of humic-fulvic material out of solution, such as for removal of undesirable substances that are not to be further included, see Wilkie, 0061-0064, 0066-0067, 0078) for further storage into their respective humic-fulvic material storage tanks, to be used further in the production of beverages (see Wilkie “fulvic and humic substances extraction” [Wilkie, 0037, 0042, 0059-0068, 0078], and “creating products for human consumption” humic and fulvic substances explicitly being used in beverages after the extraction (“creating at least one or more beverage product including water beverage, flavored beverages, alcoholic beverages, and supplements and food additives for human consumption using the separated, segregated, suspended and stored fulvic acid, humic acids and other ingredients including vitamins.”) [Wilkie, 0081])
Applicant’s arguments with respect to newly amended claim(s) 1 (particularly the new limitation of “brewing the humic mineral blend, the fulvic mineral blend, and the ground coffee beans together”), and originally presented dependent claims 2-7, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The rejection has been modified in accord with the amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Wilkie et al. [US 20200080037 A1], hereinafter Wilkie:
Wilkie teaches humic and fulvic acid molecules with minerals for preparation of beverages for human consumption with humic and fulvic water [Title, Abstract]. The humic and fulvic water solution is used as a base for brewed beverages such as coffee and tea [0041, 0043].
2. Brysch et al. [US 20190084757 A1], hereinafter Brysch:
Brysch teaches beverage preparation article(s) (capsules) and methods for delivering drugs or dietary supplements in combination [0102] that may include mineral blends [0104-0105] by solubilization of said substances contained in the beverage capsule [0102], where methods for beverage preparation includes brewing [0173, 0177, 0183].
3. Adam et al. [US 20160066603 A1], hereinafter Adam:
Adam teaches antioxidative, natural compounds suitable for use in beverages [Abstract], where substances include mineral blends [0002-0003], humic and fulvic materials derivatives, salts, and chelates [0005, 0021].
4. Duoibes et al. [US 20110171319 A1], hereinafter Duoibes:
Duoibes teaches nutritional compositions formulations, and intermediates [Abstract], comprising humic and fulvic materials [0005], where the formulations are incorporated and/or used in brewed beverages such as coffee and tea as well as other beverages [0008].
5. Laane et al. [US 20140200138 A1], hereinafter Laane:
Laane teaches preparation of stable solutions and powders containing minerals, humic and fulvic materials [0003], where the solutions comprising the minerals, humic and fulvic materials can be used as food additives in drinks [0086].
6. Kros [US 7915198 B2]:
Kros teaches an aqueous solution, comprising minerals [col.3, l.61-65] and fulvic material [col.6, l.38-51] and can be used for drinks for medicinal, supplementation and/or therapeutical purposes [col.8, l.22-39].
7. Day et al. [US 20070212434 A1], hereinafter Day:
Day teaches compositions comprising fulvic acid [Abstract], and minerals for use as liquid nutritional supplement [0086], where compositions comprising fulvic acid and minerals are suitable for use in brewed beverages such as coffee and tea [0023].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/L.E.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792