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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5, 7-17, and 19-23 in the reply filed on 15 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 24-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 15 January 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 27 February 2026, 15 January 2026, 10 September 2025, and 18 December 2024 have been received and considered by the Examiner.
It is noted that the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submissions (see attachments) are extremely long, citing over 1000 references for consideration. The Examiner has considered the references submitted as part of the Information Disclosure Statements, but has found the majority have no relevance to patentability. Applicants are encouraged to provide a concise explanation of the information if Applicants are aware of document(s) or a section of a document that is highly relevant to patentability. See MPEP 609.04(a)(III) and MPEP 2004 (copied below with emphasis added):
Although a concise explanation of the relevance of the information is not required for English language information, applicants are encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the English-language information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability.
13. It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff ’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Moreover, an IDS should comply with 37 CFR 1.56 (b) which states that "information is material to patentability which is not cumulative to information already of record or being made of record in the application …" [emphasis added]. Applicant has submitted several documents in duplicate, which should be avoided in the future as this adds unnecessary volume to the record. Duplicate references on IDS statements were struck as not considered when noticed by the Examiner. The Examiner further notes that numerous cited references appear to have little or no relevance at all to the claimed invention, many of which do not even mention E-wastes.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because there is an extra comma in the last sentence. The following change is recommended:
“…The E-waste powder[[,]] may be used to form an E-waste composite article or material.”
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is requested and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosseau et al. (US 2013/0276284 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Brosseau teaches a process for preparing an E-waste powder comprising extracting one or more precious metals by chemical leaching (introducing the precious metal-containing materials to a leaching composition; [0101]) and providing an E-waste powder (solution produced will comprise a solid powder in a copper-containing solution, which can be physically separated from one another using methods known in the art (e.g., centrifugation, decanting, filtering, etc.) … The solid powder…comprises the fiberglass and epoxy; [0153]).
Brosseau also teaches three separate subprocesses that meet the limitation of extracting one or more base metals by chemical leaching:
(i) a desoldering step which extracts tin and lead (contacting said solder with a first composition to selectively remove the solder relative to metals that are simultaneously present on said surface; [0049])
(ii) a base metal dissolution step which extracts copper and nickel (the second composition etchingly removes the base metals; [0081]); and,
(ii) a copper removal step (the bare board can be processed by a process of wet grinding the bare board in a copper etchant; [0153]).
Brosseau specifically envision a combination of elements comprising the desoldering step, the precious metal extraction step, and the copper removal step ([0158] and Fig. 5, copied below).
PNG
media_image1.png
300
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the step of processing E-waste particles into a slurry, Brosseau further teaches that it is preferable to crush the e-waste (printed wire boards; [0010]) before a leaching step (the precious metal containing materials can be added to the leaching composition as is, pulverized into a powder, shredded into pieces, crushed such that the hard shell (e.g., plastic) is cracked and the metals contained therein exposed, or in any other form so long as the metals contained in the precious metal containing materials are readily exposed for removal from the materials. Preferably, the precious metal containing materials is crushed so that the reclamation yield is increased; [0104]). Such crushing or powdering followed by adding to any of the solution-based leaching compositions ([0057], [0083], [0115], [0153]) will generate a slurry of E-waste particles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to crush the E-waste to form E-waste particles, and to process the resulting-waste particles into a slurry. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the reclamation yield, as taught by Brosseau.
Regarding the “drying the slurry” recited in line 4 of the instant claim, Brosseau teaches isolating a solid powder that can be further processed (The solution produced will comprise a solid powder in a copper-containing solution, which can be physically separated from one another using methods known in the art (e.g., centrifugation, decanting, filtering, etc.). … The solid powder, which comprises the fiberglass and epoxy can be further processed; [0153]). Brosseau further teaches that drying steps are contemplated following other extractions in their method (It should be appreciated that rinsing and/or drying steps are contemplated following the contact of the first, second and/or leachingcompositions with the PWB; [0159]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a drying step after the filtration yielding the E-waste powder. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because such a drying is taught for other analogous separations and because it would enable subsequent processing free of water contaminants.
Regarding claim 2, Brosseau teaches the method of claim 1, where they also teach subjecting E-waste to a size reducing step (the precious metal containing materials can … pulverized into a powder, shredded into pieces, [or] crushed; [104]). Brosseau further teaches that crushing will increase reclamation yield ([0104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to subject the E-waste of Brosseau to the size reducing step of crushing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the reclamation yield, as taught by Brosseau.
Regarding claim 4, Brosseau teaches the process of claim 1, where the E-waste comprises populated printed circuit boards (e-waste includes … printed wire boards and the components contained thereon; [0029]).
Regarding claim 5, Brosseau teaches the process of claim 1, where they also teach leaching the E-waste particles with sulfuric acid before extracting the one or more base metals (the bare board can be processed by a process of wet grinding the bare board in a copper etchant. The solution produced will comprise a solid powder in a copper-containing solution, which can be physically separated from one another … The copper etchant [can be] sulfuric acid; [0153]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to leach the E-waste particles with sulfuric acid before extracting the base metal (copper). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Brosseau teaches that such a leachant can remove the copper.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Brosseau teaches the process of claim 1, where extracting the precious metal comprises adding one or more chemicals (the leaching composition; [0129]) to leach gold into solution and separating the solution and the slurry (the leaching composition comprising the gold or other precious metals can be separated from the PWBs and/or PWB components and precipitates that may be present; [0131]).
Regarding claim 19, Brosseau teaches the process of claim 1, where drying the slurry comprises filtering (The solution produced will comprise a solid powder in a copper-containing solution, which can be physically separated from one another using methods known in the art (e.g., centrifugation, decanting, filtering, etc.); [0153]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dry the slurry by first filtering to isolate the powder from the copper-containing solution, as taught by Brosseau. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Brosseau teaches that this is one technique that can be used to afford the separation desired.
Regarding claim 20, Brosseau teaches the process of claim 1, where the embodiment depicted in Fig. 5 includes removing solder (contacting said solder with a first composition to selectively remove the solder relative to metals that are simultaneously present on said surface; [0049]). Brosseau further teaches that the solder will usually contain lead ([0047]), a chemical of concern.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the process of modified Brosseau on waste materials with lead-containing solder, thereby arriving at the instantly claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Brosseau teaches that this is the usual composition of the solder and because removing the solder is a key process step in Brosseau’s method (Fig. 5) that affords bare boards with only copper, fiberglass reinforced epoxy and gold/nickel/copper plating ([0056]).
Claims 3, 7-8, 12, 16, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosseau et al. (US 2013/0276284 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (CN 105731925 A). The provided English machine translation of Zhou is used in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 3, Brosseau teaches the process of claim 2, where Brosseau teaches that the e-waste can be pulverized into a powder, shredded into pieces, or crushed ([0104]), but Brosseau does not teach the sizes of these particles.
However, Zhou teaches a process for reusing waste circuit board resin powder ([0044]), such as those generated by the process of Brosseau, and further teaches this resin having a particle size of 500 to 1000 microns (0.5 to 1 mm; [0044]), which will have an average particle size in the instantly claimed range of between about 1 and about 1000 microns.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to subject the E-waste in the method of Brosseau to a size reducing step to produce E-waste particles with an average particle size of between 500 and 1000 microns. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Zhou teaches that resin particles of this size can be used in their method of recycling the E-waste into a composite board.
Regarding claims 7, Brosseau teaches the process of claim 1, but does not teach forming a composite article or a composite material by combining the E-waste powder with any of the materials recited in claim 7.
However, Zhou teaches a method to recycle to E-waste powder (resin) derived from waste circuit boards, such as that formed by the method of Brosseau, wherein the E-waste powder is combined with other materials (cement, waste textile powder, etc.; [0044]) to form a composite article (composite reinforced board; [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the E-waste powder generated by the method of Brosseau with other materials to form a composite reinforced board, as taught by Zhou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Zhou teaches that such a process can save resources and avoid environmental problems otherwise caused by the E-waste ([0005]).
Regarding claim 8, Brosseau teaches the process of claim 1, but does not teach combining the E-waste powder with plastic, cement, or a bitumen based composite.
However, Zhou teaches a method to recycle to E-waste powder (resin) derived from waste circuit boards, such as that formed by the method of Brosseau, wherein the E-waste powder is combined with cement to form a composite reinforced board ([0044]). Zhou further teaches that such a process can save resources and avoid environmental problems otherwise caused by the E-waste ([0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the E-waste powder generated by the method of Brosseau with cement to form a composite reinforced board, as taught by Zhou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Zhou teaches that such a process can save resources and avoid environmental problems otherwise caused by the E-waste.
Regarding claim 12, Brosseau teaches the process of claim 1, but does not teach forming a composite article or material comprising the E-waste powder.
However, Zhou teaches a method to recycle to E-waste powder (resin) derived from waste circuit boards, such as that formed by the Brosseau, wherein the E-waste powder is formed into a composite reinforced board ([0010] and [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the E-waste powder generated by the method of Brosseau to form a composite reinforced board, as taught by Zhou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Zhou teaches that such a process can save resources and avoid environmental problems otherwise caused by the E-waste ([0005]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Brosseau teaches the method of claim 7, where Zhou teaches the composite article being a composite board ([0044]).
Regarding claim 22, Brosseau teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach applying a surface treatment to the E-waste powder.
However, Zhou teaches a method to recycle to E-waste powder (resin) derived from waste circuit boards, such as that formed by the method of Brosseau, and further teaches applying a surface treatment to the E-waste powder (The stearic acid used can react with the surface functional groups of waste circuit board resin powder and waste textile powder to form stable chemical bonds; [0024]). Zhou further teaches that such a treatment gives the composite materials formed therefrom better physical and material properties ([0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a surface treatment to the E-waste powder generated by the method of Brosseau, as taught by Zhou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to form composite materials from the E-waste powder with better physical and mechanical properties.
Regarding claim 23, modified Brosseau teaches the process of claim 22, where Zhou teaches surface treatment with stearic acid ([0024]). Zhou further teaches that stearic acid allows for tight binding between two materials with large polarity differences ([0024]), which qualifies it as a compatibilizer.
Claims 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosseau et al. (US 2013/0276284 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xie et al. (CN 1817957 A). The provided English machine translation of Xie is used in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 7, Brosseau teaches the process of claim 1, but does not teach forming a composite article or material by combining the E-waste powder with any of the material recited in the instant claim.
However, Xie teaches that manhole covers and seats can be prepared using recycled circuit board powder as a filler ([0002]), and that such a process overcomes many shortcoming associated with other methods of forming these articles ([0007]). Xie further teaches that the method of preparing these composite articles comprises combining an E-waste powder with a binder that may be a polyester resin and styrene and/or polystyrene ([0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the E-waste powder generated by the method of Brosseau with a binder to form a composite article, as taught by Xie. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Xie teaches that their method makes use of the materials generated by Brosseau’s method and is able to form a high strength composite material from these waste products ([0007]).
Regarding claim 8, Brosseau teaches the process of claim 1, but does not teach combining the E-waste powder with any of the materials recited in the instant claim.
However, Xie teaches that manhole covers and seats can be prepared using recycled circuit board powder as a filler ([0002]), and that such a process overcomes many shortcoming associated with other methods of forming these articles ([0007]). Xie further teaches that the method of preparing these composite articles comprises combining an E-waste powder with a binder that may be a polyester resin and styrene and/or polystyrene ([0012]), which are either plastics themselves or will form plastics upon the curing step within their method ([0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the E-waste powder generated by the method of Brosseau with a plastic, as taught by Xie. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Xie teaches that combining materials waste circuit board resins, such as those generated by Brosseau’s method, with a plastic generates a high strength composite material from these waste products ([0007]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Brosseau teaches the method of claim 8 where Xie teaches that the E-waste powder is combined with polyester resin and cured ([0012]), which is, or will form upon curing, a thermoset polymer.
Regarding claim 12, modified Brosseau teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach forming a composite article or material comprising the E-waste powder.
However, Xie teaches forming a high strength composite material from E-waste powder (electronic waste—recycled circuit board powder) for producing manhole covers and seats (high-strength composite material
manhole cover/seat; [0007]). Xie further teaches that such a process overcomes many shortcomings associated with other methods of forming these articles ([0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a composite material comprising the E-waste powder generated by the method of Brosseau, as taught by Xie. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Xie teaches that the composite material formed from waste circuit board powders, such as those generated by Brosseau’s method, are high strength and overcome many shortcomings associated with other materials.
Regarding claim 15, modified Brosseau teaches the method of claim 12, where Xie teaches blending the E-waste powder with a base plastic (polyester resin and styrene and/or polystyrene; [0012]) for compression molding the composite article (The cover and support are formed by high-temperature molding of adhesive, additives, and thermosetting filler at 160°C and 6 MPa; [0018]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Brosseau teaches the method of claim 7, where Xie teaches the forming comprising compression molding (The cover and support are formed by high-temperature molding of adhesive, additives, and thermosetting filler at 160°C and 6 MPa; [0018]).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosseau et al. (US 2013/0276284 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guo et al. (J. Haz. Waste Mater. 2010, 179, 203-207).
Regarding claims 8-10, Brosseau teaches the process of claim 1, but does not teach combining the E-waste powder with any of the materials recited in the instant claim.
However, Guo teaches using nonmetals reclaimed from waste circuit boards as fillers for wood plastic composites and that these composite materials have improved strength properties (abstract). Guo further teaches that their composites are formed by combining the nonmetals recovered from PCBs, such as the E-waste powder of Brosseau, with thermoplastic HDPE (abstract and Section 2.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the E-waste powder generated by the method of Brosseau with HDPE, a thermoplastic, as taught by Guo, thereby arriving at the invention of claims 8-10. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Guo teaches that the composite materials obtained from such a combination have improved strength properties (abstract and Section 4).
Regarding claim 11, Brosseau teaches the process of claim 1, but does not teach forming a masterbatch from the E-waste powder.
However, Guo teaches using nonmetals reclaimed from waste circuit boards as fillers for wood plastic composites and that these composite materials have improved strength properties (abstract). Guo further teaches that their composites are formed by combining the components to form a masterbatch of composite granules which can then be extruded to form panels (The recycled HDPE, nonmetals, wood flour and other additives were compounded and pelletized to composite granules… cut the WPC panels to the desired lengths; Section 2.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare a masterbatch from the E-waste powder generated by the method of Brosseau, as taught by Guo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Guo teaches that WPC panels formed from such a composite masterbatch have improved strength properties.
Claims 20 and 21 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosseau et al. (US 2013/0276284 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu (US 2007/0169330 A1) and Su et al. (US 2014/0107256 A1).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Brosseau teaches the process of claim 1, and further teaches degrading the epoxy in the E-waste powder to leave the fiberglass for reuse ([0153]), but Brosseau is silent on the fate of any brominated flame retardant.
However, like Brosseau, Wu teaches a method of recycling waste PCBs in a staged manner, where metals are removed leaving residual brominated epoxy and fiberglass ([0001], [0022]-[0031]). Wu further teaches treating this mixture with molten sodium nitrate to remove the brominated epoxy resins (Soak said wasted PCBs at step d in melted sodium nitrate to proceed heating decomposition chemical reaction to separate brominated epoxy resins from fiberglass so as to produce sodium bromide; [0031]), and that such a method generates environmentally safe sodium bromide and non-toxic gases for disposal (said sodium bromide can be directly discharged and collected due to harmless to environmental safe, and said organic gas and nitrogenous oxides will become stable nontoxic gas to be discharged out after complete combustion; [0032]).
Furthermore, Su teaches that brominated epoxy resins in circuit boards are flame retardant (the skilled in the art employ brominated epoxy resin which synthetized on the basis of TBBPA (tetrabromobisphenol A) to made the circuit board achieve a good flame retardant property; [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to degrade the epoxy in the E-waste powders of Brosseau by removing the brominated flame retardant, which is a chemical of concern, according to the method of Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to generate non-toxic and environmentally friendly waste materials, as taught by Wu.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Li et al. (CN 110983031 A) teaches a process for preparing an E-waste powder comprising processing E-waste particles into a slurry (after crushing electronic waste, electronic waste particles are obtained…The electronic waste particles are mixed with acid solution [which will generate a slurry]; [0010]-[0011]); extracting one or more base metals by chemical leaching (base metals in the electronic waste particles are dissolved in the first leaching solution; [0011]); extracting one or more precious metals by chemical leaching (precious metals in the first leaching residue dissolved in the second leaching solution; [0013]); and providing an E-waste powder (present invention does not have any particular limitation on the solid-liquid separation method of the product obtained after the second leaching, and can be any conventional solid-liquid separation, such as filtration; [0049]).
Li additionally teaches many of the further limitations regarding the E-waste extraction that are found in the dependent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas A Piro whose telephone number is (571)272-6344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00 am-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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/NICHOLAS A. PIRO/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735