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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 7/14/2025 was accepted and entered. Accordingly, claim(s) 1, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, and 19-20 has/have been amended. Claim(s) 2 and 10 has/have been cancelled. No claim(s) has/have been newly added. Thus, claims 1, 3-9, and 11-20 are currently pending in this application.
The amendment resolved some of the issues of the instant claim; however, issues remain and have been added, as further explained below.
Claim Objections
The Claims are objected to because each element or step of the claim is NOT separated by a line indentation (See 37 CFR 1.75). Appropriate correction is required.
The limitation in line 3 of claim 1 beginning with “exposing” should be separated by a line indentation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Wireless Transmission Support” on pages 7-8 of remarks, filed 7/14/2025, with respect to original support for wirelessly transmitting the data generated from the at least one optical sensor module via a radio frequency wireless communications module have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant points out that the claim does not require direct radio transmission connection between the two elements and that there is support for the RF module 170 to transmit from controller module 140, which has received data from spectrometer 130, which includes sensor 132. The rejection regarding original support for wirelessly transmitting the data generated from the at least one optical sensor module via a radio frequency wireless communications module has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding partial least squares Applicant points to [0038] for support. The specification of the instant application does not include a discussion in [0038] of partial least squares regression model nor does the remainder of the specification.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 102, Applicant argues that Schmilovitch does not teach a radio frequency wireless communication module. As this is a limitation that has been added via the amendment, the amendment required a new rejection, which will be further discussed below.
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). In this case:
Schmilovitch does not disclose that the data between the optical sensor module and the microprocessor module are transmitted wirelessly via a radio frequency (RF) wireless communication module.
RF Wireless transmission between spectrometer sensors and processors are well known in the art as disclosed by Das (See figure 20, element 100 is a testing apparatus for testing dairy milk with a spectrometer sensor, element 104 or optical sensor module and a microprocessor module element 122 processes the spectral data from element 104, see paragraph [0088] discloses transmitting the data from apparatus 100 to the mobile device or processing device element 122 for computing or processing the detected spectral data and that this data is transmitted wirelessly or in wired form, see paragraph [0087).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention as disclosed by Schmilovitch with the RF wireless transmission of spectral data between the optical sensor module and the processor of Das, as it would reduce on site processing needs and thus result in a more compact sensor device. Further, allowing processing off site, wirelessly, would allow for a centralized location of the collected data for offsite review and analysis by an expert before relaying to a dairy farmer the condition of the milk, which would result in more accurate reporting of online milk data.
Applicant argues against the combination of references because “invention as claimed describes transmitting data to an external network for processing, allowing analysis of more variables,” while Schmilovich is “limited by on-site data and processing power” (pg. 13 of remarks received 7/14/2025). This seems to contradict Applicants arguments regarding new matter.
The specification discloses processing to be performed in the controller module 140 and wirelessly transmitted for further processing.
PNG
media_image1.png
735
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
There is not original support for applying a partial least squares (PLS) regression model to the spectral data to determine concentrations of the predetermined components including fat, protein, lactose, somatic cell count (SCC), and progesterone.
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, 3-9, and 11-20 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.
The claims are replete with errors. The claims should be revised carefully to correct the numerous errors. Examples of some unclear, inexact, or verbose limitations in the claims are:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the spectral data" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the data" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, lines 3-5, recites “exposing the milk sample to a near infrared (NIR) light source and at least one optical sensor module having a range of between 700nm to 1200nm.” It is not clear how the “at least one optical sensor module having a range between 700nm to 1200nm” relates to the method step of exposing nor how it further limits the method claim. For purposes of a prior art search the examiner is interpreting the at least one optical sensor module to be exposed to the NIR in the exposing step.
Claim 11 depends from claim 10; however, claim 10 has been cancelled.
Claim 11 has an incorrect claim identifier. Identifier is “Original;” however, the claim includes text with strikethrough and underlined text.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3-9, and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2004/0179194 (Schmilovitch) in view of US 2018/0372623 (Das).
Regarding claim 1, Schmilovitch discloses a method of analyzing dairy cow milk components in a dairy cow milking system (See figure 1, element 10 is a conduit that samples milk from a milking station in real time) comprising the steps of:
collecting a milk sample in line from a dairy cow using a transparent conduit (element 10 is a conduit and element 18 is transparent to the NIR light and element 10 collects milk from milk station element 12);
exposing the milk sample to a near infrared (NIR) light source (element 20 is a set of LEDs that illuminate in the NIR-Visible region, see paragraph [0063] and at least one optical sensor module having a range of about 700nm to about 1200nm (elements 27, 24 and 29 measure transmitted/reflected/backscattered NIR light, see paragraph [0063] discloses 700-1100nm spectral region);
detecting substantially via transmittance and in real time (element 27 detects transmitted light and in real time, see paragraph [0059]) a set of predetermined components within the milk sample, the predetermined components related to measurements or data generated from the at least one optical sensor module, wherein detecting comprises applying partial least squares (PLS) regression model to the spectral data to determine concentrations of the predetermined components including fat, protein, lactose, somatic cell count (SCC), and progesterone ([0002]; [0021]; [0027]; [0067]-[0068; claims 22, 33-34]); and
transmitting the data from the optical sensor module to a microprocessor module (data from the sensor element 27 is transmitted to the microprocessor, elements 30/32), wherein the microprocessor module is adapted to generate the set of predetermined components (elements 30/32 analyze the detected spectra to determine the components, see paragraphs [0067]-[0068]).
Schmilovitch does not disclose that the data between the optical sensor module and the microprocessor module are transmitted wirelessly via a radio frequency (RF) wireless communication module.
RF Wireless transmission between spectrometer sensors and processors are well known in the art as disclosed by Das (See figure 20, element 100 is a testing apparatus for testing dairy milk with a spectrometer sensor, element 104 or optical sensor module and a microprocessor module element 122 processes the spectral data from element 104, see paragraph [0088] discloses transmitting the data from apparatus 100 to the mobile device or processing device element 122 for computing or processing the detected spectral data and that this data is transmitted wirelessly or in wired form, see paragraph [0087).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention as disclosed by Schmilovitch with the RF wireless transmission of spectral data between the optical sensor module and the processor of Das, as it would reduce on site processing needs and thus result in a more compact sensor device. Further, allowing processing off site, wirelessly, would allow for a centralized location of the collected data for offsite review and analysis by an expert before relaying to a dairy farmer the condition of the milk, which would result in more accurate reporting of online milk data.
Regarding claim 3, Schmilovitch in view of Das discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein Schmilovitch discloses exposing the milk sample to the NIR light source includes at least one or more wavelengths from a group of wavelengths including: 726, 736, 740, 760, 776, 832, 840, 880, 902, 926, 930, 952, 960, and 1034 nm (see paragraph [0063] discloses 700-1100nm wavelengths) .
Regarding claim 4, Schmilovitch in view of Das discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein Schmilovitch discloses exposing the milk sample to the NIR light source includes at least four or more wavelengths from group of wavelengths including 726, 736, 740, 760, 776, 832, 840, 880, 902, 926, 930, 952, 960, and 1034 nm (see paragraph [0063] discloses 700-1100nm wavelengths) .
Regarding claim 5, Schmilovitch in view of Das discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein Schmilovitch discloses exposing the milk sample to the NIR light source includes one or more wavelengths from a group of wavelengths including: 740 and 840 nm (see paragraph [0063] discloses 700-1100nm wavelengths) .
Regarding claim 6, Schmilovitch in view of Das discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein Schmilovitch discloses that the milk components indicate bovine conditions that affect milk production, the conditions including one or more of mastitis, estrus, dehydration, and starvation (see paragraph [0002] discloses that changes in lactose content can indicate mastitis, also low protein levels indicate energy deficiency or starvation).
Regarding claim 7, Schmilovitch in view of Das discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, Schmilovitch further disclose including conducting chemometrics wherein spectral data is pretreated, such as smoothing and derivative transformation (see paragraph [0014] discloses using a PLS smoothing function to the spectra data).
Regarding claim 8, Schmilovitch in view of Das discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, Schmilovitch further discloses including the steps of collecting transmittance spectra at or between about 1 nm to 2 nm intervals (see paragraph [0004] discloses sampling every 2nm and continuously, see paragraph [0059]), recording at a linked computer as absorbance (element 32), and collecting spectral data having a path length of 9 to 14 mm (see paragraph [0063] discloses a path length of 10mm).
Regarding claim 9, Schmilovitch discloses a system for analyzing milk components in a dairy cow milking system (See figure 1, element 10 is a conduit that samples milk from a milking station in real time) comprising:
a transparent milk collection vessel or conduit (element 10 is a conduit and element 18 is transparent to the NIR light and element 10 collects milk from milk station element 12);
a suction apparatus having an inlet and an outlet, the outlet coupled to the milk collection vessel and the inlet adapted to be coupled to a dairy cow (element 12 is a milking station that draws milk from a cow, the inlet is connected to the cow and element 12 is connected to element 10 which is the milk collection vessel);
a near infrared (NIR) spectrometer adapted to provide light to and collect light from, in a range of about 700nm to about 1200nm, the milk collection vessel (elements 27, 24 and 29 measure transmitted/reflected/backscattered NIR light, see paragraph [0063] discloses 700-1100nm spectral region and elements 20 are a set of NIRVIS LEDS to illuminate the milk sample in element 10); and
a controller module (element 32) including a microcontroller (element 32) and a memory module, (see paragraph [0057] discloses a computing system memory) the controller module adapted to receive spectral data from the NIR spectrometer indicative of spectral data measurements of a set of predetermined milk components (element 32 receives spectral data from element 27, elements 30/32 analyze the detected spectra to determine the milk components, see paragraphs [0067]-[0068]).
Schmilovitch does not disclose a radio frequency (RF) wireless communications module operatively coupled to the controller module and adapted to transmit data of at least one of the set of predetermined milk components including fat, protein, lactose, somatic cell contents (SCC), and progesterone.
Wireless or RF frequency communication module for transmitting data about the milk components is well known in the art as disclosed by Das (See figure 20, element 100 is a testing apparatus for testing dairy milk with a spectrometer sensor, element 104 or optical sensor module and a microprocessor module element 122 processes the spectral data from element 104, see paragraph [0088] discloses transmitting the data from apparatus 100 to the mobile device or processing device element 122 for computing or processing the detected spectral data and that this data is transmitted wirelessly or in wired form, see paragraph [0087).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention as disclosed by Schmilovitch with the wireless transmission of spectral data between the NIR spectrometer and the processor of Das, as it would reduce on site processing needs and thus result in a more compact sensor device. Further, allowing processing off site, wirelessly, would allow for a centralized location of the collected data for offsite review and analysis by an expert before relaying to a dairy farmer the condition of the milk, which would result in more accurate reporting of online milk data.
Schmilovitch further discloses the controller module applies a partial least squares (PLS) regression model to the spectral data to determine concentrations of the predetermined components including fat, protein, lactose, somatic cell count (SCC), and progesterone ([0002]; [0021]; [0027]; [0067]-[0068; claims 22, 33-34]).
Regarding claim 11, Schmilovitch in view of Das discloses the system of claim 9, wherein Das further discloses that the RF module transmits spectral data to a network for further data processing in real time (see element 120).
Regarding claim 12, Schmilovitch discloses the system of claim 9 wherein the near infrared (NIR) spectrometer is adapted to provide light to and collect light from at least four or more from a group of wavelengths including: 726, 736, 740, 760, 776, 832, 840, 880, 902, 926, 930, 952, 960, and 1034 nm (see paragraph [0063] discloses 700-1100nm wavelengths) .
Regarding claim 13, Schmilovitch discloses the system of claim 9 wherein the near infrared (NIR) spectrometer is adapted to provide light to and collect light from one or more of wavelengths between 740 to 840 nm (see paragraph [0063] discloses 700-1100nm wavelengths).
Regarding claim 14, Schmilovitch discloses the system of claim 9 wherein an online/inline bypass tube of the milk collection vessel is wider than a longest collected transmittance spectra received (the bypass tube or path length is 5-10 mm, see paragraph [0065] which is wider than the NIR spectra received, between 700-1100nm, see paragraph [0063]).
Regarding claim 15, Schmilovitch discloses the system of claim 9 having at least one chemometrics model adapted to pretreat raw spectra, including smoothing (see paragraph [0014] discloses using a PLS smoothing function to the spectra data). Schmilovitch does not explicitly teach including derivative transformation. However, the Examiner is taking Official Notice that derivative transformation is a very well known processing in spectral analysis for the benefit of improving resolution and peak separation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to include derivative transformation in the at least one chemometrics model adapted to pretreat raw spectra analysis for the benefit of improving resolution and peak separation.
Regarding claim 16, Schmilovitch discloses a method of analyzing dairy cow milk components in a dairy cow milking system (See figure 1, element 10 is a conduit that samples milk from a milking station in real time) comprising the steps of:
collecting a milk sample in line from a dairy cow using a transparent conduit (element 10 is a conduit and element 18 is transparent to the NIR light and element 10 collects milk from milk station element 12);
exposing the milk sample to a near infrared (NIR) light source element 20 is a set of LEDs that illuminate in the NIR-Visible region, see paragraph [0063]) and at least one optical sensor module having a range of between 700nm to 1200nm (elements 27, 24 and 29 measure transmitted/reflected/backscattered NIR light, see paragraph [0063] discloses 700-1100nm spectral region);
detecting via transmittance and in real time (element 27 detects transmitted light and in real time, see paragraph [0059]) a set of predetermined components within the milk sample, the predetermined components related to measurements or spectral data generated from the at least one optical sensor module, wherein detecting comprises applying partial least squares (PLS) regression model to the spectral data to determine concentrations of the predetermined components including fat, protein, lactose, somatic cell count (SCC), and progesterone ([0002]; [0021]; [0027]; [0067]-[0068; claims 22, 33-34]);
collecting transmittance spectra, as spectral data for each of the predetermined components, at or between about 1nm to 2nm intervals (see paragraph [0004] discloses sampling every 2nm and continuously, see paragraph [0059]), recording in a linked computer as absorbance (element 32);
collecting spectral data having a path length up to at or between about 9 to 14 mm (see paragraph [0063] discloses a path length of 10mm);
collecting transmittance spectra received through an online/inline bypass tube of the milk collection vessel wherein the collected transmittance spectra is wider than the bypass tube (the bypass tube or path length is 5-10 mm, see paragraph [0065] which is wider than the NIR spectra received, between 700-1100nm, see paragraph [0063]), and
transmitting the data from the optical sensor module to a microprocessor module (data from the sensor element 27 is transmitted to the microprocessor, elements 30/32), wherein the microprocessor module is adapted to generate the set of predetermined components (elements 30/32 analyze the detected spectra to determine the components, see paragraphs [0067]-[0068]).
Schmilovitch does not disclose that the data between the optical sensor module and the microprocessor module are transmitted wirelessly via a radio frequency (RF) wireless communication module.
RF Wireless transmission between spectrometer sensors and processors are well known in the art as disclosed by Das (See figure 20, element 100 is a testing apparatus for testing dairy milk with a spectrometer sensor, element 104 or optical sensor module and a microprocessor module element 122 processes the spectral data from element 104, see paragraph [0088] discloses transmitting the data from apparatus 100 to the mobile device or processing device element 122 for computing or processing the detected spectral data and that this data is transmitted wirelessly or in wired form, see paragraph [0087).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention as disclosed by Schmilovitch with the RF wireless transmission of spectral data between the optical sensor module and the processor of Das, as it would reduce on site processing needs and thus result in a more compact sensor device. Further, allowing processing off site, wirelessly, would allow for a centralized location of the collected data for offsite review and analysis by an expert before relaying to a dairy farmer the condition of the milk, which would result in more accurate reporting of online milk data.
Regarding claim 17, Schmilovitch discloses t method as claimed in claim 16, wherein exposing the milk sample to the NIR light source includes at least one or more wavelengths from a group of wavelengths including: 726, 736, 740, 760, 776, 832, 840, 880, 902, 926, 930, 952, 960, and 1034 nm (see paragraph [0063] discloses 700-1100nm wavelengths).
Regarding claim 18, Schmilovitch discloses the method as claimed in claim 16, wherein exposing the milk sample to the NIR light source includes one or more wavelengths from a group of wavelengths including: 740 and 840 nm (see paragraph [0063] discloses 700-1100nm wavelengths) .
Regarding claim 19, Schmilovitch discloses the method as claimed in claim 16, wherein the milk components indicate bovine conditions that affect milk production, the conditions including one or more of mastitis, estrus, dehydration, and starvation (see paragraph [0002] discloses that changes in lactose content can indicate mastitis, also low protein levels indicate energy deficiency or starvation).
Regarding claim 20, Schmilovitch discloses the method as claimed in claim 16, the method further including conducting chemometrics wherein spectral data is pretreated, including as smoothing (see paragraph [0014] discloses using a PLS smoothing function to the spectra data). Schmilovitch does not explicitly teach including derivative transformation. However, the Examiner is taking Official Notice that derivative transformation is a very well known processing in spectral analysis for the benefit of improving resolution and peak separation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to include derivative transformation in the at least one chemometrics model adapted to pretreat raw spectra analysis for the benefit of improving resolution and peak separation.
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 Carolyn Fin whose telephone number is (571)270-1286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/CAROLYN FIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2884