DETAILED ACTION
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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13 February 2026 has been entered.
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 – 6 and 8 are 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 claims contain 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.
Claim 1 recites “providing a first shell comprising a first part of a first cavity” and “providing a second shell comprising a first part of a second cavity”. Claim 1 also recites “wherein the first shell and the second shell are individual packages”. Applicant’s specification discloses that a complete individual package comprises a complementary shell comprising a first part and a second part which is to say that as disclosed a first shell comprising only a first part of a first cavity and a second shell comprising a first part of a second cavity would not be individual packages. Therefore “the first shell and the second shell are individual packages” raises an issue of new matter and as such must be deleted.
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 – 6 and 8 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear how the first shell and the second shell would be individual packages since the first and second shells only recite having a first part of a first cavity and first part of a second cavity respectively and not complete closed cavities to form individual packages.
Claims 2-6 and 8 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Magnani WO 2020/031096.
Regarding claim 1, Magnani discloses a method for the manufacturing of a strip (100) of packages (2a/3a, 2a/3a), which method comprises the steps of providing a first shell (first concave portion 2a) which comprises a first part of a first cavity and necessarily has a rim. In that each first shell has a rim, a flat area i.e., a flange, extends from the rim which flange surrounds the first part of the first cavity (fig. 3(b)). A second shell (second concave portion 3a) which comprises a first part of a second cavity and necessarily has a rim is provided. In that each second shell has a rim, a flat area i.e., a flange, extends from the rim which flange surrounds the first part of the second cavity (fig. 3(b)). In that each shell represents a separate cavity of an individual package it is seen that the first shell and the second shell are individual packages.
PNG
media_image1.png
445
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The first part of the first cavity (2a) is positioned “aside” the first part of the second cavity (3a) with one part of the flange of the first shell overlapping one part of the flange of the second shell, which is to say that the part of the flange (2a) of the first shell is linked to the part of the flange (3a) of the second shell (page 4, ln 26 – page 5, ln 25 and fig. 3(a)), which is to say that as formed Magnani is linking each package to an adjacent package thereby forming the strip of packages (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Magnani discloses the flange of each of the first shell (2a) and second shell (3a) has a front surface (fig. 3(b)), and the front surface of the flange of the first shell is linked to the front surface of the flange of the second shell (fig. 3(a)).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Magnani discloses at least the first cavity would be closed (fig. 3(b)) by providing a first complementary shell (3a) which would comprise a second part of the first cavity having a rim and a flange extending from said rim which surrounds the second part of the first cavity. The first cavity is formed by positioning the second part of the first cavity (2a) facing the first part of the first cavity (3a) and thereafter the flange of the first complementary shell would be sealed to the first complementary shell (fig. 3(a)).
Regarding claim 8, Magnani discloses a portion of food or beverage precursor (coffee powder) is provided and said portion is placed in the first part of the first cavity (page 4, ln 29 – page 5, ln 2, and fig. 1, reference sign 7a).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnani WO 2020/031096.
Regarding claim 3, once it was known to contact, that is to link a first shell flange to a part of a second shell flange, it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on which surface of said flanges would be linked one to the other as the particular placement of the flanges would have been an obvious matter of design and/or choice, i.e., a rearrangement of parts (MPEP § 2144.04 VI.).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnani WO 2020/031096 in view of Richardson US 5,699,913.
In that Magnani discloses each of the first shell comprises a flange and said flange encircles the rim of said shell it is obvious that said shell comprises a ring surrounding the rim. It is also seen that a “tab” would be considered an extension of said flange/ring, that is, a change of shape of said ring which the ordinarily skilled artisan would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of said flange/ring would have been significant (MPEP § 2144.04 IV.B.). Further once it was known to contact, that is to link a first shell flange/ring to a part of a second shell flange, it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on which surface of said flanges would be linked one to the other as the particular placement of the flanges would have been an obvious matter of design and/or choice, i.e., a rearrangement of parts (MPEP § 2144.04 VI.). Nevertheless, Richardson discloses that it was conventional and common in the art to provide a first shell of a package (15) with a flange forming a ring (30) which ring would have a tab (projection 36) extending from the ring and to use said tab to link the first shell comprising a ring to the flange part of a second shell (article 18) (col. 3, ln 6 – 13 and fig. 5). Richardson is providing the ring of a first shell of a package with a tab to link said first shell of said package to the flange part of a second shell in order to provide for the compact, simple, and inexpensive containerization of a strip of packages for the ease of transport (col. 1, ln 56 – 63) which is applicant’s reason for doing so as well. To therefore modify Magnani and use a tab to link a first shell of a package to the flange of a second shell of a second package as taught by Richardson would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Claims 9, 10, and 12 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magnani WO 2020/031096 in view of Kuss et al. US 2005/0268577 as further evidenced by Milligan US 96,605, Foss US 191,578, Remco US 2,495,132, Lohwasser US 3,908,828, and Price US 2,978,853.
Regarding claims 9 and 12, Magnani discloses a strip of packages (100) comprising at least a first package and a second package which is linked to the first package (fig. 1) and that the first package and the second package are individual packages.
Each package comprises a cavity, i.e., the first package comprises a first cavity, the second package comprises a second cavity (figure 1 and 3(a)), and which first and/or second package would comprise a beverage precursor (coffee) inside (page 4, ln 29 – page 5, ln 2, and fig. 1). Again as seen in figure 1, the first package comprises at least a first shell comprising a first part of the first cavity and as is evident from figure 3(a), a flange would extend from the first part of the first cavity, and similarly the second package comprises at least a second shell comprising a first part of the second cavity and a flange extending from the first part of the second cavity since said second package is identical to said first package. Obviously, once produced said first package and said second package would be further packaged for distribution and sale. It is further noted that Magnani does not disclose the detachment of said packages one from the other, which is to say that Magnani is disclosing a package strip.
Claim 9 differs from Magnani in the package strip further comprising at least a bond between the first package and the second package which bond is linking said first and second package and would comprise one part of the flange of the first shell overlapping one part of the flange of the second shell.
Kuss discloses a first package and a second package each containing a beverage precursor (coffee) arranged in a strip arrangement, that is to say, in the form of a strip. as in a side-by-side arrangement, where the first package and the second package are linked in that one part of the flange of the first shell is overlapping one part of the flange of the second shell (paragraph [0012] and fig. 11). Kuss is linking the first package and the second package using an overlapping arrangement, that is comprising one part of the flange of the first shell overlapping one part of the flange of the second shell in order to arrange a compact packaging arrangement in a package for distribution and/or sale of said first and second packages which is believed to be one of applicant’s reasons for doing so as well. To therefore link first and second packages in a strip arrangement by overlapping one part of the flange of the first shell with one part of the flange of the second shell for a compact packaging arrangement as taught by Kuss would have been an obvious matter or choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Milligan (lapping the said flanges) (fig. 1 and 2), Foss (the cups are united by their flanges) (left column, paragraph 5, fig. 1 and 2), Remco (col. 2, ln 13 – 16 and fig. 2), Lohwasser (one container will slide below the lid of the adjacent container) (col. 2, ln 53 – 54), and Price (col. 2, ln 45 – 47 and fig. 1E) all provide further evidence that it was old, conventional, and extremely well established in the art to provide a strip of packages comprising at least a first package and a second package which second package is linked to the first package comprising one part of a flange of the first package overlapping one part of the flange of a flange of the second package.
Regarding claim 10, Magnani discloses the first package comprises a first complementary shell comprising a second part of the first cavity and a flange extending from the second part of the first cavity (fig. 1 and 3(a), reference sign 3a) and since the second package is identical to said first package the second package also comprises a second complementary shell comprising a second part of the second cavity and a flange extends from the second part of the second cavity (fig. 1 and 3(a), reference sign 3a).
Regarding claim 13, Magnani as further evidenced by Milligan, Foss, Remco, Lohwasser, and Price discloses that one shell would be made of a paper-based material (cellulosic components) (‘096, page 2, ln 31). Price provides further evidence that the use of a paper-based structure material to make a package strip was old, common, and conventional in the art (col. 2, ln 15 – 18 and fig. 1A – 1E) and therefore it would have been an obvious matter of choice to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have employed a paper-based structure material.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, once it was known to link the first package to the second package it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on which surface of the flange of one shell, i.e., the first package, would be connected to which surface of the flange of the second package, i.e., a second shell since the designation of which surface of the respective flanges of the respective shells that would constitute the front and back thereof would be an obvious matter of choice to the ordinarily skilled artisan. i.e., a rearrangement of parts since the particular surface of the respective flanges that would be linked one to the other would not modify the operation of the respective packages (MPEP § 2144.04 VI.C.).
Claims 1 – 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binacchi EP 1 705 122 in view of Rosenberg US 3,589,913.
Regarding claim 1, Binacchi discloses a method for the manufacturing of a strip of packages (100) (fig. 1), which method comprising steps of providing a first shell (first band 6) which comprises a first part of a first cavity and has a rim. In that each first shell has a rim and a section of the material from which the cavity is made extends from outwards and around said rim it is seen that a flange extends from the rim which flange surrounds the first part of the first cavity. A second shell (second band 17/18) is provided which comprises a first part of a second cavity and has a rim. In that each second shell has a rim and a section of the material from which the cavity is made extends from outwards and around said rim it is seen that a flange extends from the rim which flange surrounds the first part of the second cavity. Further, the first shell and the second shell are individual packages (100) (fig. 1, 3, and 4). The first part of the first cavity (6) is positioned aside the first part of the second cavity (17/18) with one part of the flange of the first shell overlapping one part of the flange (23) of the second shell; and linking the part of the flange of the first shell (6) to the part of the flange of the second shell which forms a package (17/18) (paragraph [0046] and claim 1, fig. 4).
Claim 1 differs from Binacchi in linking a package to an adjacent package to form the strip of packages.
Rosenberg discloses a method for the manufacturing of a strip of packages (20) (col. 4, ln 72 – col 5, ln 6 and fig. 12), which method comprises steps of providing a shell (web material 21) from which a first cavity and second cavity are formed. The packages have a rim and a section of the material from which the cavity is made extends from outwards and around said rim thus it is seen that a flange extends from the rim which flange surrounds the cavity. Rosenberg further discloses the package is linked to an adjacent package to form a strip of packages (col. 4, ln 72 – col 5, ln 6 and fig. 12). Rosenberg is providing linked packages to form a strip of packages for the art recognized purpose of facilitating the handling and sale of the packages (col. 1, ln 41 – 45) which is applicant’s reason for doing so as well. To therefore modify Binacchi and link one package to an adjacent package to form a strip of packages to facilitate the handling and sale of the packages as taught by Rosenberg would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 2, Binacchi discloses the flange of each of the first shell (6) and second shell (17/18) has a front surface (fig. 1), and the front surface of the flange of the first shell is linked to the front surface of the flange of the second shell (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, once it was known to contact, that is to link a first shell flange to a part of a second shell flange, it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on which surface of said flanges would be linked one to the other as the particular placement of the flanges would have been an obvious matter of design and/or choice, i.e., a rearrangement of parts (MPEP § 2144.04 VI.).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Binacchi discloses at least the first cavity (formed by 6 and 17/18) would be closed (fig. 4) by providing a first complementary shell (6) which would comprise a second part of the first cavity having a rim and a flange extending from said rim which surrounds the second part of the first cavity. The first cavity is formed by positioning the second part of the first cavity (17/18) facing the first part of the first cavity (6) and thereafter the flange of the first complementary shell would be sealed to the first complementary shell (paragraph [0046] and fig. 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 8, Binacchi discloses a portion of food or beverage precursor (coffee powder) is provided and said portion is placed in the first part of the first cavity (paragraph [0024], fig. 1).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binacchi EP 1 705 122 in view of Rosenberg US 3,589,913 in view of Richardson US 5,699,913.
In that Binacchi in view of Rosenberg discloses each of the first shell comprises a flange and said flange encircles the rim of said shell it is obvious that said shell comprises a ring surrounding the rim. It is also seen that a “tab” would be considered an extension of said flange/ring, that is, a change of shape of said ring which the ordinarily skilled artisan would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of said flange/ring would have been significant (MPEP § 2144.04 IV.B.). Further once it was known to contact, that is to link a first shell flange/ring to a part of a second shell flange, it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on which surface of said flanges would be linked one to the other as the particular placement of the flanges would have been an obvious matter of design and/or choice, i.e., a rearrangement of parts (MPEP § 2144.04 VI.). Nevertheless, Richardson discloses that it was conventional and common in the art to provide a first shell of a package (15) with a flange forming a ring (30) which ring would have a tab (projection 36) extending from the ring and to use said tab to link the first shell comprising a ring to the flange part of a second shell (article 18) (col. 3, ln 6 – 13 and fig. 5). Richardson is providing the ring of a first shell of a package with a tab to link said first shell of said package to the flange part of a second shell in order to provide for the compact, simple, and inexpensive containerization of a strip of packages for the ease of transport (col. 1, ln 56 – 63) which is applicant’s reason for doing so as well. To therefore modify Binacchi and use a tab to link a first shell of a package to the flange of a second shell of a second package as taught by Richardson would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Claims 9, 10, and 12 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binacchi EP 1 705 122 in view of Kuss et al. US 2005/0268577 as further evidenced by Milligan US 96,605, Foss US 191,578, Remco US 2,495,132, Lohwasser US 3,908,828, and Price US 2,978,853.
Regarding claims 9 and 12, Binacchi discloses a strip of packages (100) (fig. 1) comprising at least a first package and a second package which is linked to the first package at least at figure 1 reference sign 15, each package comprises a cavity, i.e., the first package comprises a first cavity and the second package comprises a second cavity as seen in figure 4, and which first and/or second package are individual packages and would each comprise a beverage precursor (coffee powder) inside (paragraph [0024], fig. 1).
Again as seen in figure 1, the first package comprises at least a first shell comprising a first part of the first cavity and as is evident from figure 2, a flange would extend from the first part of the first cavity, and similarly the second package comprises at least a second shell comprising a first part of the second cavity and a flange extending from the first part of the second cavity (paragraph [0046]). Obviously, once produced said first package and said second package would be further packaged for distribution and sale.
Claim 9 differs from Binacchi in the package strip further comprising at least a bond between the first package and the second package which bond is linking said first and second package and would comprise one part of the flange of the first shell overlapping one part of the flange of the second shell.
Kuss discloses a first package and a second package each containing a beverage precursor (coffee) arranged in a strip arrangement, that is to say, in the form of a strip. as in a side-by-side arrangement, where the first package and the second package are linked in that one part of the flange of the first shell is overlapping one part of the flange of the second shell (paragraph [0012] and fig. 11). Kuss is linking the first package and the second package using an overlapping arrangement, that is comprising one part of the flange of the first shell overlapping one part of the flange of the second shell in order to arrange a compact packaging arrangement in a package for distribution and/or sale of said first and second packages which is believed to be one of applicant’s reasons for doing so as well. To therefore link first and second packages in a strip arrangement by overlapping one part of the flange of the first shell with one part of the flange of the second shell for a compact packaging arrangement as taught by Kuss would have been an obvious matter or choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Milligan (lapping the said flanges) (fig. 1 and 2), Foss (the cups are united by their flanges) (left column, paragraph 5, fig. 1 and 2), Remco (col. 2, ln 13 – 16 and fig. 2), Lohwasser (one container will slide below the lid of the adjacent container) (col. 2, ln 53 – 54), and Price (col. 2, ln 45 – 47 and fig. 1E) all provide further evidence that it was old, conventional, and extremely well established in the art to provide a strip of packages comprising at least a first package and a second package which second package is linked to the first package comprising one part of a flange of the first package overlapping one part of the flange of a flange of the second package.
Regarding claim 10, Binacchi discloses the first package comprises a first complementary shell comprising a second part of the first cavity and a flange extending from the second part of the first cavity (fig. 4, reference sign 17) and since the second package is identical to said first package the second package also comprises a second complementary shell comprising a second part of the second cavity and a flange extends from the second part of the second cavity (fig. 4, reference sign 17).
Regarding claim 13, Binacchi discloses the package strip would comprise a permeable film but does not disclose that said film would be a paper-based structural material. As further evidenced by Price the use of a paper-based structure material to make a package strip was old, common, and conventional in the art (col. 2, ln 15 – 18 and fig. 1A – 1E) and therefore it would have been an obvious matter of choice to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have employed a paper-based structure material.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, once it was known to link the first package to the second package it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on which surface of the flange of one shell, i.e., the first package, would be connected to which surface of the flange of the second package, i.e., a second shell since the designation of which surface of the respective flanges of the respective shells that would constitute the front and back thereof would be an obvious matter of choice to the ordinarily skilled artisan. i.e., a rearrangement of parts since the particular surface of the respective flanges that would be linked one to the other would not modify the operation of the respective packages (MPEP § 2144.04 VI.C.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 February 2026 have been fully and carefully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Regarding Magnani applicant urges that Magnani teaches that sheets are shaped to have concave portions into which the filling is deposited before joining the two sheets together resulting in a string of pods that are not connected by joining individual pods together. This urging is not deemed persuasive.
In that each shell represents a separate cavity of an individual package it is seen that the first shell and the second shell are indeed individual packages. With respect to when the packages are joined together the claim requires a first shell comprising a first part of a first cavity and a second shell comprising a first part of a second cavity to be positioned with the first part of the first cavity to be positioned aside, that is to one side which would allow the individual shells to be positioned one side to the other as presently recited in the claim. As recited the claims requires the positioning of the first part of a first cavity aside, that is next to, a first part of a second cavity which Magnani is doing which links the flanges together forming a strip of packages as claimed. Claim 1 does not recite each package to be formed separately by joining a first part of a first cavity with a second part of a first cavity to form the individual first package and similarly with respect to forming the individual second package only that one part of the flange of the first shell would be linked to one part of the flange of the second shell which Magnani does.
Regarding Binacchi applicant urges that Binacchi specifically discloses that the first shell and second shell are individual packages. Which is the case. Applicant further urges that Rosenberg discloses the forming of a strip of packages with a single web and does not disclose the linking of the individual shells to form a strip of packages. This urging is not found persuasive.
Rosenberg was not brought to teach the linking of individual packages to form a strip of packages but to teach that by providing packages in a strip that it would facilitate the handling and sale of the packages making it obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have joined the individual packages of Binacchi together.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAIM A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 09:00-18:00.
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 please telephone the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.S./
Chaim SmithExaminer, Art Unit 1791 06 March 2026
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792