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 .
Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 9/3/26. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-8 and 10-20 have been amended, claims 9 and 21 have been canceled, and new claims 22-23 has been added. Thus, claims 1-8, 10-20 and 22-23 are presently pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an olfactory substance delivery component” in claims 6 and 8 (corresponding structure is a reservoir [0106]).
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 Objections
Claims 2 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “the air treatment components” in line 7, suggested to be changed to --the air treatment assembly-- to provide consistency.
Claim 8 recites “the filter” in line 2 suggested to be changed to --the filtration filter-- for consistency.
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.
Claim 1, 3-4 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi (2020/0215281) in view of Mercurio (3,457,917) and Collazo (2021/0170132).
Regarding claim 1, in fig. 3-6 Jerasi discloses a nasal air purification apparatus comprising: a housing 16 having a top housing portion (top portion of 16) defining a proximal end and a bottom housing portion (bottom portion of 16) defining a distal end, wherein the top housing portion includes a proximally extending reduced cross-sectional region (due to the frustoconical chape of 16 [0051]); air treatment assembly housed within the housing that includes a fan for actively moving air through the housing (fan 100 [0055][0059] Fig. 4), a power supply (battery 24 [0055][0059] Fig. 4) for powering the air treatment assembly, but is silent regarding that the bottom housing portion includes a plurality of housing inlets and a filtration filter housed within the reduced cross-sectional region of the top housing portion to remove impurities from air. However, in fig. 2 Mercurio teaches a top housing portion 12 that releasably connectable to a bottom housing portion 14 (via 28 and 36) defining an interior space, the bottom housing portion includes a plurality of housing inlets (inlets to porous filter 30, Mercurio) and a filtration filter 22 housed within the reduced cross-sectional region of the top housing portion (Fig. 2) to remove impurities from air. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s housing with a top and bottom housing portion that are releasably connectable as well as a filter in the upper housing portion and bottom portion inlets, as taught by Mercurio, for the purpose of easy replacement of the filter material (Col. 2, ll. 31-34, Mercurio). The modified Jerasi is silent regarding a nose plug fixedly attached to the housing, the nose plug comprising: a nose plug base circumscribing the top housing portion, and a nose plug nostril integral with and extending from the nose plug base, wherein the nose plug nostril includes a nose plug through aperture extending to the nose plug base. However, in fig. 2A-2C Collazo teaches a nose plug 206 fixedly attached to a housing 202, the nose plug comprising: a nose plug base circumscribing the top housing portion (the bottom portion of the nose plug 206 circumscribes the top housing portion), and a nose plug nostril (the upper portion of 206) integral with and extending from the nose plug base (Fig. 2B-2C), wherein the nose plug nostril includes a nose plug through aperture extending to the nose plug base (Fig. 2B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jerasi’s housing with the addition of a nose plug, as taught by Collazo, for the purpose of providing a seal to the nostril ([0022] Collazo).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Jerasi discloses that the plurality of housing inlets is positioned about a proximal end of the bottom housing portion (inlets to porous filter 30, Mercurio).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Jerasi discloses that the top housing portion includes detents (28 Mercurio) for operatively engaging cooperating detents (36 Mercurio) at the bottom housing portion.
Regarding claim 23, the modified Jerasi discloses that the nose plug base circumscribes the filtration filter (Fig. 2B Collazo, Fig. 2 Mercurio).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi, Mercurio and Collazo, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Wu et al. (2011/0126828).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Jerasi is silent regarding that the power supply comprises: a battery charger configured to receive external power from an external power source, condition the external power to a charging power receivable by the battery, and store at least part of the charging power in the battery for use by the air treatment components. However, Wu teaches a battery charger 13 configured to receive external power from an external power source (13 receives power from the sun to charge batteries 172 [0020] Wu), condition the external power to a charging power receivable by the battery (batteries 172 are charged by 13 [0020] Wu), and store at least part of the charging power in the battery for use by the air treatment components ([0020] the power from 13 is stored in batteries 172 for use by 2 and 3 Wu). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s power supply with the addition of a battery charger, as taught by Wu, for the purpose of charging the battery for further use.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi, Mercurio and Collazo, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Bingold et al. (2021/0402045).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Jerasi is silent regarding a germicidal sterilizer. However, in fig. 4 Bingold teaches an intranasal air purification apparatus including a germicidal sterilizer ([0064] UVC light). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s apparatus with the addition of a germicidal sterilizer, as taught by Bingold, for the purpose of providing further protection to a user.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi, Mercurio and Collazo, applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Tran (2021/0381023).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Jerasi is silent regarding that the air treatment assembly further comprises an aroma reservoir for holding an aromatic material having an aroma or an olfactory substance delivery component. However, Tran teaches an aroma reservoir for holding an aromatic material having an aroma (filter 17 acts as the reservoir to hold the aroma material that has an aroma [0020][0040]) or an olfactory substance delivery component (filter 17 acts as an olfactory substance delivery component [0020][0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s air treatment assembly with the addition of an aroma reservoir or olfactory substance delivery component, as taught by Tran, for the purpose of providing aromatherapy to a user.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Jerasi is silent regarding that the housing further comprises an olfactory substance delivery component, or wherein the filter further comprises an olfactory substance delivery component. However, Tran teaches a housing that comprises an olfactory substance delivery component (filter 17 acts as an olfactory substance delivery component [0020][0040]), or wherein the filter further comprises an olfactory substance delivery component (filter 17 acts as an olfactory substance delivery component [0020][0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s housing with the addition of an olfactory substance delivery component, as taught by Tran, for the purpose of providing aromatherapy to a user.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi, Mercurio and Collazo, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Wu et al. (2011/0126828).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Jerasi is silent regarding that the filtration filter comprises a high efficiency particulate absorbing (HEPA) filter. However, Wu teaches a filter that comprises a high efficiency particulate absorbing (HEPA) filter ([0020] Wu). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s filter with a HEPA filter, as taught by Wu, for the purpose of providing further filtration for the user.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi, Mercurio and Collazo, applied to claim 1 above, in further view of 3Palmeri (WO 2021/247411).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Jerasi is silent regarding a case that includes a case enclosure comprising a case receiving slot to selectively receive the housing, a case lid being removably installable to the case enclosure to configure the case between a case open state and a case closed state, and electrical contacts located within the case receiving slot to interface with the power supply; wherein the power supply further comprises a battery to store electrical power received from the case for use by the air treatment assembly. However, in fig. 4A-4B 3Palmeri discloses a case 400 that includes a case enclosure (space within 400, 3Palmeri) comprising a case receiving slot (slot where 406 is located to receive the housing, 3Palmeri) to selectively receive the housing, a case lid (412, 3Palmeri) being removably installable to the case enclosure to configure the case between a case open state and a case closed state (see fig. 4A-4B, 3Palmeri), and electrical contacts (where 406 is located [0041] 3Palmeri) located within the case receiving slot to interface with the power supply; wherein the power supply further comprises a battery to store the electrical power received from the case for use by the air treatment assembly ([0041] 3Palmeri). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Jerasi’s apparatus with the addition of a case, as taught by 3Palmeri, for the purpose of providing sterilization and wireless charging ([0041] 3Palmeri).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi, Mercurio and Collazo, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Sokol et al. (2020/0139165).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Jerasi is silent regarding a sensor to detect a condition of the air within the housing. However, in fig. 1A and 4A Sokol teaches a sensor 114 to detect a condition of the air with the housing [0083][0124][0168]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s housing with the addition of a sensor, as taught by Sokol, for the purpose of determining is pollutants are near a user ([0083] Sokol).
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi (2020/0215281) in view of Collazo (2021/0170132) and Bingold et al. (2021/0402045).
Regarding claim 12, in fig. 3-6 Jerasi discloses a nose plug assembly comprising: a housing 16; an air treatment assembly housed within the housing (fan 100 [0055][0059] Fig. 4), a power supply (battery 24 [0055][0059] Fig. 4) located substantially within the housing for providing electrical power to the air treatment assembly [0055], but is silent regarding a nose plug fixedly attached to the housing, the nose plug comprising: a nose plug base circumscribing the top housing portion, and a nose plug nostril integral with and extending from the nose plug base, wherein the nose plug nostril includes a nose plug through aperture extending to the nose plug base. However, in fig. 2A-2C Collazo teaches a nose plug 206 fixedly attached to a housing 202, the nose plug comprising: a nose plug base circumscribing the top housing portion (the bottom portion of the nose plug 206 circumscribes the top housing portion), and a nose plug nostril (the upper portion of 206) integral with and extending from the nose plug base (Fig. 2B-2C), wherein the nose plug nostril includes a nose plug through aperture extending to the nose plug base (Fig. 2B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jerasi’s housing with the addition of a nose plug, as taught by Collazo, for the purpose of providing a seal to the nostril ([0022] Collazo). The modified Jerasi is silent regarding a germicidal sterilizer for emitting ultraviolet electromagnetic radiation that at least partially sterilizes pathogens from the air prior to entry into the nasal cavity. However, in fig. 4 Bingold teaches an intranasal air purification apparatus including a germicidal sterilizer for emitting ultraviolet electromagnetic radiation that at least partially sterilizes pathogens from the air prior to entry into the nasal cavity ([0064] UVC light). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s apparatus with the addition of a germicidal sterilizer, as taught by Bingold, for the purpose of providing further protection to a user.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Jerasi discloses that the power supply includes a battery (battery 24 [0055][0059] Fig. 4 Jerasi).
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi, Collazo and Bingold, as applied to claim 12 above, in further view of Ellis (6,561,188).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Jerasi discloses that the air treatment assembly further comprises a fan for actively moving the air (fan 100 [0055][0059] Fig. 4 Jerasi), but is silent regarding that the air treatment assembly further comprises a filter to remove impurities from the air. However, in fig. 10B Ellis teaches a filter to remove impurities from the air (see insertable filter in fig. 10B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s air treatment assembly with the addition of a filter, as taught by Ellis, for the purpose of preventing inhalation of contaminates (Col. 4, ll. 42-44, Col. 6, ll. 25-27 Ellis).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Jerasi is silent regarding that the air treatment assembly further comprises a filter for filtering the air. However, in fig. 10B Ellis teaches a filter to remove impurities from the air (see insertable filter in fig. 10B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s air treatment assembly with the addition of a filter, as taught by Ellis, for the purpose of preventing inhalation of contaminates (Col. 4, ll. 42-44, Col. 6, ll. 25-27 Ellis).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi, Collazo and Bingold, as applied to claim 12 above, in further view of Mercurio (3,457,917).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Jerasi is silent regarding a top housing portion, and a bottom housing portion removably attached to the top housing portion, the bottom housing including a plurality of housing inlets for permitting air to flow within the housing. However, in fig. 2 Mercurio teaches a top housing portion 12, and a bottom housing portion 14 removably attached to the top housing portion (via 28 and 36), the bottom housing including a plurality of housing inlets for permitting air to flow within the housing (30 is a porous filter with a plurality of inlets) and a filter within the top housing portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s housing with a top and bottom housing portion with inlets, the top and bottom housing portions being detachable, the top housing portion having a filter, as taught by Mercurio, for the purpose of easy replacement of the filter material (Col. 2, ll. 31-34, Mercurio).
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi, Collazo and Bingold, applied to claim 12 above, in further view of Tran (2021/0381023).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Jerasi is silent regarding that the air treatment assembly further comprises: an aroma reservoir to reversibly hold an aromatic material having an aroma that is at least partially diffused into the air to be detectable by an olfactory nerve. However, Tran teaches an aroma reservoir (filter 17 acts as the reservoir to hold the aroma material that has an aroma [0020][0040]) to reversibly hold an aromatic material having an aroma that is at least partially diffused into the air to be detectable by an olfactory nerve [0040]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s air treatment assembly with the addition of an aroma reservoir, as taught by Tran, for the purpose of providing aromatherapy to a user.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Jerasi is silent regarding an olfactory delivery substance for delivery for administering a deliverable substance to the nasal cavity. However, Tran teaches an olfactory delivery substance for delivery for administering a deliverable substance to the nasal cavity (filter 17 holds olfactory delivery substance for delivery for administering a deliverable substance to the nasal cavity [0020][0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s air treatment assembly with the addition of olfactory delivery substance, as taught by Tran, for the purpose of providing aromatherapy to a user.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi, Collazo and Bingold, as applied to claim 12 above, in further view of 3Palmeri (WO 2021/247411).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Jerasi is silent regarding a case that includes wherein the case further comprises: a case enclosure comprising a case receiving slot to selectively receive the housing, a case lid being removably installable to the case enclosure to configure the case between a case open state and a case closed state, and electrical contacts to interface with the power component; wherein the power supply component further comprises: a battery to reversibly store the electrical power received from the case for use by the air treatment assembly. However, in fig. 4A-4B 3Palmeri discloses a case 400 that includes a case enclosure (space within 400, 3Palmeri) comprising a case receiving slot (slot where 406 is located to receive the housing, 3Palmeri) to selectively receive the housing, a case lid (412, 3Palmeri) being removably installable to the case enclosure to configure the case between a case open state and a case closed state (see fig. 4A-4B, 3Palmeri), and electrical contacts (where 406 is located [0041] 3Palmeri) to interface with the power component; wherein the power supply further comprises: a battery to reversibly store the electrical power received from the case for use by the air treatment assembly ([0041] Palmeri, 172 Wu). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s nostril plug assembly with the addition of a case, as taught by 3Palmeri, for the purpose of providing sterilization and wireless charging ([0041] 3Palmeri).
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerasi, Collazo and Bingold, as applied to claim 12 above, in further view of Sokol et al. (2020/0139165).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Jerasi is silent regarding a sensor to detect a condition of the air within the housing. However, in fig. 1A and 4A Sokol teaches a sensor 114 to detect a condition of the air within the housing [0083][0124] [0168]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s nose plug assembly with the addition of a sensor, as taught by Sokol, for the purpose of determining is pollutants are near a user ([0083] Sokol).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Jerasi is silent regarding a display operatively in communication with the sensor for displaying a reportable condition of the air sensed by the sensor. However, Sokol teaches a display operatively in communication with the sensor for displaying a reportable condition of the air sensed by the sensor [0014]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Jerasi’s nose plug assembly with the addition of a display, as taught by Sokol, for the purpose of displaying if there are pollutants near a user ([0014][0083] Sokol).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-8, filed 9/3/26, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 12 under Wu in view of 3Palmeri and Sokol have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Jerasi (2020/0215281) in view of Mercurio (3,457,917) and Collazo (2021/0170132) with respect to claim 1 and Jerasi (2020/0215281) in view of Collazo (2021/0170132) and Bingold et al. (2021/0402045) with respect to claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL T SIPPEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1481. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (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 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.
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
